Law Framed to Check Propagation of Unfit

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 411, 20 July 1928, Page 16

Law Framed to Check Propagation of Unfit

MENTAL DEFECTIVES BILL

BIG PROBLEM FACED

(THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) 1 jgWELLINGTON, To-day. |§E Far-reaching proposals to deal with mental defectives, including i even sterilisation, when this extreme measure is thought neces- &Z sary, are confined in the Mental Defectives Amendment Bill, which was brought up for second reading this evening.

Sketching the proposals set out in , the Bill, and dealing particularly with ; efforts to restrict the reproduction of < the feeble-minded, the Hon. O. J. ' Young said that the Dominion had a : serious problem to face with regard : to the propagation of the unfit. He cited the cases of six families, in which there was a strain of mental weakness. In the first case both the father and mother were feeble minded, and eight of their nine children were now in the care of the State. Cousins of this family also were affected. Another mentally defective pair had produced 11 children, all lifelong charges on the State, which would have to pay £16,000 to keep them to the age of 21. So far the father had contributed to this expenditure only £6. In a fourth case one of the children was a drunkard and another a prostitute. Mr .Fraser: That is not necessarily a sign of mental weakness. Mr. Young said that it showed a tendency of the feeble-minded to gravitate to wrong channels. Mr. W. S. Glenn asked: “Why cite the drunkard.'* Mr. Young went on to quote cases of the remaining children of this fourth union. All the children were associated with immoraliti', intemperance, and crime, while their children in turn were feeble-minded. It was difficult to assess the extent of the State’s commitments through such unions. Other cases quoted by the Minister to illustrate the undesirable fecundity of the feeble-minded revealed pathetic, even revolting, features, along with the startling figures involved through the State’s inability for the care of deficient offspring. In support of the clause providing for sterilisation he quoted overseas experience in which sterilisation had been found effective and practicable. “The Bill is an honest effort to solve a great problem,” said Mr. Young. Mr. G. W. Forbes: Does it go further than the English law? Mr. Young: Yes, it does. The debate reached an unexpected termination. Mr. Holland asked that time be given for a full discussion. “We are anxious,” he said, “to make this debate a non-party discussion of a high order, and we can’t make it that at short notice.” Mr. Forbes endorsed this view. Mr. Coates, in reply, said that previous experience had not filled one with enthusiasm to meet the convenience and desires of other members. Mr. Forbes: Well go on with the Bill then. Don’t make such a great favour of it.

Mr. Coates: Apparently the cap fits. He added that he was willing-, however, to agree to the request, at the risk of being considered an incompetent leader. The House therefore adjourned at 11.15.