MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 25 July 1928, Page 7

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

DEBATE ON THE BILL.

THE OPPOSITION’S CRITICISM QUESTION OF .STERILISATION- | (By. Telegraph —Press Association.) W ELLINGTON, July 24./ The debate on- the Mental Defectives Bill was resumed in the House or Representatives this evening by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that all must take an interest in the subject of the Bill- That subject was hig-nly technical; and the House, which contained only one medical man, should deal with it most carefully. Mr. Holland suggested that the evidence to be taken before the Public Health Committee should be printed and circulated amongst the members before the Bill became . law. The medical profession was divided on the! subject of mental defectiveness, and he thought the Minister had not given the subject sufficient attention. He- bad dealt at length with - the question of heredity, but had not given sufficient, weight to the influence of environment. This, Mr. Holland thought, had much to do with the mental conduct of many people . . . ; _ 1 The industrial conditions in Great Britain were' mentioned by Mr. Holland as contributing greatly to the mental condition of many of those who might be classed a-s mentally defective. He saw danger in. power being given to. compile a record l of mental defectives as, once a person’s name got on to that list, it would be most difficult to get it off. He wanted to know what interpretation the Minister put on the term “anti-social conduct” as mentioned in the Bill. "Was any limitation to be placed' upon it? The most serious clause was; that which proposed to give power to sterilise the mentally defective. He did not think the Minister had made out sufficiently his case in this! connection. He could not find that the advocates of sterilisation were decided about it.

Quoting authorities to show that mental defectives came as often from! normal parents as from degenerates, Mr. Holland .argued that much of what was ascribed to -heredity was really the result of wrong environment. As a layman he preferred segregation to sterilisation, and, considering the large part environment played in the development of children, lie urged the House to turn its attention to improving the conditions in which children were bom and brought up. lii this respect he quoted what- was being done in Denmark, where they li-ad special schools- for backward children. The Minister: They have sterilisation in Denmark!

Mr. Holland replied that he was at the moment discussing the conditions under which the children were, being brought up. He urged the Minister to use whatever influence he had with the- Government to see that this Bill was not translated into law until there had been the fullest inquiry into all aspects of the question. Mr. W. D. Lysnar said he was disappointed with the Bill. He had looked for something better. It was a leap in the dark. It should no-t be rushed through, and should not be passed exceot on the most complete evidence. There were too many facilitis for getting people into mental institutions and not -sufficient to- get them out. .

Mr. It. W. Smith (Waimarine) said he felt that if the Bill were passed into law' its operation should be deferred for at least one year. This was the last session of this Parliament, and he deprecated passing, ai measure of such- import in the dying days of a- parliament. After another election the. people- would be better able to make uu their minds about it.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) said the whole purport of the Bill was to prevent certain persons from becoming parents. That outlook was limited and incomplete, and the Bill wasdisappointing in that it did not make provision to help weak people to become strong willed enough to earn their own living. Mr. H. H. Holland (Christchurch North) congratulated the Minister on bringing forward this admirable Bill, based as it was on the report of Dr., Gray. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said the Bill was an ambulance ■at the foot of the cliff instead of a fence at the top to protect the people from falling over. REPLY TO CRITICISM. The Hon. J. A. Young, in reply, said that the outside criticism on the whole had been more helpful than that given inside the House. He thought much of the criticism arose from the fact that members hadi misunderstood the intentions of the Bill, which was an honest effort based' on the advice of competent men. The Bill aimed at providing the means to study individual weaknesses. At present there were undoubtedly many in the gaols and many in the asylums’ who should be not there, hut in special- institutions set apart for cases of their type. With regard to backward children, the Minister would lie prepared to consider any amendment which would safeguard their interests. _ Dealing with the question of sterilisation, he said it was not expected that the adoption of these operations would result in an immediate reduction of mental defectives, hut that together with other reforms it would l bring about the desired result. -x Mr. Holland: Does the Minister propose to stand by the. sterilisation clause ? , The Minister' said he would not make a definite declaration at that moment. He would like to get the Bill through. It was not a. party measure, and if the House wanted it it should go through, because sooner or later it must come. In time, if not at once, the country must experience l>enefit. because mental defectives genovollv were very prolific. He then! moved the second reading, which- was agreed to. and the Bill was. on the motion of the Minister, referred to the Public Health Committee, where, the Minister said, he was prepared to consider any suggestions- - made to perfect the measure. The House rose at- 11.30 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.