MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 13 February 1929, Page 7

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

PERSONNEL OF BOARD CRITICISED (By, Telegraph—Special to "The Mail”! AUCKLAND, 12th February. Pointed criticism of the board apt up wider the Mental Defectives Act was passed by Dr. A. I!. Fill, Professor of Education at Auckland University Colfere, an eminent psychologist, who was interviewed this morning by a “Star” reporter. “The board is appointed strictly in accordance with the Act,” said the professor, “but the detailed announcement of membership shows plainly the real weakness. For example, of tlto seven members appointed fivo are (iovtonimont departmental officers. In the appointment of the other two members an opportunity bad been given the Minister of Health to strengthen cer fain very obvious shortcomings bound up with the over-departmental and ovcv medical point of view of the majority of the members. However, .this opportunity was not [used. Two ladies., but undoubtedly excellent social workers, have, been appointed to fill the two places .1 have referred to. One wonders whether, with only two members to play with, th« Department of Mental Hospitals could not have shown a greater breadth of view by appointing one woman social worker member and somo non-medical psychological member, it is just in this complete absence throughout the Act and throughout the first step of its administration (in the appointment of die board) of a truly psychological point of view that the main criticism still holds New Zealand does not stand alone in its refusal to recognise the psychiatrist as a psychologist no matter how well trained or how good his intentions. This protest is fairly general among psychologists. Briefly, the Act and tlu> mode of administering it as exemplified in the appointment of the board, simply carry this branch of human life, historically speaking, well back beyond the beginning of the present centtiry. The position as we have it in New Zealand to-day is so serious that I individually challenge those responsible for the appointing of the board to show to tins satisfaction of psychologists of repute abroad that there is any reasonable degree of psychological training and ability on the board as now constituted.”