Scheper-Hughes N, Lovell A M
Soc Sci Med. 1986;23(2):159-78. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(86)90364-3.
Much public discourse in the United States and in Canada acknowledges the dismal failure of the policy to 'deinstitutionalize' mental patients and to return them to some semblance of community living. The American Psychiatric Association has recently called for a reassessment of institutional alternatives--a call for a return to the asylum--in response to the needs of the new population of so-called homeless mentally ill. Here we contrast the failures of North American deinstitutionalization with the relative successes achieved in those regions of Italy where deinstitutionalization was grounded in a grassroots alternative psychiatry movement and professional and political coalition, Psichiatria Democratica. Democratic psychiatry challenged both the medical and the legal justifications for the segregative control of the 'mentally ill': madness as disease, and the constant over-prediction of the dangerousness of the mental patient. In addition, the movement challenged traditional cultural stereotypes about the meanings of madness, and was successful in gaining broad-based community support from political parties, labor unions, student groups, and artist collectives that were enlisted in the task of reintegrating the ex-mental patient. The Italian experiment, although flawed and riddled with its own inconsistencies and contradictions, offers evidence that deinstitutionalization can work without recreating in the community setting the same exclusionary logic that was the foundation of the asylum system.
在美国和加拿大,许多公众讨论都承认,“使精神病患者非机构化”并让他们回归某种社区生活的政策彻底失败了。美国精神病学协会最近呼吁重新评估机构替代方案——呼吁回归收容所——以应对新出现的所谓无家可归精神病患者群体的需求。在此,我们将北美非机构化的失败与意大利部分地区取得的相对成功进行对比,在意大利,非机构化基于一场基层替代精神病学运动以及专业和政治联盟“民主精神病学”。民主精神病学挑战了对“精神病患者”进行隔离控制的医学和法律依据:将疯狂视为疾病,以及持续过度预测精神病患者的危险性。此外,该运动挑战了关于疯狂含义的传统文化刻板印象,并成功获得了政党、工会、学生团体和艺术家团体等广泛的社区支持,这些团体参与了让前精神病患者重新融入社会的任务。意大利的实验虽然存在缺陷且充满自身的不一致和矛盾之处,但提供了证据表明,非机构化可以发挥作用,而无需在社区环境中重现作为收容所系统基础的那种排他性逻辑。