MENTAL DEFECTIVES BILL.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17485, 20 August 1928, Page 9

MENTAL DEFECTIVES BILL.

(To the Editor.) Sir—ln view of the widespread mis- >"■ conceptions that prevalent as to the precise import of the Mental De lectives -Amendment Bill, now before Parliament, the Auckland local exccutive of the Australasian Association of Psychology and Philosophy desire that the following points should be clearly apprehended by the public. As to the points in the Bill which we regard as open to strong criticism and objection we would mention these: —(i) It proposes to affix the brand of mental deficiency upon many persons, including young children, chiefly on the verdict of practitioners in the field of insanity, (2) it brings school children, retarded for whatever reason for a period of two years, under the attentions of the Mental Deficiency Board; (3) it removes children who are merely dull but not mentally disordered from the educational into the psychopathic atmosphere; (4) through the lack of definite standards of decision, exemption from registration is made unduly dependent on the possession of financial "resources adequate to retain specialist witnesses; (5) the Bill greatly increases the poweis of departmental officials, over the lives of individuals while diminishing the public control of these officials; (6) it promises to submit decent families devotedly caring for a “deficient” member (and securing all the legitimate objects of the Bill already) to domiciliary visitation an'd interference by Government officials, thus threatening to undermine parental responsibility; (7) in general it attempts to impose a narrowly biological control over society at the risk of seriously impairing the functioning of the normal and efficient moral forces; (8) -it makes provision for sterilisation without reckoning with the strong possibility of its causing greater evils than those it purports to cure; (9) its sterilization clauses allow this operation to.be authorised with the consent of a “defective” minor’s guardian or other person hi whose care, oustody, or control he is. This, thf public should note, may be a stepparent or cousin; it may also be an officer of the Child Welfare Department to the exelusiin of the natural parent. s Apart from these positive defects, notice should be taken of what the Bill omits- —(1) it is not a measure to establish a “half-way house” between the prison cud the insane hospital; (2) it is not a measure to provide penal machinery for dealins with sexual crimes; (3) it fails to specify the detailed machinery for the identification and 'assificalion of mental defectives, and thus gives no guarantee of a sound, system and no opportunity for effective public criticism of the detailed procedure to be adopted if the Bill be passed; (4) it thus affords no indication of the probable costs of administration, but threatens to be ex- ' tremery expensive in operation; (5) it fails to define clearly the new class of “social defectives” which it introduces, 1 thus putting at the mercy of the (Registration Board all and sundry whe cannot be brought within the recognised definitions of mental deficiency; (6) it offers no procedure whatever for distinguishing between the different classes of epileptics, many of whom should obviously not be placed on its register of mental defectives; (7) p will not touch the great mass of the causes of delinquency; (8) it.fails to penalise malicious reports to the Director-General regarding the mental capacity of individuals. In view of all these considerations we consider that our strong opposition to the Bill is thoroughly justified in the interests cf the whole, community —I am, etc., W. ANDERSON, Chairman.