There is no “nice institution”
It was in 1971 that Betty Burns was told that her 5-year-old son David had autism.
Burns said she and her husband rejected a recommendation by a doctor to send their autistic son, David, to a “nice institution,” when he was still a young child.
“I don’t think there is such a place as a nice institution,” Burns said.
The June 1st Marin Independent Journal shows David Burns working at his part-time job at a Barnes & Noble book store in San Rafael, CA; he lives in a group home. He is just a few years older than me; the places mentioned in the article are from places near where I grew up (in Oakland, California).
I didn’t see students like David Burns was and like my son Charlie is when I was a child: How many of them were already in “nice institutions”?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Adulthood, Living Arrangements
4 opinions for There is no “nice institution”
mcewen
Jun 2, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Interesting article, local too. [could have done without the last paragraph though]
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 2, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I could have too—-I wondered if it was included for “effect.”
Justthisguy
Jun 3, 2007 at 2:50 am
I think it’s probable that living in institutions will warp your mind.
My example? John McCain.
He’s a second-generation Navy Brat, USNA grad, Naval Aviator, resident of the Hanoi Hilton, and United States Senator.
In other words, the boy has spent his entire life in one institution or another, and I think that shows in his interactions with the general run of people.
Deborah Webb
Jul 4, 2008 at 9:56 am
I work for an independent living center, and we work our smartest and hardest to help our consumers help themselves in remaining independent, and not having to go to a nursing home or some other long-term facility.
Institutionalization does not make a problem go away, it just hides it from the public, encouraging the “out of sight, out of mind” traditional treatment of people with disabilities.
Research and practical experience teaches us that people are best off in their own homes rather than in an institutional, if there is any way or reason for people with disabilities to live their life in the least restrictive situation possible, in keeping with the Olmstead Law. Also, Home and Community Based waivers make it possible for many to live in the least restrictive situation possible for their disabilities to have the best quality of life possible. It is much more expensive for these people to live in long-term institutions than their own homes in regard to taxpayers social expense. Of course, we leave it up entirely to our consumers (clients) what is ultimately best for them. It is not our position to decide what is best for our consumers. This is a large part of our disability rights advocacy besides helping people with disabilities find affordable, accessible housing, to be able to get ramps, hand holds, bed aids, and other accommodations that makes it safer for them to live their lives outside institutions. This service is a win/win arrangement for consumers and taxpayers.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: