Inequitable access for mentally ill patients to some medically necessary procedures

The prevalence of major mental and behavioural disorders at any given point of time in India is estimated to be 65/1000 population translating to 70 million.1,2

The mentally ill are almost never taken seriously and are treated with little or no dignity. And worst of all, they are locked up, locked away.3

The country's ability to treat, care for and rehabilitate the mentally ill leaves much to be desired - the ratio of trained psychiatrists to mentally ill patients is dramatically low at 1: 100,000. In the 37 government-run mental health institutions across the country the cot to patient ratio stands at an average of 1:14. 75% of mentally ill patients live in the villages, where even access to basic health-care is difficult. 53% of the state-run psychiatric hospitals have no programmes whatasoever for the rehabilitation of their inmates

The spending in terms of the country’s mental health budget does not exceed 1% of the total health expenditure. Though the National Mental Health Programme was implemented to provide services to rural as well as urban population but even today 80% of the rural population do not get these services Other barriers to the effective treatment of mental illness include lack of recognition of the seriousness of mental illness and lack of understanding about the benefits of services. Policy makers, insurance companies, health and labour policies, and the public at large – all discriminate between physical and mental problems.

Mental patients are being systematically and continuously ignored and denied the social rights they deserve.

References

1. Ganguli HC. Epidemiological finding on prevalence of mental disorders in India. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2000;42:14–20. 2. Reddy MV, Chandrashekar CR. Prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders in India: A meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 1998;40:149–57.

3. Indian mental-health care reviewed after death of asylum patients Sanjay Kumar The Lancet, Volume 358, Issue 9281, Pages 569-569

Conflict of Interest:

None declared