swallowing problemsandno teethand adoctorwho’d
saidtheyshouldeatonlypureedglop—well,theycould.
Andiftheirmindhadfadedtothepointthattheycould
nolongermakerationaldecisions,thentheirfamily—or
whomeverthey’d designated—couldhelp negotiatethe
termsoftherisksandchoicesthatwereacceptable.With
“assistedliving,”asWilson’sconceptbecomeknown,the
goal was that no one ever had to feel institutionalized.
Theconceptwasattackedimmediately.Manylongtime
advocatesfortheprotectionoftheelderlysawthedesign
asfundamentallydangerous.Howwasthestaffgoingto
keeppeoplesafebehindcloseddoors?Howcouldpeople
with physical disabilities and memory problems be
permittedtohavecooktops,cuttingknives,alcohol,and
the like? Who wasgoing to ensure that thepets they
chose were safe?How was thecarpeting going to be
sanitizedandkeptfreeofurineodorsandbacteria?How
wouldthestaff knowifa tenant’shealth conditionhad
changed?
Thesewerelegitimatequestions.Issomeonewhorefuses
regularhousekeeping,smokescigarettes,andeatscandies
thatcauseadiabeticcrisisrequiringatriptothehospital
someonewhoisavictimofneglectoran archetypeof
freedom?Thereisnocleandividingline,andWilsonwas
not offering simple answers.She held herself and her
staff responsible for developing ways of ensuring the
safetyofthetenants.Atthesametime, herphilosophy
was to provide a place where residents retained the
autonomy and privacy of people living in their own
homes—includingtherighttorefuse stricturesimposed
for reasons of safety or institutional convenience.