Library Collections: Document: Full Text

In Washington, D.C., there recently has been a case known as Rouse vs. Cameron -- Dr. Cameron being a world-famous psychiatrist who is the Superintendent of St. Elizabeth's Hospital. A particular person being confined there -- confined as a mentally ill person against his will, went to court and claimed that he was confined illegally because he had been confined there for treatment but was not getting any treatment. The court upheld this view and significantly was supported by the American Orthopsychiatric Association -- one of our most distinguished multidisciplinary professional organizations of which our leading child psychiatrists and adult psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and therapists, are members. The Association filed a brief as friend of the court pointing out that they agreed with the main point that was on debate: Is it feasible for a court to arrogate upon itself the right to decide what is treatment or not? In a very reasonable and well reasoned, rather conservative way, they said very definitely the court can establish a certain frame of reference as constituting the minimum essentials of treatment and anything outside of it just is not treatment. Of course, once such a court decision is issued, the administration has a mandate far stronger than any mandate even the combined voluntary organizations could ever lay on the desk of the Governor.

It just so happens that exactly three days ago in Boston a similar suit was filed, this time on behalf of a juvenile delinquent and different from the Supreme Court's Gault decision that dealt with juvenile court procedures. This case deals with methods of treatment in a state institution, and the court petition sets forth very clearly that what was happening in that institution constituted inadequate treatment without any doubt and that, therefore, this young man would have the right to his freedom. Since, obviously, he should not have his freedom because he needs some constraining influence, it is very clear that the state will have to act on this and bring about change.

I am sorry that there is no time to discuss here the Bill of Rights of the Mentally Retarded which was passed in the presence of some eminent people from California at the recent International Congress of the International League of Societies for the Mentally Handicapped. This whole concept that the mentally retarded have basic human rights, and, furthermore, that these human rights could be enforced, is a very new one, but it is coming. At various times I have urged administrators of state programs to read carefully the "signs on the wall" before they become subject emanating judicial interference. I wish we could talk about the whole involvement emanating from this new recognition of the rights of the mentally retarded, but we cannot do so today.

Let me now make a comment about this morning's discussion on this whole problem of socio-economic deprivation which, as you know, is a problem that has overwhelmed us for a long time and is very often unfairly treated by our looking sternly at the school and saying "What are you planning to do about it?" Whereas, of course, what we should do is to ask the community and its citizenry "What are you going to do about it?", because the schools cannot help but reflect the basic views of the community and its citizens.

Kingsley Davis, a sociologist at Berkeley, wrote in an article, "The Perilous Premise of Behavior Science", a very interesting commentary which will perhaps help you recognize why we are not moving in this area. As you know, the President's Panel on Mental Retardation was led to state in 1962 "If we would apply what we know, we could wipe our S0% of mental retardation problems." Did we not hear that this morning again? That is right, that is what the man said! But Kingsley Davis says "Given the great promise that social science holds for solving our problems, one is puzzled by what appears to be a mocking reality. I have observed, for instance, that solutions to social problems -- (such as were discussed this morning regarding socio-economic deprivation) -- I have observed that solutions to social problems tend to have three characteristics: first, they are extremely simple, especially compared to technological solutions; second, they are fool-proof -- that is if they were applied, they would solve the problem; thirdly, they are not being applied." Why not? Because of the very point that here we are touching on some basic, hurtful manifestations of social ill which the community keeps covered over. And even should they come to the fore, we quickly try to cover them up again.

Here, of course, is a very interesting parallel to the problem of juvenile delinquency. We have known in this country for fifty years what to do about juvenile delinquency, but who is going to tell Columbia University to get rid of the slums? Who is going to tell the churches which are slum owners in this country to clean up the property? Who is going to interfere with all the social realities well known, well written about in this country which spawn juvenile delinquency? And so it is with the effects of this socio-economic deprivation which we tell Ernie Willenberg sternly he ought to discontinue forthwith in his schools. I do not think he can do sol