MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16706, 25 July 1928, Page 7

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

EXPERTS AT VARIANCE EFFECT OF HEREDITY PROPOSED MEASURE DISCUSSED (Special to Gm Herald.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. Is the cause of mental deficiency traceable solely to environment and associations? The question at present holds a good deal of interest in view of the fact that there is before Parliament a Bill aiming at the sterilisation of mental defectives. .According to the view expressed by Dr. P. Fennclly, LL.D., a past president of the British Association of Practical Psychology, insanity, feeblo-mindedness, and criminality arc never inherited, but are acquired through imitation or suggestion, or both. He contends that no child can be born with a feeble mind, for the very good reason that at birth a child has no mind. Doctors in Christchurch, with a good deal of experience in psychological medicine cannot subscribe to this opinion in full, and point out that in making what they describe as a swooping statement Dr. Fennelly has failed to distinguish between acquired and congenital insanity. As ope authority pointed, out, mental deficiency was quite a different thing from acquired insanity, or feeble-miudorlnoss. Dealing with llto question of heredity, he stated that' there certainly had boon a good deal of work done recently that had gone to prove that heredity was not such a big factor in producing mental diseases as was hitherto thought. “There is no doubt at nil,”*ho said, “that, mental deficiency, as being one form of degeneracy, is inherited. A mentally deficient child may be born of parents who are alcoholic, or possess criminal tendencies, or are epileptic. POWER OF ENVIRONMENT ‘ ‘ Possibly, ’ ’ he continued, ‘ ‘ it would not. be quite right to say that the failings of the big proportion of mental defectives have been inherited. The trouble could be caused by environment, but congenital insanity is due to the defective development of certain of the nerve centres of the brain of the child before it is born, and such a child may be the .offspring of parents who are normally healthy, and whose families are normally healthy. Cases such as this have been known, though they are not common. There is no doubt that environment does influence the mental development of the child as its intellect is the product of the successive experiences it passes through, and environment is certainly one of the most powerful factors that cause acquired insanity. “Degenerate parents, however, are more likely to beget a. mentally defective child than normal parents. There is also a double reason for mental deficiency, heredity and environment. For instance, a man may be alcoholic, but obviously he does not inherit the taste for alcohol from his parents. It is due to some weakness of his will power. Alcoholic parents do not have alcoholic children, thouglfl there may be a weakness in softie other way, or perhaps there rnav be no weakness at all.” Another doctor classified the assertion as absurd. “It has now been definitely established that there are born weaknesses in the brain because that part of the child’s body is not fully developed. Also it does not necessarily imply that defective children are born of defective parents. Certain typos of imbecility make their appearance in children of perfectly healthy patents, and in all grades of society the child is just as liable to mental deformity as it is to physical deformity.”

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT OPPOSITION DEVELOPS (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. When tho House resumed this evening the Leader of the Opposition resumed the debate on the Mental Defectives Bill. He said that all must take an interest in the subject of the Hill. That subject was highly technical, and the House, -w hich contained only one medical man, should deal with it most carefully. He suggested that the evidence to go before the Public Health Committee should be printed and circulated amongst members before the Bill became law. The medical profession was divided on the.subject of mental defectiveness, and bethought the Minister had not given the subject sufficient attention. He lfad dealt ait length with the question -of heredity, but had not given sufficient weight to the influence of environment. This, the speaker thought, had much to do with the mental condition of many people, and he mentioned the industrial conditions in Great Britain as contributing greatly to the mental condition of many of those who might bo classed as mentally defective. He saw danger in the power given to compile a record of mental defectives, as once a person’s name got on to that list, it would be most diflieult to get it He wanted to know what interpretation the Minister put on the term “anti-social condudt,” as mentioned in the Bill. Was any limitation to the placed upon it?

The most serious clause was that which proposed to give power to' sterilise a mental defective. He did not think the Minister hud made out sufficiently his ease in this connection, lie could not find that the advocates of sterilisation were decided about it. He quoted authorities in support of this -contention, while it was clear thatsterilisation was not protective against the spread of venereal disease. Quoting authorities to show that mental definitives came as often from normal parents as from degenerates, lie argued that mlicit' of what was ascribed to heredity was the .result, of wrong environment. '< LEAP IN THE DARK . - Speaking as n layman, Mr. Holland said he preferred segregation to sterilisation, and considering the large part environment played in the development of children he urged the House to turn its attention to improving tlie conditions in which children were born and brought up. In this respect lie quoted what, was beiiig done in Denmark, where they had special classes and special schools for backward children. The Minister: They have sterilisation in Denmark-.

