Comments

Is this one of those other weight loss contraptions?

Isn't the containing cage for the blades back and to the left? I don't believe that a manufacturer, even in the old days, would get away with selling a bladed fan like that without a protective cage.

I was in this building, and there are what appears to be chemical barrels in a room to the right. The name of the barrel started with a C...any one with info, please contact me at outlineinblack@yahoo.com

Motts ---> regarding the word "client":

People who lived in institutions were initially called "inmates" to reflect that they were involuntarily incarcerated. When The Powers That Be decided that a disability was not quite an intentional act, the model moved to a medical one, and "inmates" became "patients" who lived on "wards." With the changing emphasis on "rehabilitation" and the (partial) dropping of the medical model, the label switched to "residents," reflecting that they weren't "patients" but instead people who resided (lived) in these facilities. Times changed and the decision was made to quit calling people by a label that just referred to where they lived. The model changed to habilitation and active (as opposed to custodial) treatment and the term chosen was "clients."

In my mind the positive thing about this particular label is that it infers something very radical and invaluable and is a total change from previous models, and that is that by definition a "client" is someone who decides who gives them services and can therefore choose who provides that service. The provider is a paid person whose job it is to provide a service for that client. For the first time a label reflects that one person is paying another person and that they have some say in their treatment - there is some reciprocity for the first time. I personally believe that this was a huge step forward in the field and it only occurred about 20 or so years ago as an extension of the human rights and People First movements.

Today the label has changed to "consumer" or "individual." Like everyone else, I would love to drop labels entirely. The problem is, if a person doesn't have a label that describes specific program eligibility criteria, s/he doesn't qualify for services. I know that all of us in the field would be thrilled to find a word to use to discuss the people we work with, but it becomes very confusing to call everyone the same thing - staff and people receiving services - and it becomes one large mouthful to say what I keep writing - "people with disabilities." If you just call them "people" then you have to say, "You people who are paid to work here need to get the group of people who pay to live here and come to dinner." And if you try to call everyone by name this doesn't work, because many of these folks can't understand you if you call multiple names at one time - that's just too much information to process.

You know, this stuff is really much harder and more complicated than it looks. I do wish everyone who comes to your site would volunteer to work for a week in a group home, a special ed class, a mental health clinic, or an ER room and then see what terminology they would then use. Maybe they could help us with some good ideas. We always need new blood. This isn't a field that people exactly flock to, after all. :-)

Holy moly! :o(

Oooohhh, my goodness! Your photos, Motts, I am rendered agape!

Thank you a million times for sharing your amazing work!!!

*ahem* coffee table books with these photos will sell big! (hint-hint)

Good point, Mandie. It's interesting that so many people are upset about what happened in these places in the past (as they should be) but you don't see the same fervor to get folks with handicaps included in the mainstream today. It has only been in the past few years that you could see someone with a handicap of any sort included in advertisements (even something as simple as someone sitting in a wheelchair), and that is still quite rare. I would feel better about people's indignation about the "old days" if I knew that today they were involved in volunteer activities with folks with disabilities, that they made sure that people with disabilities were welcome in their communities, and that they made sure that children with disabilities of any sort were never ridiculed or left out in their schools.

It's good to point out how bad things used to be, but the pointing needs to include another hand *in the present* reaching out to include these folks.

[Ack! Sorry! This must be my "moral indignation" day! I need to jump down off my soapbox before someone pushes me off real hard! ]

Oooooh, very cool shot! Love the "skull clamp!" (Learn something new here!)

Hope you scrubbed your hands, nonetheless, anyways! ;o)

Labotomies.

The mirror shape is nice - that's true - but what does everyone think about that swell old light over the sink?
[Grinning and running]

Wow...excellent!

(Thank you for more of your new work!!!)

If you have large people who don't have control of their bodies and who do not understand the concept of danger, there is great potential for them falling out of bed and getting injured. When they are in bed you need some sort of barrier to prevent them from falling out.

If, like most institutions, you had little money, you had several choices. You could strap them in so they wouldn't fall out (restraint! Eeeks!), you could lay everyone on the floor on mattresses so when they rolled over they wouldn't have far to go (how callous! How barbaric!), you could make wooden sides for the beds (but then the person in the bed couldn't see anything but the ceiling), or you could go for a large crib which at least offered some way of seeing what went on. I think there would have been equal criticisms had they chosen ANY of these options.

Again, it's easy to be critical of the situation if you aren't aware of the cultural views at the time. People with handicaps were sent away because they were considered "incurable," families were strongly encouraged to leave them behind, the state received very small amounts of money for their care, and the staff were paid outrageously low salaries and were generally treated like grunts. If it wasn't for the group of underpaid but dedicated and caring staff who kept these folks alive, even if they had to fight management and other staff who didn't feel likewise, many of these folks wouldn't be alive today (and there are MANY people still alive today who lived in institutions when they were at their most crowded peaks in the 60s and 70s). There were also courageous families who stood up for their loved ones in these places and fought for more money for better care and for money for community placements because they didn't receive any government assistance if they tried to keep their loved ones at home.

And just try to care at home for a large person with a severe to profound handicapping condition without support from others, and do it day after day after week after month after year. And don't get too comfortable and try to sleep through the night because your loved one DOESN'T understand danger and something terrible could happen if your attention wandered or you slept too soundly. This was not a black and white "institutions = bad, staff = bad, families = bad," but a mixture of what was believed at the time.

I challenge anyone who is critical of what happened back then to have been part of the culture at the time to have acted much differently, especially with the lack of support they would have gotten. This is NOT a defense of how things used to be - they were atrocious - but this IS an attempt to educate people on why it happened so that it doesn't happen again. The budget is getting tighter and institutional budgets are getting squeezed, as are the budgets for community and home programs for folks with disabilities.

I hope all of you who have expressed concern about what you have seen on Motts' site are contacting your local and state governments and asking for increased funding for people with disabilities. Otherwise saying "tut tut" and being outraged about what happened in the past - while ignoring that it is funding that prevents this from happening today in your very own community - means you are also turning a blind eye and are part of the problem.

[OK - sorry - jumping back down off soapbox again.]

I just want to say that your pictures are beautiful. They capture so much of what Pennhurst really was, and how depressing it is to visit today. I went up with some friends at night, around 12, and it was by far the scariest, most depressing thing in the world. We were only in the power house, near Penn Hall, on the otherside of the buildings still used today. It is just utterly amazing.

Amazing. It captures the beauty and the eeriness that is Pennhurst.

I bet many a turd had been flung against the wall and door, here.