It sounds like they're saying that if someone is committed to a mental institution, rehabilitation could be a bad idea because it's just as likely that they're not fit for society.

note: not agreeing with the above points, simply trying to interpret them.

I'm saying if we make unexamined assumptions about who's "fit for society" it's easy to sacrifice non-normative people on the alter of social harmony.

What is viewed as requiring rehabilitation can reflect neuroses endemic to the broader cultural context, not merely or necessarily the dysfunction of the institutionalized individual. It's a two-way mirror.

Of course this concern runs exactly contra to the "medical authoritarian" one further up. Frankly, which is it that means a successful program as the article notes shouldn't be continued?

When certain behaviors are thought worthy of institutionalization, it may reflect a narrowness of heart and mind in the majority rather than a social danger.