Do people schedule doctor appointments% E2% 80% 99s appointments for attention

navigation

1 Coexistence of women and men with and without the need for assistance in the living environment-oriented, integrative residential community (LIW)

In this chapter the basic references of the LIW are presented and an initial insight into the evaluation of the LIW is given. First, the objectives, the self-image and the location of the LIW are briefly explained. Then reference is made to the relevant theories. Further research-relevant considerations, such as the choice of method, implementation of the investigation, can be found in the appendix[7]. At the end of the chapter, statements from those involved are presented, which trace the peculiarity and thus the character of the LIW.

1.1. Location of the LIW practice

“Tolerance should really only be a temporary attitude: it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to insult. "(Wolfgang Goethe)[8]

In our society there are different groups that are marginalized and do not receive any recognition. Even two hundred years later, this quote from Goethe can be applied without compromise to the situation of people in need of assistance. In its linguistic accuracy, it expresses the power relations that lie between these two terms tolerance and recognition. Every day people who need assistance feel that they are tolerated and that they have the status of inferior citizens. With regard to the living of people in need of assistance, the goals and basic attitudes that the LIW can contribute on the way to recognition should be addressed here.

1.1.1 Objectives and self-image of the LIW

What does living mean? "Living does not only mean supply, accommodation and food, but security and independence, privacy and community, the possibility of retreat and openness to the outside world." (Kräling 1995 121). This also includes opportunities to cultivate one's own lifestyle decide how tidily their own room is tidy, which activities they want to take part in, etc. - regardless of the necessary joint processes of shaping their living together have to develop an independent way of life in “normal” relationships, including that they can move out of their homes or institutions with regard to living, like all other people important process in the biographical course and can be in relation to independence and Autonomy make a significant contribution.

The present work aims to present a concept that could expand the previous offers of assistance for the disabled. The concept sees itself as a supplement and alternative to inpatient or outpatient forms of living. At the same time, it also offers people who do not need assistance an alternative to the usual forms of living and can relieve parents of sons / daughters who need assistance in their replacement phase when looking for normalized forms of living. In other words: The structural integration of the LIW in the assistance for the handicapped would offer people in need of assistance greater choice and decision-making opportunities. In addition, it enables the creation of new framework conditions for non-segregation or common ways of life for people with and without the need for assistance and promotes the development process of participation.

1.1.2 Considerations for the conceptual framework of a LIW people with and without assistance

The LIW is based on the background and experience of 40 years of work by the integration movement to implement the principle of normalization under the formative formula “A life as normal as possible” (Thimm 1994). From the perspective of everyday accompaniment and coping with everyday life, an attempt is made to realize the proclaimed paradigm shift in relationship design - "From supervisor to companion" (cf. Hähner: 1997) Promote equal participation in the community and the right to self-determination as well as promote the “deinstitutionalization” (Jantzen 1999) of the lives of people in need of assistance.

The plan to set standards and framework conditions for a LIW arouses the expectation of being able to make clear statements about the conditions. Everyday coexistence in the LIW is diverse, contradictory and dependent on specific people who live there or take on an accompanying function. The question that arises again and again is to what extent the standards or methods and procedures that have proven to be positive in the context of the Reutlingen situation can be transferred to other situations. This concerns the socio-structural conditions, the socio-spatial requirements and the composition of the shared apartment, which are very much shaped by the individual personalities and the resulting group dynamics. How someone experiences their home is also a question of their subjective state of mind (cf. Keul 1998: 44).

Furthermore - and this is an important aspect - the question arises as to the implied guiding ideas behind a concept and the terms such as self-determination, personal lifestyle, etc. The primary aim here can only be to create framework conditions that allow a discourse about positions and perspectives. In practice, these central ideas become tangible with the “spirit” that blows in the shared apartment. This can be seen in concrete terms when dealing with questions such as B .: What right of self-determination do people with a need for assistance have with regard to partnership and sexuality? What respect does the right to vote receive in the case of assistance services? How are requests for equality from people in need of assistance accepted?

The goals of the individual residents (e.g. parents) are sometimes far apart, and the question of well-being cannot be limited to just one group, if, for example, parents cannot let go of their "children" expecting them to come home on the weekend so that they are not alone all the time, this has an impact on the shared apartment and coexistence. Conversely, it is difficult for other parents to make demands for weekend assistance when they see that the resources of individual residents without the need for assistance within the shared apartment are exceeded. Residents who need assistance are still a long way from being able to choose freely regardless of their surrounding interests.

Quality assessments are therefore only understandable against the background of the positions and the associated perspectives of those involved. Despite all these different conditions, certain questions, standard specifications, etc. can be derived from experience that can be helpful for other shared apartments.

Describing quality, defining it and raising it to standards requires an approach that keeps in mind that complex relationships must be reduced and that this preliminary attempt at grasping and understanding must be viewed critically from time to time. In order to counter the risk of excessive market orientation (i.e. economic aspects and cost mentality), it is a prerequisite to establish a consensus about basic objectives of what society and thus also a city etc. can afford, and the residents are to be included.

1.1.3 The need for integrative, living-environment-oriented residential communities

A look at the living worlds of people in need of assistance shows that in recent years new forms of living - outpatient living, single and couple living, etc. - have made the range more diverse and colorful. Depending on the federal state, the offers are differentiated differently. It is also no secret that in Baden-Württemberg the clocks run a little slower with regard to integration and inclusion, so that there is still a lot of catching up to do here.

Against the background of the assessment that the independent way of life is “more than necessary restricted” in the previous facilities for disabled people (cf. HäussIer-Scezpan 1998: 148) and that some of those affected and their parents therefore seek a different perspective on life Lifestyles that meet the needs and desires of those affected. This fact can be seen in the demand for diverse housing options for people in need of assistance, so that their individual needs and wishes are guaranteed by an adequate selection and differentiation of the housing offers (cf. Metzler 1997). Another expression of this precarious situation is reflected in the lack of demand for around 50,000 community-integrated living spaces (Kräling 1995 124). In other figures: approx. 60% of adults with a so-called intellectual disability live in their families of origin (Thimm 1996: 333).

Why do people with so-called intellectual disabilities on entering adulthood or adult status predominantly live with their parents? Moving out of the family is often a last resort and is particularly serious in relation to previous decisions, because the home perspective is associated with “threatening and gloomy living conditions” (Metzler 1997: 452).

It can be assumed that the social process of individualization will also lead to more and more people in need of assistance now and in the future looking for forms of living in which they can realize their ideas.

In the following chapter the context of the research is presented in part. The theoretical references as the background of the investigation and the foundation of the research perspective are in the foreground.

1.2 On the research concept

The scientific accompaniment consisted of two central fields of work over the project space (1997 - 2000): On the one hand, the scientific surveys, of which the second phase is presented and evaluated here; on the other hand, the advisory services offered to employees[9] (regular monthly meetings) and the participation in the coordination meeting of the sponsors, which became an essential part of the scientific support. In addition to visits to the shared apartment that were not scheduled for research purposes, I got a deeper insight into everyday life at LIW through years of practical support. These experiences are not explicitly evaluated and presented here, but are included - at one point or another - in the report.

The scope of the second survey, including all advisory and accompanying tasks, was limited to 300 working hours (work contract). The survey period for the interviews was between October 1999 and June 2000.

Aim of the investigation

The experiences of those involved so far[10] In a second survey, an integrative, living environment-oriented residential community was bundled with a view to a framework concept. It went:

  • the formulation and discussion of framework conditions;