3,181 Comments Posted by Lynne

wrote:
It's a tilt-in-space wheelchair. They are marvy.
wrote:
Emily, all seclusion rooms are supposed to have a window of some sort so you can visually monitor the safety of the person while they are in there. It was optional as to whether there was a window to the outside. Some places thought it offered too much additional stimulation to people who were already horribly agitated. As well, as soon as you have windows you need to deal with safety issues (glass breaking in the pre-Plexiglas days) and the potential for escape. Other places believed it helped people calm down to have a chance to look outside, and since so many of these facilities were built in the countryside, there often was the potential for a nice view (until budgets were cut and overcrowding ensued). I believe it was a combination of economics and philosophy that dictated whether there was a second seclusion room window in addition to the one used for visual monitoring.
wrote:
Mine too! Bravo - excellent perspective and one I share. :-)
wrote:
I have to admit that "hospitalism" is a new term for me.
wrote:
Jesus - powerful stuff, mari!

I know a gentleman who has lived in an institutional setting since the late 1920s. He has had many opportunities to move out, but he says the place is his home and the staff are his family. He also worked the institutional farm when they had one - took care of the hogs, chickens, and cows, worked the fields, planted and pulled potatoes, grew and harvested hay, slaughtered the hogs, gathered eggs, etc. He talks very longingly of the excellent food they used to have and all the marvelous stories of what happened over the years since he has been there - some good, some bad.

Like mari says, now most facilities have food service deliveries, cook/chill units, processed food, "appropriate diets", etc.

Ah, progress - can you beat it? ;-)
wrote:
~Me,

WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA!!!!!

By the way, somehow that original entry mysteriously disappeared off this website. I can't believe you sucked Motts into deleting that! >:-P
wrote:
"Potential probings"

8`-)
I'm dyin' here, Sketch!
8`-)
wrote:
~Me, let's watch who gets to give you a clean bill of mental health now, shall we? ;-)
wrote:
And anna wins the prize! That is exactly correct! When we are interpreting drawings we have a ~few~ guidelines to go by, since everyone is so very individual, but frequently it is the case that if someone draws huge teeth it indicates a bit of a hostile touch. Not always, just sometimes, and you need to know 2,000 other things about the person and the conditions under which the drawing was made before you can have any faith in this, but for a "cold read" it is a tad disturbing. :-)
wrote:
For "Beth" I was seeing the curve at the top of the first letter, not below it.

Well, "seeing" is obviously relative. I was pretending to see it - how's that? ;-)
wrote:
SOMEBODY'S been at the glue again, methinks . . . . . . . . .
wrote:
Darling Jo,

What is shoenail polish?
wrote:
Maybe one day *I'll* get a turn with him. After you babes have used him all up, that is. 8`-(
wrote:
WAWAWAWAWAWA!!!!!!! 8`-) Motts - ever the pragmatic realist! I drink to your health! But I WILL watch in case beer orbs float out of my beverage - they can be found in the DAMNEDEST places! 8`-)
wrote:
Pleasantly somber. :-)