Mr. Holland replied that lie was at the moment discussing the conditions under which children were being brought up. lie urged the Minister to use whatever influence he had with the Government to see that this Dill was hot. translated into law until there had been the fullest inquiry into all.aspects of .the question. • Mr. W. D. Lysnar was disappointed with the Bill. lUi had looked for something butter. ' It should not be rushed through, and should not be passed .except' on' most complete ' evidence. There were too' many facilities -for getting people into mental institutions, and not sufficient for getting them out. ■

Mr. R. \V. Smith* said lie felt tlia't if the Bill passed into law, its, operation should be deferred for at least one year. ’Phis was the lust session, of ’this Parliament, and lie deprecated the passing of a measure of such import in (lie dying (lays of Parliamenit. After another'election (lie people would be better able to make up their minds about it. '

Gf. R. Mason said the wholo purport at the Bill was to prevent certain persons becoming parents. That outlook was limited and incomplete, and the Bill was disappointing in that it did not make provision for helping these weak people to becoming strong-minded, enough to earn their own living. AN ADMIRABLE. BILL.

Mr. 11. Holland congratulated the Minister on bringing forward this admirable Bill, which was based on the report of Dr. Gray. Mr. li. J. Howard said the Bill was the , ambulance at tho foot of the cl ill! instead' of the fence at tho top to prevent people falling over. The H(m. J. A. Young, in reply, said that outside criticism had, on the whole, been more -helpful than that given inside the House. He thought much of the criticism arose from the fact that members had misunderstood’ tho intentions of the Bill, which was an honest effort based on the advice of a competent man. The Bill aimed at providing a means of study of individual weaknesses. At present there woro undoubtedly many in gaols and many in asylums who should not ho there, but in special institutions .set apart for cases of their type’ With regard to hatkward children, ‘ho would be prepared to coin sider any amendment which would safeguard their interests. Dealing with the question of sterilisation, the Minister said it- was not- expected that the adoption of this operation would result in the immediate reduction of mental defectives, but that, together with other reforms, would bring about the desired 1 result. t ■ Dir. 11. E. Holland: Does the Dlinister proposo to stand liy the sterilisation clause?” ■The Minister said he would not make a definite declaration at the moment. He would like to get it through. It was not a party measure, upd if the House wanted it it should go through, because it must come in time if not at once. ‘The country must experience benefit, because mental defectives generally were very prolific. He moved tho second reading of the Bill, which was agreed to and the Bill was, on the motion of tho Minister, referred' to the Public Health Committee, where tho Minister said lie was prepared to consider any suggestions mudo to perfect the measuro. OPINION OF NELSON DOCTOR ‘ ‘LEGISLATION SHOULD GO EVEN FURTHER" A well-known Nelson doctor, in conversation with a Mail representative, expressed lii.s strong approval of the definite move that lias boon mado by the introduction into the House of Representatives of the Mental Defectives Act Amendment Bill. Ho mentioned what had been attempted legislatively in England, and how tho Imperial Par-

liament had rofused to act on the recoinmendations made some 30 years ago by Clouston, the widely-known Edinburgh mental specialist. The reason for the refusal then stated was that it interfered with the liberty of the subject. Recent years, however, had seen a change of outlook in England and he felt sure that the present Imperial Parliament would pay attention to similar recommendations from 'a qualified source. There was no doubt, said the doctor, that sterilisation of certain types was very desirable. He -did not, however, think it was generally understood that sterilisation could he carried out merely as a means of preventing propagation and without any effect on the nature ol> sex of the individual operated upon. Tho patient would not be de-sexed nor have his or her nature altered in any way, and could, except for inability to have children, live a perfectly normal and, if desired, married life. Of course, in the case of vicious sexual offenders it would be necessary to go further and actually de-sex them. The proposals, in the doctor’s opinion, did not go far trio ugh, and he thought that' -Compulsory sterilisation should apply to alii persons classed as feebleminded, and also to positive T.B. people. With tuberculosis in women sterilisation would be more of a protection for tho women themselves* for it almost invariably happened that a T.B. woman died from the disease very quickly after child-birth. With this disease tho tendency tc> contract it and’ not the disease ‘ itself was hereditary. The doctor again emphasised tho difference hetween sterilisation, which prevented procreation and which in iio wav affected the individual. ajnd de-sexing, which would bp advisable to alter the nature of certain vicious types. The provision in tho Bill for keeping mentally defective persons registered ami under observation was, he thought, an excellent plan.