Boy given ECT—’grave injustice’

Press, 24 May 1977, Page 1

Boy given ECT—’grave injustice’

PA Wellington A 15-year-old boy was detained at Lake Alice Hospital illegally and given electro-convulsive therapy against his will, according to the recently retired Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles. The boy’s parents complained to the Ombudsman after their son had appeared in court without their knowledge and been given ECT treatment while in hospital as a “voluntary” patient. Sir Guy found that decisions by officers of the Department of Health and Department of Social Welfare had caused the boy a grave injustice. The boy was originally admitted to Lake Alice for psychiatric assessment after he had appeared in court. A Magistrate had placed him under the supervision of a social worker because he had set fire to a cupboard at his school. The boy’s parents asked for him to be returned home from the hospital and when home leave was granted they refused to let him go back. But he returned to the hospital himself, saying he was afraid of his father. At various times the boy was held in a room by himself, and when his attitude and behaviour deteriorated the doctors decided to give him ECT treatment. “Neither the Social Welfare officers responsible for the boy nor his parents were aware that he was receiving or had been receiving ECT treatment,” said Sir Guy in his report. "As far as the boy was concerned, I discovered from discussions and correspondence, from his parents, and from interviews conducted by my staff that he was unhappy with the treatment he was receiving. “He did not like being locked up in the seclusion room, nor the medication, and it seems clear to me from all the evidence that he feared the ECT treatments which were administered against his will.” Sir Guy’s inquiry had no connection with the case of a 13-year-old Niuean boy, which was investigated by a commission of inquiry earlier this year. The second child in a family of nine children, the 15-year-old boy first became involved with the Social Welfare Department when he was caught thieving. This did not result in any court action, but when he set fire to a store cup* board at his school he was brought before a Magistrate in the Children and Young Persons Court and placed under the supervision of a social worker.

The Magistrate said he should have psychiatric tests to see if he was disturbed. At first the boy's parents resented the fact that the Social Welfare Department had some control over their son but the social worker persisted with his home and school visits and eventually won their trust. The boy settled down at school for a while, but over the next year he was involved in more trouble and the authorities suggested that he needed psychiatric help. His father was upset about this, saying that the boy might have behavioural problems but he was not mentally disordered. But he did agree to his being assessed, and was persuaded that the best way to do this was to have him admitted to Lake Alice Hospital. Sir Guy found what he called “serious irregularities in legal procedure’’ over the boy’s admission to hospital. “In mv opinion, neither the hospital superintendent nor the staff had sufficient legal authority to detain the boy against his wishes or those of his parents while thev retained guardianship. “His continued detention in Lake Alice Hospital was, in my view, unlawful.” But Sir Guy was most concerned about the use of ECT on the boy. “ECT can arouse appro* hensions among some patients as it did in this case, and I take the view that this form of treatment should never be administered to a protesting patient. "It is my opinion that the actions of the hospital authorities in this matter not only were unreasonable, but also may have been contrary to law.” Sir Guy’s own feeling was that the use of ECT in all but the most exceptional circumstances should be eschewed. Recommendations: Page three Backgrounder: Page 19