Health Dept doubts Powles report

Press, 31 May 1977, Page 22

Health Dept doubts Powles report

PA Wellington ' The Health Department has questioned a finding that a 15-year-old boy was unlawfully detained at Lake Alice Hospital. The department joined the Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Walker) in criticising the report by the former Chief Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles). Sir Guy had criticised the two Government departments and said that the boy, who had received shock treatment, had suffered a “grave injustice” after cumulative actions and decisions by departmental officers. The Health Department! earlier made only a brief! comment on the report. But the Deputy DirectorGeneral of Health (Dr R. A. Barker) said that Sir Guy had said that the boy had been unlawfully detained at Lake Alice. “The department questions this. A reception order was, in fact, made and put into operation until a defect in the application papers was discovered,’’ Dr Barker said. Sir Guy’s summary had not made it clear that the defect was discovered by the Director of Mental Health at the Health Department who then brought it to the notice of the Ombudsman and the hospital superintendent, said Dr Barker. The boy’s status was immediately changed to i that of an informal patient. Dr Barker said most patients in psychiatric hospitals were not now admitted as informal patients. The Health Department regarded this as highly desirable. “Any of Sir Guy’s suggestions which would lead to an increase in the number of committed patients would be regarded by the department as a retrograde step.” he said. Dr Barker said that some

'of Sir Guy’s comments and : findings appeared to step outside matters of administra- : tion into areas of medical judgment—“fields outside the ! jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.” “Nowhere in the report is there anything to suggest ■ that child psychiatry is a special branch of psychiatry requiring special training,” Dr Barker said. Only one of three physchiatric opinions obtained by Sir Guy had been from a child psychiatrist. Dr Barker also defended the use of electro convulsive (treatment. “The department's (advice from child and genleral psychiatrists was that IE.C.T. was “an important, i safe, and beneficial treatment ■ in certain psychiatric conditions occurring in the young and old.” Dr Barker said there was rarely any indication of unmodified E.C.T, (given without anaesthetic or muscle relaxant) in children and , young people. When it might ' be necessary there must be full justification. The use of modified E.C.T. must remain a medical decision. Sir Guy’s suggestion that consideration be given to controlling it by legislation was unacceptable; and it was , difficult to see from the psychiatric opinions quoted how he arrived at some of this conclusions. Dr Barker said. The Chief Ombudsman considered the administration office would have received the formal assent of the Social Welfare Department as the boy’s guardians. “However, a guardian may make arrangements under section 15 of the Mental Health Act, 1969, for the treatment and admission of a patient under his or its care to a psychiatric hospital.

“The fact that the Department of Social Welfare made arrangements constituted consent to treatment on the judgment of the medical superintendent,” Dr Barker said. “This is not to say that the department believes relations between its officers and the parents or guardians should be restricted to the' letter of the law. The department encourages the fullest possible consultation in each particular case.” The Opposition spokesman on Health, Mr J. L. Hunt, said that the report raised very disturbing questions about the adequacy of legislation on tire rights of disturbed children and the whole standard of mental health care for the young, “The Government’s at-j tempts to sweep it away are nothing short of appalling,”: he said. He was deeply concerned that the Ministers responsible had reacted by attempting to discredit the findings on petty grounds and were refusing to face up to “the implications of this very disturbing document.” “Are they condoning a situation where a boy was taken from his home to hospital, and then put in seclusion, without any authority? Do they accept the use of j electric shock treatment.! without an anaesthetic or; muscle relaxant?” It was “spurious” to claim that Sir Guy was unqualified to comment on medical matters. Mr Hunt also said he totally rejected the sort of thinking that assumed all was well; in any profession and that informed lay investigation was unnecessary. Labour called for immediate action on the recommendations of the Powles report and an immediate review of: the whole field of psychiatric! help for the young. ■