Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
The Deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill--a failure?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slsh" data-source="post: 130802" data-attributes="member: 8"><p>Boy, MWM, you sure hit the nail on the head. A real hot topic in our home right now.</p><p> </p><p>My brain is a bit too mushy right now to even begin to come up with a plan, but one of the things I've run into this past week was the insistence by TLP that even though thank you isn't learning a doggone thing in current placement, it's essential he be there because otherwise he doesn't have a chance of learning self-help skills. A thought reinforced by potential Residential Treatment Center (RTC) when they denied him placement in their program because he's too "advanced". Hunh?</p><p> </p><p>Then you have to throw in the mother-need to protect when our kids won't protect themselves, which I think has really skewed my take on where thank you is and what he needs. I don't know, maybe I was giving up with the line of thought that his ability is meaningless when he doesn't *do* anything. Whether he can't/won't do something doesn't matter because he *doesn't*, so from my perspective he needs to be supervised and "cared" for, which of course isn't going to exist once he graduates/ages out which is TLP's very strong point of view. And I can't say they're wrong.</p><p> </p><p>For Boo, I absolutely believe in integration in the community as much as possible and his right to self-determination. I feel hypocritical because I do *not* feel thank you in his current state has the right to self-determination. To me, it seems oxymoronic - we're going to give a mentally ill kid who has some significant thought disorders the right to self-determine? I don't know - sometimes I think I'm the crazy one because I seem to be the only person in our little sphere here who sees this as a problem.</p><p> </p><p>Ideally, there needs to be a supervised setting for adults who cannot/will not care for themselves (basic ADLs, medications, etc) and there needs to be a mechanism to force placement of adults on a long-term basis. It just doesn't exist right now. It's all voluntary. </p><p> </p><p>I am really fighting the thought of obtaining guardianship of thank you because we will not be able to force treatment or safe living situations. What is the point if he will still have the "right" to refuse treatment? </p><p> </p><p>I don't know, probably not my clearest morning to ponder this, but it is a huge problem and one that is haunting husband and I very much right now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slsh, post: 130802, member: 8"] Boy, MWM, you sure hit the nail on the head. A real hot topic in our home right now. My brain is a bit too mushy right now to even begin to come up with a plan, but one of the things I've run into this past week was the insistence by TLP that even though thank you isn't learning a doggone thing in current placement, it's essential he be there because otherwise he doesn't have a chance of learning self-help skills. A thought reinforced by potential Residential Treatment Center (RTC) when they denied him placement in their program because he's too "advanced". Hunh? Then you have to throw in the mother-need to protect when our kids won't protect themselves, which I think has really skewed my take on where thank you is and what he needs. I don't know, maybe I was giving up with the line of thought that his ability is meaningless when he doesn't *do* anything. Whether he can't/won't do something doesn't matter because he *doesn't*, so from my perspective he needs to be supervised and "cared" for, which of course isn't going to exist once he graduates/ages out which is TLP's very strong point of view. And I can't say they're wrong. For Boo, I absolutely believe in integration in the community as much as possible and his right to self-determination. I feel hypocritical because I do *not* feel thank you in his current state has the right to self-determination. To me, it seems oxymoronic - we're going to give a mentally ill kid who has some significant thought disorders the right to self-determine? I don't know - sometimes I think I'm the crazy one because I seem to be the only person in our little sphere here who sees this as a problem. Ideally, there needs to be a supervised setting for adults who cannot/will not care for themselves (basic ADLs, medications, etc) and there needs to be a mechanism to force placement of adults on a long-term basis. It just doesn't exist right now. It's all voluntary. I am really fighting the thought of obtaining guardianship of thank you because we will not be able to force treatment or safe living situations. What is the point if he will still have the "right" to refuse treatment? I don't know, probably not my clearest morning to ponder this, but it is a huge problem and one that is haunting husband and I very much right now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
The Deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill--a failure?
Top