Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on the previous paper in this issue “Changes in the provision of residential care for adults with an intellectual disability: a national longitudinal study”.Design/methodology/approachThe commentary outlines some of the challenges and potential drivers of deinstitutionalisation and community living including the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.FindingsThe paper finds that the UN Convention and the practice of international organisations that fund investments in social care can potentially drive the replacement of institutions with community‐based services for people with intellectual disabilities.Originality/valueThe argument for deinstitutionalisation and community living needs to be maintained more broadly rather than being focused on certain countries or regions. Community living for people with intellectual disabilities should be a global agenda with an emphasis on the human rights of people.
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Clinical Psychology,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Social Psychology,Pshychiatric Mental Health
Reference13 articles.
1. Ahern, L. and Rosenthal, E. (2006), Hidden Suffering: Romania's Segregation and Abuse of Infants and Children with Disabilities, Mental Disability Rights International, Washington, DC.
2. Ahern, L. and Rosenthal, E. (2007), Torment Not Treatment: Serbia's Segregation and Abuse of Children and Adults with Disabilities, Mental Disability Rights International, Washington, DC.
3. Bigby, C. (2004), “But why are these questions being asked? A commentary on Emerson (2004)”, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 202‐5.
4. Cummins, R.A. and Lau, A. (2003), “Community integration or community exposure? A review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability”, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145‐57.
5. Cummins, R.A. and Lau, A. (2004), “Cluster housing and the freedom of choice: a response to Emerson 2004”, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 198‐201.