The proposed sale of 15 psychiatric hospitals by the state will mean upheaval for up to 3,000 patients. In a previous age, these people, among the most vulnerable in society, were largely left to fend for themselves when such a situation arose. Many ended up on the streets, swelling the ranks of the homeless. Today, Ireland is a wealthy country, so we can expect that these former patients will be treated with respect and dignity.

That, to be fair to the authorities, is the plan. But plans for the vulnerable are all well and good until they collide with the interests of the powerful. And there's no reason to believe that the sale of psychiatric hospitals and all that flows from it will be any different.

The sale makes sense. For 20 years, the emphasis on mental healthcare has moved from institutions to the community. In that time, the number of patients in institutional care has dropped from around 13,000 in the mid-1980s to 3,500 last year. Many of the institutions are old and totally unsuitable to modern healthcare requirements.

With a property market screaming for development space, a killing can be made on some of these hospitals. The site of St Ita's in north Co Dublin, for instance, is believed to be worth more than 750m.

All this money can be ploughed back into mental healthcare, a sector of the health service that has lagged behind, largely because it doesn't make the frantic daily headlines generated by the likes of the A&E debacle.

But what to do with the patients? According to reports, the junior health minister, Tim O'Malley, has committed that all sales will be contingent on sheltered housing or community care facilities being supplied by the developer. Ideally, these facilities will be located on the site of the new developments.

Prior to this, there has often been local opposition to mental-health facilities, but if placed in a new development . . . on the old hospital sites . . .

there could be no complaints.

Where have we heard this before? The 2000 Planning Act had a provision that 20% of all new developments must be allocated to the social and affordable housing sector. Within two years, this was butchered. Developers pay good money to political parties . . . particularly the two in power . . . to ensure their interests receive priority notice. They didn't like the provision and they got their way. Last year, around 80,000 new homes were built, of which only 830 . . .

just over 1% . . . were in the social and affordable category.

Will it be any different with the proposed provision to house and facilitate ex-patients on the lucrative hospital sites?

There is no reason to believe that it will. The government certainly can't be trusted to look after citizens whose interests might be in conflict with those of developers, the sugar daddies of politics.

Alice Leahy, director of Trust, the health service for homeless people, knows a thing or two about the kind of people who end up on the streets. Last month, she told a nurses conference that she fears for the future of patients in these mental hospitals.

"We need special safeguards to protect the human rights of these very vulnerable citizens. Independent advocates should be appointed to look after their interests during the transition to ensure they don't become homeless, " she said.

Somebody needs to fill that role to prevent history recurring. Without proper advocacy on their behalf, many will be thrust further towards the outer shores of society. It's bad enough when humans can't live comfortably in their own heads. Far worse if a wealthy country refuses to house them properly because their welfare is of less import than the size of an already-burgeoning profit margin.