Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 23 Issue 5

the physical pain for the patient but ignites patient’s emotional response – violence. Interestingly, while dealing with chronic pain Amygdala is responsible for increasing sensation of pain and provides different emotional response – anxiety [13]. Due to this biological phenomenon any usage of physical restraints i.e., manually holding with elements of, "control by pain” or use of police tasers is not effective. Amygdala diminishes pain and increases anger and violence, which is our basic instinct for better chances to survive. In our hospitals and detention centers increased violence increases the risk for patient, detainee and staff injuries as well as causes physical trauma. Hence, mechanical restraints are better choices than physical (manual) restraints. In individuals with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the amygdala tends to be hyperactive. Given that many mental health patients have PTSD as either a primary or secondary diagnosis, this particular group is prone to increased violence in response to pain, lengthy discomfort, and stress. The process of applying mechanical restraints can worsen the distress of an already violent individual. Hence, it is preferable to utilize fast and comfortable mechanical restraints rather than slow and uncomfortable ones. This violence not only prolongs patients' suffering but also contributes to staff burnout and low staff retention [14]. Consequently, poor staff retention significantly escalates operational costs, as each staff replacement on average incurs 6 to 9 monthly payments [15]. As evident, the outdated and poorly designed approach to restraining patients and detainees, or the implementation of a "zero restraints policy," results in a cascade of issues. Regrettably, individuals in mental health care, both patients and detainees, have limited socio- economic influence. Unlike car buyers, they lack the power to impact the design and selection of restraints used for their own care. Consequently, as Kander laconically puts it, there is no money “to go around” to provide these vulnerable individuals with fair and humane treatment. Furthermore, doctors prescribe various medications based on different side effect profiles and varying levels of effectiveness, influenced by aggressive pharmaceutical marketing. However, these same doctors have no option to choose the type of restraints to be utilized. The lack of marketing or public attention regarding different restraints systems further exacerbates the situation. V. G ood R estraints D esign Fortunately, there has been a notable shift in recent decades. Over the past 30 years, the writer has observed a significant transition in Ontario's hospitals, as the majority have abandoned old restraint systems in favor of a new, Canadian-developed alternative. This new system boasts several advantages, including comfort, flexibility to adapt to various situations, absence of physical harm, ergonomic design, swift application and removal, close leg positioning, and the elimination of the need for prone or overhead arm positions. Most importantly, this system prioritizes safety, preventing further escalation of violence by minimizing irritations to the amygdala. Initially, Toronto downtown hospitals with a higher socio-economic patient population were the first to adopt the new body movement control system. Subsequently, many peripheral hospitals followed suit. This shift was primarily driven by restraint damages and the growing socio-economic level of patients. Slowly but decisively, management decisions have been directing financial resources towards acquiring the safest possible body movement control systems. The Canadian system, now widely used in hospitals across Ontario, is gradually replacing outdated systems throughout Canada and the United States. It has also been implemented in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of British Columbia, Orange helicopter service, Correction Canada, and even some police departments. Moreover, the system has gained traction in various countries worldwide, including the UK, Japan, Italy, Hong Kong, France, Switzerland, and the Benelux Union. Notably, at least one hospital in Israel is currently exploring the possibility of purchasing it. Similar competitive systems are also utilized in the majority of other European countries. VI. C all for A ction It is indeed very strange that the information mentioned above is not a hidden truth. Despite being aware of these issues, we continue to let the most marginalized individuals in our society—mental health patients and detainees—endure their suffering in silence. We leave them, along with the struggling staff, on the front lines of the battle for mental health. It is high time for a transformation! Humanity must take action to rectify this situation. Implementing the appropriate restraint system is crucial to ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of both staff and patients. Let us prioritize compassion and make a positive change. R eferences R éférences R eferencias 1. Seo, P. (2021). Revisionist History: Seat Belts & Resistance to Public Health Measures. The Rheumatologist. https://www.the- rheumatologist. org/article/revisionist-history-seat-belts-resistance-to -public-health-measures/. 2. Meyer, Z. (2015). Michigan seat belt law turns 30 after bitter battle. Detroit Free Press. https://www.fre Volume XXIII Issue V Version I 21 Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 ( ) A © 2023 Global Journals The Impact of Mechanical vs Physical Restraints: A Call for Awareness