Mental health, disability, homeless, first nation, kids at risk, infectious diseases have all turned their backs on institutional care.
The harm was too high. The safety too low.
So, why hasn’t aged care joined them? Given the dozens of reports that clearly show it has the same problem.
We canvased the sector, and found a number of rationales. All of which applied just as well to the other sectors.
The difference seems to lie in our belief that institutional aged care is a life-stage. To accept and plan for. To queue and pay handsomely for.
So that we’ll never be a burden.
Unlike other sectors, we could find no normalisation principle. With a requirement to advocate for the “least restrictive alternative”.
In fact, we found significant government and aged care effort convincing older people, their good-hearted families, and their “do no harm” professionals to go along with the “most restrictive alternative”.
With a sector that believes “bad” institutional care is due to “bad” providers, we went back to the literature to see if there could be such a thing as a “good” institution.
It seemed that “benevolent” institutions might be as good as they get. Hardly a good life. But they do provide nurture and safe care. For those who can’t be supported to live better lives in less restrictive alternatives.
We could find no effort to build the components for benevolent care. Or to “deinstitutionalise” aged care.
Instead, we found plans and legislation everywhere to grow it.