Editorial DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
New legislation after the findings of the Royal Commission (on Mental Illness and Deficiency) has been promised by the Government. Many details will no doubt depend on the climate in which debates are held later in the Commons. It is therefore of great interest to read the report of the debate in the Lords (Hansard, 19.2.58), at the instance of the N.A.M.H.'s President; members will no doubt have mentally congratulated Lord Feversham and the speakers who followed him, on their width of vision and on their grasp of a highly complicated subject discussed in a most voluminous Report.
Speakers did not, of course, include a psychiatrist (nor are very likely ever to do so), but in spite of this, or perhaps even because of it, the debate lasted for some four hours. Certain features in it were rather disturbing. As Lord Cottesloe pointed out, the House had been practically emptied by it. Readers of Hansard must be left to form their own opinion as to whether this was a reflection on the quality of the debate or on the social responsibility of members. It is also tragic to hear a noble lord speak of the "barbarous operation" of a prefrontal leucotomy. Granted the cases he quoted were tragic, but to condemn all forms of leucotomy as barbarous thereafter is as sweepingly unfair as to condemn all forms of leparotomy because a number of early appendicectomies developed complications. No medical voice was raised to deny such comment. Taken all in all, the debate showed the work that needs doing before any legislation can be drafted?from problems such as nomenclature to those of censoring patients' letters in hospital. Lord Feversham very rightly drew attention to the tiny fraction of research funds which were devoted to mental health, quoting that only 2 per cent of the Medical Research Council's funds. Lord Cohen in reply pointed out that research in other subjects could also be said to help that in mental disease, but he reiterated that the money spent was far from enough; and that the essential ideas and men still lacking, need appropriate incentives if they are to appear. The mere quotation of a list of organisations who plaV some part in research, as done by the Lord Chancellor, should blind no one to the small amount being done, and the tremendous need. The tragedy was that Lord Percy of Newcastle, the Com' mission's Chairman, was unable to be present. As readers know, he died a few weeks later, without seeing the fruits of his work. 82
New legislation after the findings of the Royal Commission (on Mental Illness and Deficiency) has been promised by the Government. Many details will no doubt depend on the climate in which debates are held later in the Commons. It is therefore of great interest to read the report of the debate in the Lords (Hansard, 19.2.58), at the instance of the N.A.M.H.'s President; members will no doubt have mentally congratulated Lord Feversham and the speakers who followed him, on their width of vision and on their grasp of a highly complicated subject discussed in a most voluminous Report.
Speakers did not, of course, include a psychiatrist (nor are very likely ever to do so), but in spite of this, or perhaps even because of it, the debate lasted for some four hours. Certain features in it were rather disturbing. As Lord Cottesloe pointed out, the House had been practically emptied by it. Readers of Hansard must be left to form their own opinion as to whether this was a reflection on the quality of the debate or on the social responsibility of members. It is also tragic to hear a noble lord speak of the "barbarous operation" of a prefrontal leucotomy. Granted the cases he quoted were tragic, but to condemn all forms of leucotomy as barbarous thereafter is as sweepingly unfair as to condemn all forms of leparotomy because a number of early appendicectomies developed complications. No medical voice was raised to deny such comment. Taken all in all, the debate showed the work that needs doing before any legislation can be drafted?from problems such as nomenclature to those of censoring patients' letters in hospital. Lord Feversham very rightly drew attention to the tiny fraction of research funds which were devoted to mental health, quoting that only 2 per cent of the Medical Research Council's funds. Lord Cohen in reply pointed out that research in other subjects could also be said to help that in mental disease, but he reiterated that the money spent was far from enough; and that the essential ideas and men still lacking, need appropriate incentives if they are to appear. The mere quotation of a list of organisations who plaV some part in research, as done by the Lord Chancellor, should blind no one to the small amount being done, and the tremendous need. The tragedy was that Lord Percy of Newcastle, the Com' mission's Chairman, was unable to be present. As readers know, he died a few weeks later, without seeing the fruits of his work. 82
