The Press TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1961. Mental Hospital Admission

Press, Volume C, Issue 29556, 4 July 1961, Page 14

The Press TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1961. Mental Hospital Admission

Because it would obviate, in most cases, the formal committal of a patient by a magistrate, the Mental Health Amendment Bill now before Parliament proposes a humane and just reform of the law. It is similar to a bill introduced last year but not proceeded with. This year non-partisan support should be given to assure its passage. It is to be hoped that a more comprehensive rewriting of the 50-year-old act to remove its archaic atmosphere will not be too long delayed. Though the amending bill has useful provisions relating to voluntary patients and outpatients, the important clauses are those providing for a more informal method of admission to mental hospitals where a patient may not himself see the need for treatment The disadvantages of the present method of committal by a magistrate are twofold. First the use of a Court process tends to create an impression of criminality. Second, committal automatically creates certain disabilities for a patient. For instance, his property is transferred to the control of the Public Trustee, he loses his driving licence, his motor-car insurance may become void, and he forfeits membership!

of some public bodies. Yet although not realising that he -equires hospital treatment he may be quite able to manage his own affairs and he may recover quickly from his illness. The new bill would eliminate these disadvantages by providing that doctors and relatives could arrange for the admission of patients without committal by a magistrate.

A magistrate would be involved only where a patient or his relatives did not agree with the opinion of a medical superintendent that the patient should remain for further treatment Actually there is no reason why this disagreement should be referred to a magistrate for settlement, since he is in this field a layman and may-have no competence to express an opinion. If it is thought necessary to have some recourse against the opinion of a medical superintendent the better method would be adoption of the United Kingdom precedent of an independent mental health tribunal consisting of a lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a psychiatric case worker. However, the issue is one that is not likely often to arise, and improvement in the procedure can probably be left until the principal act is revised.