THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 – – – P.O. Box 44 Office – – – – Oxford Place THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1928. THE SOCIALLY DEFECTIVE.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 248, 2 August 1928, Page 6

THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 - - - P.O. Box 44 Office - - - - Oxford Place THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1928. THE SOCIALLY DEFECTIVE.

NEW Zealand is a young country, and has made many experiments in social legislation some of which have turned out satisfactorily and others quite the reverse. But even youth should not go to inordinate lengths, but should acknowledge some limit to its daring. The Mental Defectives Bill is frankly experimental legislation inasmuch as it has no clear warranty of scientific and psychological authority ; indeed, our Parliament is in the process of legislating in regard to a problem which is the most abstruse and baffling one that faces our mental and medical scientists and psychologists to-day. The question of how to deal with the socially defective is the most difficult of all the problems confronting civilisation. That no solution is yet forthcoming is unfortunate to the last degree, not only from the point of view of racial physical soundness and mental sanity but also on account of the tremendous burden thrown upon the taxpayers by the drain upon their resources for the upkeep of defectives. Nevertheless, if we do not know the road to a given goal, striking out in the wrong direction will not only fail to get us to our destination but will take us further away into all sorts of horrible morasses and quagmires and finally lead to disaster. We had much better spend more time in spying out the country before we start on the journey proper.

The proposal to sterilise defectives is a highly dangerous one, and the provision that the consent of the patieht himself or herself or the guardians must first be obtained does not provide an adequate safeguard. It is easy to see that if these persons opposed the wishes of those in authority their interests might be prejudiced. The fear of even unexpressed consequences may cause persons concerned to agree to a dangerous procedure. There are forms of intimidation other than open picketing. How far has an individual the right of mutilation of any part of the body except for the purpose of saving the body itself? Is it right that pressure should be brought to bear by the State in a contrary direction ?

But the foregoing are general observations only : the main objection lies in the fact that the sterilisation advocacy is based upon false premises. In the first place it is commonly assumed that the unfit procreate at a much greater rate than do normal people. This belief is founded upon investigations of a comparatively few cases, such as that of the notorious Jukes family. The Birth Control Report published in 1925 states that “ there is no solid evidence of an increase in the number of those who can be described as unfit, and no evidence of a decline in the average physique of the people.” Indeed, it is far more likely that the conditions of living—-which are more properly the province for Governmental inquiry—are mainly responsible for the existence and perpetuation of the unfit.

The whole subject has been fought out as far as knowledge and experiment could take it in older countries, notably in Great Britain and America. A recent report produced in Great Britain by the Central Association for Mental Welfare, a body specially competent to voice an opinion, is decidedly against sterilisation. Lange’s investigations proved that the same families produced cases of insanity and also men who became Cabinet Ministers, ambassadors, bishops, scientists and poets. It is also well known to readers of biography that some of the greatest men of genius as composers, men of letters and leaders of thought would, under such a Bill as is ' now being discussed, have been classed as mental defectives and treated accordingly—

to the everlasting detriment of the world’s store of intellectual wealth. Writing in the London Spectator, Dr. L. A. Parry, M.D., F.R.C.S., sums U P by saying that those who have given the matter the greatest attention are advocates of segregation and are opposed to sterilisation, and he gives his reasons, point by point, for his conclusions.

Sterilisation does not improve the mental condition of the patient; it does not make a criminal defective into an honest citizen, nor an unemployable one into a good workman. Therefore, with the exception of the power of procreation, the position is not bettered, and if sterilisation must be followed by segregation, is it worth the grave risks involved?

In America every possible practice has been followed in one State or

another. Nearly everywhere it has proved a complete failure, and the Americans, being a practical people, for all their proneness for half-baked theories, have given up the false panacea. Sterilisation laws were enacted in 15 States ; in five of these the law has been declared to be unconstitutional ; in New York it has been definitely repealed ; in seven it has, for all practical purposes, been ignored ; in two only has any real attempt been made to carry it out. In Indiana about 80 people every year, and in California about 200, have been sterilised, but these have been chiefly males who have been at the time inmates of State institutions.

Advocates of the Bill in New Zealand make the fundamental error of supposing that mentally defective children are mainly the offspring of mentally-defective parents. This is rot the finding of competent investigators, for the proportion of children who are the offspring of defective parents is actually a very small one. Most of the children are begotten from neurotic stock, and it is out of the question to bring them under the provisions of the Bill, for they comprise the majority of the population of any country living under modern conditions of civilisation. Hence we come to the startling conclusion that if every mentally defective person in New Zealand were sterilised the proportion of defectives in the next generation would not be appreciably lessened.

The Government would be wise to take the advice of Messrs. Peter Fraser and Parry to go slow—yes, very slow indeed !