H.—7.

1933. NEW ZEALAND.

MENTAL HOSPITALS OF THE DOMINION (REPORT ON) FOR 1932.

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly pursuant toSection 78 of the Mental Defectives Act, 1911

The Director-General to the Hon. J. A. Young, Minister in Charge of the Department of Mental Hospitals. Bm,— Wellington, Ist July, 1933. 1 have the honour to submit the annual report upon the work of the Department of Mental Hospitals for the year ending 31st December, 1932. At the close of the year there were 7,194 persons on the registers of the Department, including 44 at Ashburn Hall private licensed institution, and 167 who were on probation in the care of friends Or relatives. Of the 6,683 persons actually in residence in Government institutions at the end of the year, 6,417 were detained under reception orders, while 266 had been admitted at their own request as voluntary boarders. During the year 1,396 patients were committed to the various hospitals and 325 voluntary boarders applied for care and treatment, the total admissions showing a slight decrease (10) compared with last year. We were able to discharge 759 patients and boarder-, or 54-3 per cent, calculated upon the admissions, but of that number only 599, or 42-9 per cent., could be regarded as having " recovered." This recovery-rate is much in accord with that reported from other countries whose figures are available for comparison. Our discharge-rate is high, and this year our death-rate is the lowest recorded for twenty-four years; between these and the total admissions there is always a balance, more or less permanently, added in our populat ion. In my last report 1 showed that the average annual permanent accretion to our population was 239 ; this average is raised to "212 by the inclusion of t he figures for the current year. Discharge and Probation. It will be noted that during the year we discharged 7:V.) persons, or 54'3 pel' cent, calculated upon the number admitted. In addition, at the end of the year 467 of those on our registers were living outside the institutions on probation in the. care of their friends. These figures show clearly that no effort is being spared to restore the patients In their friends if such a course is at all reasonably possible. The discharge or release on probation of patients is one of the heaviest responsibilities which fall to the lot of a medical superintendent, and I am glad to record by the figures quoted above the manner in which this duty is being carried out. On the one hand there is the urge to premature discharge or release mi probation because of the shortage of accommodation supported by the not unnatural importunity of anxious relatives, and on the other hand there lies the duty of protecting l lie safety of the community and the real interests of the patient concerned, and in these circumstances it is rather amazing that untoward incidents have been so few and far between in the whole history (if the Depart nienl , These reflections have been partly prompted by one tragic occurrence during the year when a female patient on probation caused the death of her child, the hospital authorities being completely exonerated at the subsequent Coroner's inquest. Whilst such occurrences cause a painful public emotion they must be regarded in relationship to the whole question of modern menial hospital policy, and not be allowed to stampede us into using remedies which would be worse than the ills they might purport to cine. Discharge, probation, and parole are all attended, with some degree of risk, but the advantages of granting as much freedom as possible to patients are so manifest to those of us who have experienced

I—H. 7.