Confidential Forum for Former In-Patients of Psychiatric Hospitals: Questions and Answers

What is the Confidential Forum?
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 New Zealand in the years before November 1992 (at which date the current mental health legislation came into effect). The terms of reference also said that the panel would assist the former psychiatric in-patients by providing information and access the relevant services and agencies, including provision for access to counselling.

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 New Zealand. Meetings with participants ended in April 2007. 82 per cent were former in-patients.

Wasn't the Forum just a strategy to avoid people taking legal action?
The Forum was a new reconciliation initiative for New Zealand. It offered a constructive approach to dealing with historic matters that had deeply affected people at the time and that still affect present lives. It was not an attempt to sidestep formal legal process for pursuing a civil remedy such as compensation through the court system, which remains an option for people.

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 New Zealand, now closed, as well as psychiatric units in general hospitals. Themes common to many participants emerged over the course of the meetings.

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

© Scoop Media