What approaches have been used to care for the mentally ill? What are pros/cons of de-institutionalization?

Answer 1

In NSW Australia the Health Commission have a policy of integrating, or as you put de-institutionalizating people. The housing department is used for this purpose, akin to changing deck chairs on the Titanic. The positive is that in some cases people are able to make a fresh start. The negative is that these people make the ammenity unlivable to the existing tenants who have to suffer the odd behavior of not sleeping at night disturbing the quiet rest of others. Separate communities and housing such as the annex to the University campus at Rydalmere are all right.
The main problem with the treatment of these people is "one size fits all" medication that turns them into zombies. In spite of the effort of the media to portray Australia as a heathen nation, the truth is that these people need exposure to Christian ministry for healing. Only Infidels would interpret the Bible in such a way to negate the teaching that Jesus heals people today of the evil spirits of infirmity. I think you will find that the problem is about to explode into an uncontrollable situation with the new "Ice" the Crystal Meth drug now on our streets. Healing in these matters is only about 5% in America through conventional methods, but, in Jesus Christ it is about 80%. You tell me if our Government is culpable by ignoring this information.

Answer 2

We've failed miserably in this. With the advent of anti-psychotics and other psychotropic medications in the 1950's many people with serious mental illnesses were released from mental hospitals. There was little follow-up care and consideration on what should have been done with these people. This trend has unrelentingly continued. In a country like the US, it's a disgrace that we have so many homeless people and up to 40% of them suffer serious mental illness or severe substance dependence. It seems we care more about money than people.