According to Allport’s trait theory, all people are unique, with personalities that grow and differ. To demonstrate this, he designated personality traits into three tiers: cardinal, central, and secondary. Select a notable or well-known public figure (past or present) and construct a profile of the individual by illustrating how they embody the three tiers of personality traits. Cardinal traits: What are the passions, goals, or obsessions that are most dominant in this person? How have they contributed to this person’s motivations or accomplishments? Central traits: If you were to write a letter of recommendation for this person, which traits would you emphasize? Secondary traits: Describe traits the public maybe aware of, but that are not fundamental to understanding this person’s impact. Do you agree or disagree with Allport’s belief that psychoanalysis and/or behavioral theories are not enough to describe this person’s personality? Why or why not?
he application of H)-v-Mental Health Review Tribunal for North & East London, where a man admitted into hospital under s 3 MHA, sought his discharge. The Court ruled that Sections 72 and 73 MHA were incompatible with Article 5. A Mental Health Review Tribunal for his discharge was unnecessary because it could not be shown that he was suffering from a mental disorder that justified his detention. S 10 HRA was applied and a Remedial Order was used to correct the incompatibility. The legislation was subsequently amended by the MHA 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001. Similarly, in R (on the application of MH) -v-Secretary of State for Health, a patient detained under s 2 MHA was deemed incompetent to apply for discharge from detention which was extended under the provisions of MHA . S 2 MHA was held incompatible with Article 5(4) of ECHR . There was no provision for a referral to Court. The patient was mentally incompetent and detained under s 2. Despite there being a right to apply to a Mental Health Review Tribunal, it was incapable of being exercised. Furthermore, there was no right to take the issue before a Court when a person’s detention was extended . On appeal, the House of Lords overturned the declaration and held that the statute could give practical effect to a patient’s rights under Article 5(4). Tribunals were designed to provide appropriate expertise and easy access. The Secretary of State could at any stage refer the patient’s case to a tribunal under s 67 MHA. These two cases show that the HRA is capable of protecting a person’s rights if it is shown that Mental Health legislation is incompatible with a person’s fundamental rights. The latter case also demonstrates that the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) is the final arbiter in these matters. Since the HRA incorporates the fundamental rights and freedoms under the ECHR, cases decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) can often be helpful as a guide to whether the rights of mentally disordered persons have been infringed upon. Although most cases arise within other European countries, the decisions are still relevant when applied to similar circumstances arising in the UK.>GET ANSWER