Caring asylums needed to help the mentally ill

WE WERE struck by the wisdom and boldness of Diane Dimond’s recent column supporting a return to asylums for some of those who are mentally ill. Defining “asylum” was a step in the right direction. What is currently needed is a safe place for mentally ill persons who cannot take care of themselves nor are able to take medications to help control some of the effects of their illnesses.

Clearly, asylums are definitely not the answer for all, or most, of those suffering with severe mental illnesses. But they would be for some, and they would save lives. We were parents of a child who suffered — and that must always be remembered — from severe mental illness and took her life when the treatment plan led to proximate release from a transitional living facility. The situation appeared hopeless to her, and she took her life. Suicide is frequent among (the) severely mentally ill.

We would have welcomed an alternative to living on the streets or living without adequate care and support.

Yes, academics, physicians and those specializing in ethics need to take a serious look at a modern, caring form of asylums. And we would urge them to think about the needs of parents, spouses, relatives and friends of those who suffer so much from the current, lacking system.

CATHARINE STEWART-ROACHE AND PATRICK ROACHE

Socorro