page 5

Favourable view criticised

by D. A. Paxie

AN article on the Levin Hospital and Training School in the previous issue of Salient depicts this institution more favourably than the evidence warrants.

Towards the end of last year. I undertook a small research project on Levin Hospital, based upon personal observations and hospital records. I also was duped by the well laidout grounds: however this initial impression was soon dispelled.

There are approximately 750 patients in the hospital but the number of patients per villa is nearer 50 to 55 than the figure 40 quoted in the earlier article.

On the question of the standard of food in the institution, great pains were taken to stress the futility of providing attractive and stimulating meals for undiscernlng patients.

However, the opening paragraph claims that some patients "take great pride in the hospital grounds." How is it that these same patients cannot appreciate other physical comforts?

I agree that the nurses "show a real interest in the health and wellbeing of the patients." but this interest is limited by the pressures of custodial care in overcrowded villas, coupled with the acute shortage of staff—which was dismissed in a total of 13 words.

The patients who are not toilet-trained do not get fresh sets of clothing as soon as they need them. They are changed as soon as an over worked nurse can cater for the undiscerning demands of up to twenty children.

"All clothing is clean and well mended." but as with the food, presentation and attractiveness bow down to expediency and regimentation.

The manner in which the writer justifies this situation implies that he believes all mentally retarded individuals have no right to be treated as "separate identities." This implication is presumably based on the broad assumption that all patients in the institution are of an equal intelligence.

This is not so! Some patients are of normal intelligence but emotionally disturbed; others are mentally retarded but educable: about 50 per cent of the patients fall into the trainable category. Only a minority can be classified as totally dependent.

Obviously. Levin Hospital has not an homogenous population and as such, generalisations disclaiming the need for "separate identities" are not applicable in many cases.

On the question of whether the institution is an adequate, substitute for the home, I can only refer to the works of Spitz. Bowlley and Ribble; all of whom found that the impersonality of institutions had a detrimental effect.

From my personal observations. I would allow no intellectually handicapped children of mine to enter such an, environment. Too seldom were seen the idealistic conditions implied in the article

So far, I have given a critique of what the article did say, but its more important fallings were what it did not say. Throughout, a pleasing picture of custodial care was given, this is NOT the prime objective of a psychopedic hospital.

Present-day thinking in the field of psychopedics stresses the diagnostic and therapeutic functions of the hospital. In this most imoortant respect. Levin is sadly lacking.

Notwithstanding previous comments on the proportion of patients classed as trainable and educable, the severe lack of qualified staff almost completely thwarts any attempts to produce an efficient diagnostic service.

A qualified psychologist (who has considerable experience in the field of psychopedics) suggests that approximately 50 per cent of the patients in Levin are at least trainable: he cannot, however accurately specify all those patients suitable for training, because the facilities and staff required for this complex task are not available.

At the present time, of the estimated 300-400 patients suitable for training, only 100 receive any training whatsoever.

Of these only forty, or 10 per cent of the estimated trainable total, receive intensive training. The remaining 60 merely receive training in simple industrial tasks.

Clearly, under these circumstances, Levin Hospital cannot hope to fulfil its task of providing specialised care and attention for the mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed child.

In conclusion, I would suggest that although the writer's evaluation of Levin Hospital and Training School may be sincere, it has neglected to bring to the public's attention those aspects of the institution which need examination.