|
|
Allegations of Abuse
in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
The Confidential Forum for Former
In-Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals (the Forum) was announced by the
government in 2004 and established in 2005. Its main purpose was to provide
an accessible, confidential environment in which former in-patients, family
members of in-patients, or former staff members could describe their
experiences of psychiatric institutions in The forum began meeting with
people who wished to do so in July 2005 and over the course of its work, the
Forum met with 493 people in 22 different locations around Wasn't the Forum just a strategy
to avoid people taking legal action? The Forum was a new reconciliation
initiative for Why doesn't the government just
compensate these people and save them going to court? The Courts are the best place to
undertake the required scrutiny of individual claims for compensation because
these are complex legal issues and also issues of natural justice as the
allegations are denied by some alleged abusers. The Forum saw only a small number
of people – how can it be representative? Eligible people were able to
attend the Forum if they wished to do so; it was entirely their choice and
was not about the Forum meeting with a "representative sample." Most participants were former
patients - family members of former patients and staff members also attended.
Participants spoke about many of the large psychiatric institutions around Didn't the terms of reference only
contemplate people telling bad stories? The terms of reference invited
former in-patients of psychiatric hospitals, family members of former
in-patients and staff members to speak of their experiences of psychiatric
hospitals – positive and negative. Some people did speak of positive
experiences. Others, as part of speaking of overall distressing experiences,
spoke of acts of kindness or care from staff members that had meant a great
deal to them. The Forum was not a trial or
fact-finding inquiry. How can you believe people when you are not testing
evidence? People who came to the Forum spoke
of their experiences knowing that they did so in confidence and that it was
not the job of the Forum to make findings of fact or attribute blame or award
compensation. People came because they wished to relate their experiences and
they wished to be taken seriously. Didn't the Forum go beyond its
terms of reference by reporting what participants said? The panel was asked to report on
the usefulness of the Forum to participants. To do justice to this, it needed
to report on the themes that emerged as common across many of the individual
narratives of those who spoke to the Forum. These themes became apparent
early on in the meetings with participants and were spoken of again and
again. The Forum did not refer to individual stories, which it has kept
confidential, as it was required to do. The panel had a consumer
representative – wasn't it biased? The forum was not set up to make
findings of fact or to establish liability or to make recommendations. Nor
did it do so. Rather, a panel with suitable expertise and experience was
appointed to meet with participants and hear their stories. The chairperson
was a District Court Judge. How can you measure the past by
today's standards? The period covered by the Forum's
mandate ended in November 1992 when the current mental health legislation
came into force. No attempt has been made to measure the past by today's
standards. A hope of many participants who
spoke of distressing experiences was that they wanted the government to know
what had happened to them and how their experiences had affected them; they
often linked their desire for the government to know that their hope was the
stories told by them and others would help make a difference to the mental
health system and help others. ENDS
|
