Friday, April 9, 2010

Safety and Protection in Santa Cruz

Community health is about optimal functioning - do we plan to create that by removing those we don’t consider optimal?

How can removing liberty help health? What kind of psychiatric health do bars and locks feed?

We are really talking about illness, disease, brains, a medical model that has been proved inadequate, supplanted by including the social determinants, ...

Protect whom? From what?

Protect Santa Cruz residents from people who cope with mood swings, fear, voices and visions, suggest safety by rejecting a group of people with psychiatric disabilities, claim to protect for rare harms by instead confining people who are more often themselves victims.

Or keep people with psychiatric diagnoses safe from their own madness, deprive them of the chance to learn the skills to manage themselves, teach them they are helpless over themselves and must be locked.

That’s not safety. That’s rhetoric.

Selecting against us, distancing to keep us as far away as you can, naming a lock-up a healthy facility, naming health instead of illness

What can be healthy about locking people up? Wwhat are we pretending and not saying?

Building a new lockup might divert attention from the current failure intention and construction is not results or accountability. Do you expect a building to by proxy for results?

No comments:

Post a Comment