Abstract
Although 'full citizenship' of mentally handicapped persons is strongly advocated in views on care and in policy plans, its practical application is not at all a matter of course. Looking at the course of history, it can be concluded that a long period of comparative indifference was followed by a quick succession of various views on mental deficiency and the mentally handicapped. The mentally handicapped person as an incurable patient developed into a person with possibilities, a full citizen who participates in society, has rights and duties and is certainly not the least among his equals. But ideals are confronted with the reality. The propagated equality is immediately denied through patronising, protective measures and special facilities and privileges that have been assigned. It is not easy to find a balance in this and it can be concluded that reflections and proceedings with regard to the mentally handicapped are characterised by continual doubts. The hypothesis of this study is that not only the scientific domains have been overcome by ambivalent doubts; everyday practice of care for the mentally handicapped is also characterised by moral ambivalence. This ambivalence leads to diffidence with regard to proceedings, to being unsure of the legitimacy of the proceedings, which in turn influences the quality of care in a negative way. This study discusses possibilities of dealing with this moral ambivalence.Through researching and describing the moral demands of public ideas of man and from their personal interpretations in everyday practice, an insight will be given into the extent of interaction between the two. Suggestions are made to create facilities for the development of the moral competence of the employees
