I'm not demanding perfection. I'm literally just asking "what would be different this time", and the only answer I'm getting is "we know better this time around".
Seriously: the reason asylums were so prone to abuse in the past was not because the people running them didn't know better.
You don't think there's anything different between the 1960s and today? Like, nothing at all?
For one thing, there is a history of abuses in asylums, so people would know to look out for it. I confess I don't know every detail of the history of asylums, but hopefully we can agree:
1. Asylums existed, there was abuse
2. At some point the abuse was discovered and brought to light.
3. The people in power eventually shut down the asylums, partly because of the abuse.
So we know that some mechanism for detecting abuse existed. How about we do whatever that was earlier on and formalize it? We know that there is some authority that has the power to shut down asylums, so instead of that authority shutting them down, how about it just removes people who are committing abuse? This isn't rocket science.
Like, at some point in the past bakers would put sawdust in their bread to cut cost. Obviously, this was bad and they knew it was bad. But we didn't just say "Oh well, I guess we have to outlaw bakeries. There's no possible way we could ever stop them from putting sawdust in the bread". No, we created the FDA, started doing inspections and fining people and today you can buy bread anywhere in the US and be confident that there's no sawdust in it. Clearly, problems like this have solutions if people are willing to try instead of just giving up.
Seriously: the reason asylums were so prone to abuse in the past was not because the people running them didn't know better.