The Need for Continuing Asylum and Sanctuary
Abstract
Deinstitutionalization of the chronically mentally ill does not mean they no longer need social support, protection, and relief from the pressures of life—in other words, asylum and sanctuary. The authors address the questions of why asylum should be provided, for what patients, the relationship between asylum and rehabilitation, and the implications for mental health professionals. They point out that while many chronic patients eventually attain high levels of social and vocational functioning, many cannot meet simple demands of living, even with long-term rehabilitative help. Many consciously limit their exposure to stimuli and pressure not from laziness but from a well-founded fear of failure. Professionals must realize that whatever degree of rebabilitation is possible for each patient cannot take place unless support and protection—whether from family, treatment program, board-and-care home, or public hospital—are provided at the same time.
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.- Personal login
- Institutional Login
- Sign in via OpenAthens
- Register for access
-
Please login/register if you wish to pair your device and check access availability.
Not a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).
