Posted by Ted on June 19, 2001, at 10:39:02
In reply to Re: future of asylums » ChrisK, posted by Jane D on June 18, 2001, at 19:43:08
Chris & Jane,
I agree 100%. Chris, you do have a *very* tough job, one that I could never do. And thank you for taking it seriously.
Jane's point of keeping some patients institutionalized for their own freedom makes sense -- I couldn't have said it better.
t.
> > Ted,
> >
> > I don't believe that those who are in a position or nature to harm others should ever be "on the Outside" without constant supervision. All of the people I work with have constant supervision and in many cases certain restraints becuase of their behavior. I have numerous scars on my arms thanks to an autistic client who grabs and digs his nails into your arms. He has special mitts that he has to wear when he gets aggressive of self abusive. He also has a special jacket in his group home that comes just short of being a straight jacket. Others wear harnesses when on their busses because they can get out of their seats and cause a disruption while on the bus ride in.
> >
> > These are definitely not examples of people who are criminal but people who can't function on their own. We average 3 staff per 10 clients. The houses average a little more.
> >
> > As you state the big thing is money. If we can find the staffing a avst majority og the mentally ill could find some form of mainstreaming. Those with criminal backgrounds are still the ones that I don't have a gut feel as to what might be appropriate. It's a tough call but I think the days of asylum type treatment are behind us.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Chris-
>
> You've got a tough job. Congratulations and thank you. Most of your clients are much better off than they would have been under the old system. I do think there may be a few exceptions that the current system doesn't well serve. Specifically, some of the people who need constant supervision to be out in the community might actually have more freedom in an institutional setting. The whole idea has been to put people in as normal an environment as possible but wearing a straight jacket in a group home may be less normal then being unrestrained behind a locked door on an institutional ward. And I would rather walk from building to building, never leaving an institution's grounds, then by tied to my seat on the bus.
>
> I've been using your example of the developmentally disabled but I think that sometimes the mentally ill might benefit but for different reasons. It is one thing to be pushing yourself to go out and hold a job - perhaps with supportive services. Here you are being forced into a role of competency. If you go out only in someone elses custody you are being pushed into the other role - that of a dependant. If you do need to be taken care of by someone else I think limiting it to one environment, such as hospital or institution, makes sense. Once you leave the hospital you don't have those associations of helplessness in everything you do. This doesn't address the problems of the continously ill of course. Those are probably more like the developmentally disabled.
>
> This also ignores the difficulty of monitoring conditions in institutions. The public is more likely to take an interest in how the group home next door treats its residents. If this prevents the kind of abuses that shut the institutions down it may be worthwhile for that alone.
>
> Jane
poster:Ted
thread:6505
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010611/msgs/6553.html