Parental opposition to deinstitutionalization: A challenge in need of attention and resolution.

Abstract

Parental opposition to the deinstitutionalization of mentally retarded persons is a growing, organized phenomenon which has recently emerged as a nationwide challenge to the deinstitutionalization movement. It is a challenge, however, which has been virtually ignored by key actors in the movement, including planners and implementers of deinstitutionalization schemes, systemic and individual advocates, and researchers. In order to begin to address and appropriately resolve the challenges posed by this phenomenon, an examination of it was undertaken in Nebraska using a tripartite conceptual framework which (i) historically described the national and state social-legal context within which parental opposition has emerged; (2) identified the bases of the opposition; and (3) recommended how these concerns could be addressed and appropriately resolved by offering directions for future research and policy analysis based upon applicable psychological theories and studies, and legal decisions and principles.

The deinstitutionalization of St. Nicholas Hospital: II lifestyle, community contact and family attitudes

“…In Victoria, for example, all Community Residential Units (CRUs) opened since the deinstitutionalization program commenced in August 1984 have remained in operation. (b) Concern that the quality of service in the community-based system will be diminished (Frohboese & Sales, 1980;Meyer, 1980;Spreat et al, 1987). Such concerns are often centred on the quality of medical service and it is interesting to note that some families may hold a distorted view of their relative's requirement for intensive medical attention.…”

“…(d) Concern that community-living may increase the probability of the home being subjected to ideosyncratic administrative practices with decreased accountability (Frohboese & Sales, 1980). (e) Doubts as to their ability to cope with their relative in the community or at home (Frohboese & Sales, 1980;Landesman-Dwyer et al, 1980). Another factor which may act to reinforce parental views on deinstitutionalization is the belief that their relative has no potential for further educational or psychological development.…”

“…(c) Concern that inadequate supervision may lead to their relative being exploited, or at least fail to protect their relative's safety and health (Landesman-Dwyer et al, 1980;Lord and Hearn, 1987;Spreat et al, 1987). (d) Concern that community-living may increase the probability of the home being subjected to ideosyncratic administrative practices with decreased accountability (Frohboese & Sales, 1980). (e) Doubts as to their ability to cope with their relative in the community or at home (Frohboese & Sales, 1980;Landesman-Dwyer et al, 1980).…”

“…(a) Concern that the community-based system is unstable and impermanent (Frohboese & Sales, 1980;Conroy & Bradley, 1985;Lord & Hearn. 1987).…”

“…Moreover, your relative should not be protected from society but should be free to interact with the general community, to be able to take risks and be challenged by his or her environment. These, however, are the rhetorics of ideology, and are not shared by many parents (Frohboese & Sales, 1980).…”