Joan,
<*Rant Advisory*>
What you say about people in jails and prisons who
need psych. services not receiving them they is
absolutely right. That is a nationwide problem
stemming from public policy that values building more
and more prisons to lock people down in, many of whom
may have had (untreated)psych issues to begin with,
and who only come out crazier after being let out from
some of these high-tech "Super-Max" dungeons without
some transition to living among people in regular
society.
Any kind of health-care for prisoners, with or withou
any kind of disabilities, is not considered a priority
in a public-policy environment where politicians can
get a lot of cheap votes by snarling about all those
criminals and what we should do to them. Funny, most
of the guys doing some of the loudest snarling are
ideal candidates for orange jump-suits themselves.
Especially if racism itself was a criminal offense.
<*End of Rant*> :)
RE:the "mistakes of the 70's" of which this bureaucrat
speaks of in his letter, I'm assuming this refers to
the wholesale "dumping" of people out of truly
frightening institutions into the community with no
supports, are exactly what these folks want to do &
what they're afraid that the ADA's "integration
requirement" will stop them from doing-- getting by on
the cheap.
Providing services for people with disabilities in the
most integrated setting doesn't depend on the clinical
diagnostic category of one's impairment. It depends
on the kind of services and supports an individual
needs-- *those* depend on a person's clinical
situation. What these jokers in Georgia want to do is
provide cheap, inadequate "services" in institutions
for people with certain diagnostic labels, and they
would hate like hades to have to bother with actually
providing supports to meet real people's real needs.
That would mean they would actually have to <*gulp*>
adequately fund <*horrors!*> real mh services,
personal assistance services, etc. That is why what
this guy says about not wanting to abrogate the ADA
is, to put it politely, er... "disingenuous". Just
look at their track record.
I hope at least some of this makes sense, and I hope
you don't take my anger at these knuckleheads
personally.
Brian
--- joan m wallyn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I know I'm probably going to get flamed but...
> This letter seems to
> make a lot of sense. We are struggling with this
> very issue in the
> agency/district that I work in. The truth is that a
> lot of jails are
> being used to house people who need treatment. Are
> there distinctions
> made between physical disabilities and mental
> illness? I've copied a lot
> of this thread and filed it, but these things have
> never been addressed.
> I for one do not want to repeat the "mistakes of the
> 70's" as they cost
> me dearly. Joan M. Wallyn
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:30:17 -0400 "I. STEPHEN
> MARGOLIS"
> <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Majordomo List Server
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> >Behalf
> >Of Stephanie Thomas
> >Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 4:32 PM
> >To: micasa-list
> >Subject: FW: Roland Letter
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 6:46 PM
> >Subject: Olmstead
> >
> >
> >>THIS LETTER WAS RECENTLY SENT TO THE REMAINING
> STATES (NOW, 8). HOW
> >DO YOU
> >>LIKE THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE 4TH PARAGRAPH?
> GOVERNOR ROY BARNES,
> >GA, CAN
> >>STILL PULL THE PLUG ON THE APPEAL. LET TOMMY
> OLMSTEAD AND CARL
> >"EDDIE"
> >>ROLAND ( DHR, MH/MR/SA, Two Peachtree Street, NW,
> Suite 22-224,
> >Atlanta,
> >>GA, 3030-3142) AND GOVERNOR BARNES (240 State
> Capitol, GA, 30334,
> >>404-656-1776 or e-mail him, go to his comment page
> at:
> >>http://ganet.org/governor/contact.html, remember
> no www.) KNOW WHAT
> >YOU
> >>THINK IS "IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PEOPLE WITH
> DISABILITIES."
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>Mark
> >>
> >>Last fall, your state supported Georgia's
> successful petition to the
> >U.S.
> >>Supreme Court to review lower court decisions in
> favor of the
> >plaintiff in
> >>L.C. v. Olmstead. As you know, the lawsuit was
> brought on behalf of
> >two
> >>state hospital patients claiming that Georgia
> officials violated
> >their
> >>rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
> by continuing to
> >serve
> >>them in the hospital when they could have been
> served in a more
> >integrated
> >>community setting.
> >>
> >>No doubt, you and your public officials are being
> pressured to
> >withdraw
> >>your state's support. I am writing to urge you to
> stay with us and
> >to
> >>clarify why we took this case to the Supreme
> Court. I hope this
> >>information will help you answer opponents, who
> mistakenly believe
> >that
> >>Georgia is trying to hold people in institutions,
> that we are
> >violating
> >>their civil rights by not moving them to the
> community, and that we
> >are
> >>willing to undermine the ADA to support our
> position.
> >>
> >>We fully understand and appreciate the importance
> of the ADA to
> >people with
> >>disabilities. However, we content that the
> "integration regulation"
> >of the
> >>ADA does not address the issue of moving people
> from institutions to
> >>community services, and a finding in favor of
> Olmstead does not
> >weaken the
> >>law.
> >>
> >>Moreover, we strongly believe that the lower court
> rulings are not in
> >the
> >>best interest of people with disabilites. As it
> stands, the decision
> >sets
> >>a precedent for further law suits, including class
> action law suits,
> >that
> >>could require states to move everyone to the
> community whose clinical
> >>evaluation shows them capable of living in the
> community, without
> >regard
> >>for consumer or family choice. Unless we are
> willing to repeat the
> >>mistakes of deinstitutionalization in the 1970's,
> funding will have
> >to be
> >>available to support the services people need to
> leave the
> >institution and
> >>live successfully in the community. And, unless
> public officials are
> >>willing to find new revenue, the funding will have
> to come from the
> >state
> >>hospitals or from other existing resources (that
> may also support
> >needy
> >>programs). Moving money from state hospitals must
> be done in a
> >carefully
> >>planned way to avoid undermining services for
> those who remain.
> >Court
> >>orders can make that planning difficult.
> >>
> >>In short, Georgia is not opposed to
> deinstitutionalizatio, and we are
> >not
> >>taking a stand against civil rights. In fact, the
> state has made
> >dramatic
> >>progress in expanding community services, and
> without a court order.
> >Since
> >>1996, we have closed three hospitals, and since
> 1995, we have moved a
> >total
> >>of $83 million from hospitals to new community
> services. However, we
> >are
> >>opposed to moving people to community services if
> we do not have the
> >>resources to provide the supports they need. We
> do not want to
> >contribute
> >>to people with mental disabilities ending up in
> jails on on the
> >street.
> >>
> >>The outcome of L.C. v. Olmstead has far reaching
> implications for all
> >>states and their services to people with
> disabilities. We hope you
> >will
> >>stand with us.
> >>
> >>If you need additional information, please do not
> hesitate to call me
> >at
> >>404-657-2260. Thank you for your support.
> >>
> >>Sincerely
> >>
> >>Carl E. Roland,Jr.
> >>Director
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >NATIONAL ADAPT MAILING LIST - Adapt MiCASA List of
> Adapt Organizers.
> >
>
>
=== message truncated ===
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
