SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ON MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 417, 27 July 1928, Page 8

SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ON MENTAL DEFECTIVES

STATE BILL CRITICISED

PRIMATES OPINION

Investigation rath.r than con demnation is what Arehbi,h o l Aver,ll. Primate of New Zeal,.!’ together with Professor A. 8 F;»T desires before the Mental Defe tives Amendment Rill is allowed i reach the Statute Book. Gener/ congratulations were extended t. the Minister of Health by a bi. meeting in St. Andrew's Hall |,i evening, for the courageous attempt he had made to tack<» , thorny problem.

Both Professor Fitt and the An-l bishop were anxious that soraethirshould be done through legislation to provide a remedy for mental disability but on the other hand they both , t . pressed the conviction that the Bin »< presented to the House of Representa tives was filled with dangerous pos,}' bilities.

Mr. \V. Wallace, chairman of th» Auckland Hospital Board, explain., that the Minister of Health did „ intend his BiH to pass untouched, bcexpected an expression of opinion (tea tho people. The Archbishop saw in the mejtsar, the desirable provision of a half-wa, house for mental cases which arenow occupying our mental inatin. tions and hospitals because there w,no other places for them. There arcmany dangers. however, of nswr. cases which should bo looked after their homes being placed in the Chart of the State. Ho considered It a err ous thing that any child should b placed on tho mentally detective regi-. ter simply because it was declared u be two years behind normality , school—unless there was absolute ar ample proof that tho child should 1 there. Sterilisation was an extreme remcand naturally should be resorted to • extreme cases, and in many instance the really confirmed mentally defe,tives were not in a position to su coherently whether or not they would consent to the operation. It had bee. established, moreover, that sterilise tion was no guarantee of a remedy for immorality, nor a certain prevention .' the spread of disease. He believed u segregating these cases, but the poin of sterilisation must have the asminute consideration before dramaction were resorted to. He was acan opponent of the Bill, but favour. exhaustive investigation in view ot a, dangers. “SCIENTISTS DISAGREE" Professor Fitt, who described He Bill as a “piece of political theon spinning,” added his congratulation* ;. the authorities in their courage u. handling the problem of mental disability; but his plea was for a lgs. drastic measure. Scientists had not agreed upon many of the vital pointand until they could point jhe Unr.r of reasonable certainly at its chiet phases, he believed extreme actio, was undesirable. On the subject «; how much feeble-mindedness was du* to heredity, scientists had consistent: modified their opinions in the past 1' years, and it was possible that these views would be still further modified. He did not approach the situati,as a theorist, but dealt with it slot.. the line of psychological fact. ' He disagreed with the personnel i the proposed board to deal with uki tal cases, because he thought theshould be on it at least one strain!, out psychologist. Scientists were 1 no means agreed upon the question sterilisation, and until there were sor fundamental points upon which thcould be certain, the auihoritishould have adopted a policy of ope door, instead of proposing a Bill t deal with the cases in the most drast: manner. In respect to the classification of th> register, Professor Fitt said that onea person's name was on the register, the stigma was with him for all tin.The mere removal of the name would not remove the stigma. The professor quoted eminent American and English authorities in sir - port of his contentions.

A motion expressing the inadegu.-i'' of the Bill was proposed, but later withdrawn because of the genera! desire to encourage an intelligent investigation.