Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background: After a period of institution-based mental health care, in which the asylum system was the way in which the mental patients were treated, deinstitutionalization brought a set of significant changes and transformations in the conceptualization of mental illness and, by extension, the traditional therapeutic settings in which those in most need were assisted. However, this shift in the psychiatric domain was not only accompanied by valued achievements, but also by difficulties and challenges, as has been evidenced today. Aim/objective: The aim of this paper is thus to examine the pros and cons of the closure of asylums, and the subsequent implementation of deinstitutionalization over the 60 years or so of such important transformations in the field of psychiatry. Methods: In considering this question, I examine in detail recent works of literature based on scholarly knowledge. In addition, I identify various issues involved, as well as ways of confronting these so as to attempt to overcome the difficulties they present. Results and conclusions: As I show here, the changes in the treatment and care of the mentally ill after asylum and deinstitutionalization brought a new air of hope to patients and their families, but also had undesirable effects. The paper also considers how mental health professionals today try to solve these effects on behalf of patients and society as a whole.
Background: After a period of institution-based mental health care, in which the asylum system was the way in which the mental patients were treated, deinstitutionalization brought a set of significant changes and transformations in the conceptualization of mental illness and, by extension, the traditional therapeutic settings in which those in most need were assisted. However, this shift in the psychiatric domain was not only accompanied by valued achievements, but also by difficulties and challenges, as has been evidenced today. Aim/objective: The aim of this paper is thus to examine the pros and cons of the closure of asylums, and the subsequent implementation of deinstitutionalization over the 60 years or so of such important transformations in the field of psychiatry. Methods: In considering this question, I examine in detail recent works of literature based on scholarly knowledge. In addition, I identify various issues involved, as well as ways of confronting these so as to attempt to overcome the difficulties they present. Results and conclusions: As I show here, the changes in the treatment and care of the mentally ill after asylum and deinstitutionalization brought a new air of hope to patients and their families, but also had undesirable effects. The paper also considers how mental health professionals today try to solve these effects on behalf of patients and society as a whole.
Summary To address some challenges facing psychiatrists today we discuss issues of happenstance and fulfilment in psychiatric careers through some of the record and reflections of four psychiatrists since the 1950s. We trace the changes in psychiatry attendant to the transition from the welfare to the neoliberal state and=its contemporary postmodern culture. We highlight the crucial importance of political-cultural as well as technological developments in determining psychiatric service management and provision, and clinical practice and career outcomes. In the light of this impact, in a global era that some highly respected authorities consider in apocalyptic terms, we advocate for the incorporation of training in political awareness and activism in the psychiatric curriculum and practice. We suggest that this is necessary for social justice and patient welfare and that it will help safeguard psychiatric professionalism, conscience and self-esteem.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.