Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Term Omitted From Mental Health Bill

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, August 16. Because of allegations that the wording of last year’s Mental Health Bill could result in the committal to a mental hospital of someone with unorthodox political views the term “psychopathic” has been dropped from the latest amendment, introduced in Parliament today.

The Minister of Health (Mr McKay) said the purpose of the legislation was to simplify procedures that would bring real benefits to psychiatric hospitals.

The new Mental Health Bill consolidates various amendments made to mental health legislation since the Mental Health Act of 1911. The terms “hospital," “psychiatric hospital," and “special patient" have been substituted for the former terms of “institution," “public institution,” and “security patient" A new sub-clause allows a psychiatrist employed in a psychiatric hospital to exercise, in respect of Informal and committed patients, the power and duties of the superintendent without the requirement of express delegation. POLICY ON CONTROL The present policy of the Government is for departmental psychiatric hospitals to pass to hospital board control, and new sub-clauses point to gradual integration during a transitional period.

Clause 16 counter-balances the complete freedom of clause 15, which allows admission of patients to psychiatric hospitals without formality. It also gives the medical superintendent a readily available procedure for preventing the departure from hospital of any person whose mental state deteriorates so that it becomes apparent that in his own or the community’s interest he should be detained.

If the person is not within the hospital, whether his absence is temporary or permanent, an application for a reception order under this subsection shall not be made for more than seven days after he has left hospital. Ope clause withdrawn from the new bill deals with the administration of estates of mentally infirm or mentally subnormal people. The omission of this caluse will ensure that the control of estates of informal patients in mental hospitals shall not

be more liable to be taken away than Is the control of the estates of patients in public hospitals. TEMPORARY ORDERS

The admission of patients under a temporary order for 62 hours on one medical certificate has been authorised because of the difficulties which can arise in country districts or late at night in getting a second certificate. The present bill has further clarified this by including the provision that the certifying doctor must state in writing that it has been “impracticable since the expediency of immediate admission became apparent for any other medical practitioner to be consulted.” He must show in writing why he feels admission is urgent Previously the superintendent had to notify the registrar of a Magistrate’s Court within 48 hours of the reception of a patient under the pre-reception order procedure. The superintendent will

now have an opportunity of treating and discharging the patient before a reception order is considered. The bill provides that the notification is to be given within 21 days, but if the patient or a relative requires that the notification be sent it must be sent within 48 hours. CENSORSHIP OF MAIL

The present law allows censorship of patients’ mail, as does the English Mental Health Act, but under the new bill, censorship of the mail of informal patients will not be permitted. One point which has not been altered from the 1967 bill has been criticised in some quarters. This is the lack of provision for a patient to appeal for his own discharge. Whether a patient should have right to make a direct appeal for his discharge may, to some extent, be a matter of professional opinion. Clause 63 allcsvs that any letter written to a Minister of the Crown, a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, the Director of the Division of Mental Health, a district inspector (under the Mental Health Act), or an official visitor shall be forwarded immediately, unopened.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19680817.2.101

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31760, 17 August 1968, Page 14

Word Count
644

Term Omitted From Mental Health Bill Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31760, 17 August 1968, Page 14

Term Omitted From Mental Health Bill Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31760, 17 August 1968, Page 14

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert