I think we just have a hard time figuring out the best, most effective way to allocate resources. We can do better. I've seen cases in the mental health and substance abuse fields that missed who the actual customer is. Imagine this. A person is sentenced for a DUI. Among other things, the judge orders alcohol rehabilitation. The judge sees his order as a remedy in a case involving the all of us who could be harmed by a drunk driver. And imagine the person shows up at a place that provides said counseling via state/federal funded services. There are a number of providers largely because of privatization. In the medical model, the person is the one harmed by the DUI and it's called "Person Centered". So the person shops around for the provider they like the most, which isn't really what I think the judge had in mind with the sentence. Let's figure out who the customer is for the service and who should direct it. I see a different scenario for the person who seeks services and directs them.
I think we just have a hard time figuring out the best, most effective way to allocate resources. We can do better. I've seen cases in the mental health and substance abuse fields that missed who the actual customer is. Imagine this. A person is sentenced for a DUI. Among other things, the judge orders alcohol rehabilitation. The judge sees his order as a remedy in a case involving the all of us who could be harmed by a drunk driver. And imagine the person shows up at a place that provides said counseling via state/federal funded services. There are a number of providers largely because of privatization. In the medical model, the person is the one harmed by the DUI and it's called "Person Centered". So the person shops around for the provider they like the most, which isn't really what I think the judge had in mind with the sentence. Let's figure out who the customer is for the service and who should direct it. I see a different scenario for the person who seeks services and directs them.