|
|
 |
|
¡¡ |
|
¡¡ |
|
|
|
¡¡ |
HOME > ÇÐȸ°£Ç๰ >
¿ë¾î»çÀü |
|
Á¦¸ñ |
The Role of Institutional Care In Leprosy Today :A New System of Leprosy Admissions Wilson Leprosy Center¡³ |
|
|
|
|
ÀúÀÚ |
S. C. TOPPLE |
¼Ò¼Ó |
Prebyterian Mission, U. S, Soonchun Chulla Namdo, Korea |
|
|
³âµµ |
1968 |
±Ç |
5 |
|
|
È£ |
1 |
¹øÈ£ |
|
|
|
½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö |
9 |
³¡ÆäÀÌÁö |
12 |
|
|
÷ºÎ |
|
|
|
¿ä¾à |
A. The Transition from Isolation Care for Leprosy Historically, not only in Korea but throughout most parts of the world, the approach to the leprosy problem has been to isolate its victims from society. This isolation has been basically one of social attitude but has manifest itself most graphically in aggregates referred to as "leper camps", leprosy villages and leprosaria. As recently as 1960, Dr. Joon Lew reported 27,689 out of the 27,989 registered cases of leprosy as living in leprosaria or leprosy villages in Korea. In a medically enlightened age this philosophy of mass isolation has been seen to be undefendable. Accordingly, the world-wide emphasis on leprosy during the past 15 years has been on outpatient clinics, case finding studies and home care. The earlier accepted norm of isolation has now become an anathema in medical circles. World Health Organization, government and mission agency funds in recent years have been increasingly directed toward non-institutional care and survey studies in leprosy. This new emphasis has been both laudatory and inevitable. There can be found no serious worker in the field of leprosy who does not see the necessity and wisdom of this shift in emphasis. Nevertheless the exclusion of institutional care for the sake of home care and treatment creates a fresh set of problems which must be recognized and dealt with by responsible parties. B. The Problem Facing Non-crippled Inpatients. First let us consider Plight of the institutionalized patient. For the younger patient who is capable of work and without need of institutional care he has lost his security. This patient no longer has a defensible position as an in-patient. Instead, he must face an hostile society where jobs, land, housing and charity are scarce. Having been away from home for many years he is at loss to make his way back into an unwanting home and village even though his disease is cured. The leprosy community means a roof over his head, a bowl of barley-rice on his table, and a circle of like friends. Life in society means rejection and not infrequently homeless wandering. C. The Problem Facing Crippled Institutional Patients. Now let us consider the old or more crippled patient in the colony. He is not likely to be pushed out the door but nevertheless faces problems of security. Funds previously provided to repair the leaking roof over his head or keep the food on his table are now very apt to be diverted to more exciting or "pertinent" uses. Granted, what it costs to support one man like this might suffice for medical care of ten leprosy patients being treated in their own homes but that doesn't make our crippled victim less hungry at mealtime. |
|
|
³»¿ë |
|
 | |
¡¡ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|