Special Hearings — Mental Health Workshop — UNKNOWN

MR GREY: Thank you Wendy. Did it throw cold water on anyone? Good, good, good. Can I ask the lady in the blue to maybe introduce herself as you're a new face.
(

INAUDIBLE: )

MR GREY: Lovely, okay so you can go into group one. (

LAUGHTER: ) Ja the best group. I think what we'll do now is just discuss how we're going to move forward in terms of the groups. I think what we're gonna have is, we're gonna have two facilitators for each group and then one scribe each. Zeena you'll be a scribe in one group, I'll be a scribe in the other group. But just to focus it maybe just to get more sort of (

INAUDIBLE: ) also to say  (...indistinct) Victor Nel will be joining us, he said around nine thirty and I think the best way to use him would be for him just to step into the first group and give, and guide thinking around the legislations in that respect. Okay.
 The first group will be facilitated by Lionel and Wendy. I'm smiling because I'm not going to let you get away with it, not being a facilitator. And scribed by Zeena. And these were some of the issues which came over yesterday and they're really pointers to come up with recommendations. Can I say when we, good morning, another mental health director. Just to say that when we, what we're aiming towards is the kind of recommendations that's not broad and general because I think anyone in the commission could have made a load of recommendations before this workshop that are sort of broad, wide ranging. You know "We think they should be A, B, C, D." And really nothing would come of them. I think we have to really be quite specific and focus in very, very clearly and try and be, well as specific as possible. So that the government can't just sort of turn around and say "they gave us a broad, wide ranging." As the RDP document they got. (

LAUGHTER: )
 But, so these are the topics that were covered and I suppose just quickly now I want to see whether anyone can remember or thought of any other topics. We spoke about the Mental Health Act and the proposed amendments towards that on a philosophical bases. What, so in other words what we're gonna say is; "through an analysis of the Mental Health Act in relation to our mandate the Truth Commission recommends that the following amendments should be made or," etc, etc, okay. So that will be the product if you like. If we're going to discuss the Mental Health Act.
 Review of international legislation, I think Victor Nel can probably make quite a good input into that. Changing the psychological degree that's what the bachelors that Wendy was talking about, how we go about that. Okay we need to make a recommendation in terms of what are we saying. Are we saying that, that should be a four course, scrap the honours and that it should be a more experiential course?
(intervention)
(

INAUDIBLE: )

MR GREY: Okay, are you a psychiatrist?
(

INAUDIBLE: ) LAUGHTER

MR GREY: Okay, professional control of psychologists okay, how, what exactly do we mean by that? What are we going to do? What are we going to recommend around that? And conditions of care, that came through in I think in your submission, Zanele and Jeanette's submission. How we going to ensure that conditions of psychiatric institutions are improved. 
 The other topic that group one will be discussing, okay are there any other issues that people can remember about legislative regulations?

FLOOR: I think that one of the things you might want to think of is the relationship between professional associations and bodies like that (...indistinct) that you have like proactive (...indistinct)

MR GREY: Between professional (...indistinct) and government?

FLOOR: Ja.

MR GREY: And (...indistinct)

FLOOR: Out of that you'll probably get a more direct recommendation.

MR GREY: Okay. Welcome. Could you introduce yourself?

PARTICIPANT: I'm from the (...indistinct)

MR GREY: Oh, great. Okay, we'll summarise and help you to report on this.

PANEL MEMBER: (...indistinct) I just wanted to know if you have (...indistinct) it will come in we have just (...indistinct) about (...indistinct) all the mental health team. I'm also concerned about the relationship. It's not good enough to say the psychologists will be professionally controlled. I think we need to put something about the relationships of the team themselves. That is why you have one group, you know who are dominating even if they think it (...indistinct) We need to have control in a legislation, how do we relate to each other. I don't know if it will come up very clearly.

MR GREY: Okay. Is everyone okay with that. That's quite a lot, it's a lot to sort of concretise. The next section with psychiatric interventions in government hospitals and community setting. That was the topic but what I think we're really talking about is generally interventions. What can we do about mental health workers and their interventions? Lionel raised a lack of military and police controls or at least in your investigations it was a very murky area, there didn't seem to be any sort of consistent controlling body or focus or policy around psychology. So I think that's something to, and psychiatry. We'll put psychiatry in there as well.
MEMBERS OF THE FLOOR TALKING SIMULTANEOUSLY

PARTICIPANT: (...indistinct) accessibility of a monitoring body into the institution. We start with a situation where section 66 for these people to go but we have monitoring centres. How do we access, how do the other people who are not access this information so that there is monitoring. I don't know if we'll put it in education or it will fall here. All institutions they could be - what do you call it? Correctional services, where there's mental health. There should be accessibility.

MR GREY: Isn't that issue also a privilege because I remember in our workshop with (...indistinct) what was that point?

PARTICIPANT: (...indistinct) comment about it but (...indistinct) when somebody talks to a psychologist in a private consultation that consultation is not protected by privilege if the person is subpoenaed to testify in court or if the person has to appear in court. Now I'm not quite sure about the legality about that. Jasmine had made some comment about that. But I don't know if we want to include that in that kind of legislation  (...indistinct)

MR GREY: I think (...indistinct) available to who? Are the military, can the military subpoena their counsellors, their psychologists? And I ask and I mean I wonder whether they, you know in general can they just tell us about what so and so is saying or so and so is. They can't say that.

PARTICIPANT: (...indistinct)

MR GREY: Alright. Ethical considerations regarding medication compared with already existing

PARTICIPANT: (...indistinct) is the problem of double agency. If you are psychologist employed by the military are you looking out for this person or that person's benefit (...indistinct) by the confidentiality of that (...indistinct) or are you working for the army to decide how to make (...indistinct) Therefore the (...indistinct) confidentiality does not hold because (...indistinct)

MR GREY: Alright thanks for clarifying that. Okay ethical considerations regarding medication compared with already existing recommendations. I think it was your point around.

PARTICIPANT: Ja, but what is quite interesting is that it also (...indistinct)

MR GREY: I'm glad.

PARTICIPANT: Ja.

MR GREY: Group 1. Fine okay this, the next topic I don't know whether it does really fall under here but study of torture. Who was saying the study of torture was under-developed? It was Lionel and how we're going to, has not had a high profile or priority in clinical care in international institutes is very undeveloped. What are we going to recommend in terms of increasing that knowledge base of torture? What are we going to do with it? And why do we need it, anyone?

PARTICIPANT: I think (...indistinct)