MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Hokitika Guardian, 26 July 1928, Page 4

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS’ REQUEST. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) ■ AUCKLAND, July 25. A joint plea that the passage of the Mental Defectives Bill should he delayed, pending a comprehensive scientific inquiry, was telegraphed to the Minister of Health (Mr Young) tonight by the Professors of Philosophy and of Education -at the Auckland University College, the Canterbury University College, and the Otago University. The telegrams hear the signatures of Professor AY. Anderson and A. B. Fitt (Auckland), C. F‘. Salmond and J. Shelley (Canterbury), and F. AA r . Dunlop and Ramson (Otago). It is understood that what is desired by the Professors who. have sent the request, is an investigation, from the foundations of the principles''embodied in the Bill in relation to ull of the issues involved. CATHOLIC ATTITUDE. WELLINGTON, July 2Y Archbishop Redwood made a statement to the “Post” to-day in regard to two of the provisions in the Mental Defectives’ Amendment Bill, now before Parliament. “The Catholic Church does not blame any reasonable efforts to improve the race,” he., said, “provided such efforts he on the right lines. The spirit of the Church, however, aims rather at extending, then curtailing, the freedom of the individual. The Catholic conscience strenuously guards against the State being unduly exalted at the expose of the family. Consequently, wc Catholics regard with no small misgiving the Bill now before Parliament, in so far as it limits the right of certain people to marry, and propose the sterilisation of those who may be classed as degenerates. It introduces, in our opinion, a very dangerous principle, and is likely to interfere seriously with individual rights. In dealing with racial poisons and social evils, the Church lias her age-long remedies. '1 hoy are radical, and based on moral law, and it must be borne in mind that she knows human nature through and through. She hast experience well nigh two thousand years old, and in every ago and country, in civilised times and barbarous ones, so these problems are not now to her. The root of the difference between a Catholic teaching and modern eugenics, is that ti e Church makes bodily and mental c Iture subservient to morality, while modern eugenics makes morality subservient to bodily and mental culture.”

He asks who arc to judge as to degeneracy ami tlie prevention of marriage. “Wo confess we have no confidence at all in tlie competency or fitness of, boards set up by the State, to decide in matters so intimately connected with morality and individual libevtv.”

With regard to sterilisation, ho said Catholic experience was that the operation was no remedy against inordinate ‘ sexual desire. On the-contrary it might easily Open the door to immoral practises, whic-li would constitute an evil Wei'S© than tlie one to be avoided. The operations also might readily courage Vho abuse of matrimonial rebiti' -r. “We hold that the oprrhtv is m t perniissnble, even with the patient’s consent, except as a necessary menus to bodily health.”