H.—3la

20

although propagation by defectives is one of the causes of mental deficiency, nevertheless this is by no means the only social menace attaching to their presence in the community. It left unguided and unprotected, their lack of stability and control may lead them to commit serious crime, such as theft, arson, assault, and even murder. Their inability to maintain economic independence results in vagrancy and destitution. Their helplessness in the face of obstacles frequently brings about their complete collapse at the first rebuff which they have to meet. The interest of the community can only be adequately protected by the segregation of a considerable proportion of these persons in suitable institutions. A sterilized defective would not be any less liable to these happenings than would one who was unsterilized. A defective woman, from the fact of her being sterilized and incapable of bearing children, would be more prone to illicit intercourse, to adopt a life of prostitution, and to spread venereal disease. It follows that segregation would still be needed in the case of a very large proportion of defectives, but, if they are segregated, sterilization is unnecessary. On the other hand, there can be very little doubt that any general adoption of sterilization would, in actual practice, lead to the non-segregation of a large number of defectives who should be under care and thus to an increase of the foul evils mentioned." Having thus stated the arguments against sterilization the Committee must now present the other side of the question. In the first place, it is evident that, as far as the United States is concerned, the extension of sterilization of the mentally defective has received a grave set-back by reason of the declaration of the Supreme Court of the United States that the laws in certain States permitting sterilization are unconstitutional. This ruling, of course, does not apply to New Zealand. Further, opponents of sterilization ask to be shown its good results; but obviously the results cannot emerge in one generation or in a comparatively short space of time, but only in the ultimate lessening of the proportion of mental defectives in the community by diminishing the hereditary supply. There is no doubt also that much confusion exists in the minds of the public as to the meaning of sterilization and desexualization or castration. The process of sterilization, as has been shown, involves only a simple and safe operation and has the sole effect of preventing reproduction. Sterilization, therefore, should not be loaded with the objections which apply to the far-reaching effects of castration. The former, unlike the latter, is not prone to produce harmful effects upon the mind or morals of the sterilized individual. The assertion that " sterilization at the present time is not a practical proposition " is difficult to understand. It is certainly practicable, and is as likely to be favoured as opposed by public opinion, especially that section of the public that understands the difference between simple sterilization and desexualization. As regards the suggestion that sterilization may lead to new foci of venereal disease, it must be borne in mind that the unsterilized feeble-minded are already prone to sexual promiscuity, and there is no evidence that sterilization would increase this tendency. The opponents of sterilization offer as an alternative only permanent segregation to prevent the transmission of mental defect. It is evident, however, that the cost of the segregation of all mental defectives capable of reproducing other mental defectives would be exceedingly heavy. The Committee advocates powers of segregation and of sterilization, these powers to be placed in the hands of the Eugenic Board, under proper safeguards and the right of appeal. Sterilization in suitable cases is not a high price to pay for liberty. There are in our mental hospitals to-day men and women who suffer from recurrent insanity, who are admitted to the mental hospitals from time to time and discharged when they are better, and in the intervals between their admission cohabit with their wives or husbands, as the case may be, and bring more defective children into the world. If discretionary power were given to the Board as suggested it should, and no doubt would, be exercised cautiously and tentatively. Sterilization gives the patient liberty to do useful work in the community, is less drastic than segregation for life, and on the whole a much slighter interference with the rights of the individual, which are surely subordinate in such cases to the rights of the State. There are, of course, numbers of mental defectives who can never be allowed their liberty, and in the case of these the question of sterilization need not be considered. There are many cases of mentally defective girls, liberated from institutions in New Zealand for the purpose of engaging in domestic service or other work, returning afterwards the mothers of illegitimate children, probably also mentally defective. Unless such are to be maintained for years as wards of the State in institutions, should they ever again be allowed their liberty unless they undergo the operation of sterilization ? This is the question : Can the propagation of mental defect by mental defectives and the debasing of the race thereby be greatly checked if not completely prevented ? The answer is assuredly, Yes, by segregation and by sterilization. The Committee recommends that both methods be placed in the hands of the Eugenic Board, with powers to discriminate as to which method is the more suitable for each individual case. The two methods are complementary, not antagonistic, and suitable safeguards for the liberty of the subject are provided. The Committee recommends that the Eugenic Board should be given the power in suitable cases t" make sterilization a condition of release from any of the institutions under the charge of the Department of Mental Hospitals or removal of their names from the register on probation, but that in no case should the operation be performed without the consent of parents or guardians of the persons concerned. The Committee consider that the persons so operated upon and liberated should be released on probation and kept under supervision for a reasonable period, and that they should be returned to