The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1981, WHITBY FREE PRESS whitby w h l*tb yPublished every Wednesday by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Inc. The Free Press Bluilding Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publîsher - Managing Editor The Fo Sree Nr thiIin Tga-f131 Brock Street North, The only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by' Whitby residents for Whitby residents. P.O. Box 206, Whitby, O MICHAEL J. KNELL Community Editor MARJORIE A. BURGESS Advertising Manager Malling Permit No. 48o g. nt. Second Class Mall Registration No.5351 OPSEU panel's testimony clearly shows.... Public inquiry needed mto mental health care . Throughout their collective history, mental in- stitutions have suffered with bad public images. When one thinks of a psychiatric hospital, most people do not see a place where care and treat- ment for an illness is given, but a place of horror, of violence with people who cannot be controlled or helped. A panel investigating the state of mental health care in Ontario visited Oshawa last week and heard from staff members of the Whitby Psychia- tric Hospital. Their testimony did little to enhance the image of mental institutions in the minds of the general public. Many criticisms can and should be leveled as a result of the words spoken at the hearing. These barbs should be spread equally amongst the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which sponsored the panel, and perhaps even at the public-at-large. Firstly, this publication tends to agree with Durham West MPP and Minister of Revenue George Ashe who said that the panel could hardly be described as "unbiased." Considering that the panel is a creature of OP- SEU and its acting chairman has strong feelings on the subject, their objectivity could be question- ed. The acting chairman, Betty Jane Wylle, is a journalist who went undercover and lived amongst the out.patients of a psychiatric hospital in Toron- Something women should remember when they're com- plaining about their rights is that half the time the other sex doesn't realize that women's rights are being trampled on. I suppose that inattention is, in itself, a form of chauv- inism, but when it comes to women's rooms in public places, ladies, I swear I simply don't know. I admit to having been in a women's room once, inadvertently, but I got out so fast when I realized my error that I didn't notice much about the facilities inside. Raoul Engel, a fellow laborer in the Global newsroom, is just back from New York, where he had a most alarming experience. During intermission for the stage play Amadeus, Raouf went to the men's room on business of his own. While he was standing in front of one of those upright pieces of porcelain that adorn men's rooms, the door to the washroom burst open, and through it flowed a gaggle of sophisticated New York females, protesting loudly and succinctly. The burden of their refrain was that if the inhabitants of the men's room, that is the stunned and slightly bewildered specimens craining over their shoulders from the upright porcelains, thought that they, the ladies, were going to line up in front of a single facility for women while they, the men, had this huge, half-empty place all to them- selves, they were crazy. WelI, you have to admit, the elan of New Yorkers, men and women alike, is really some- thing. The men tend to roll their eyes and raise their eyebrows, but they went about their business. The wo- men, brazenly adjusting their garments for the task ahead, invaded the cubicles, with a good deal of ribald comment about why the men had no cause for alarm. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this story is its reporter, Raoul Engel. He would deny vehemently that he is chau- vinistic. Suffice it to say that not everyone would accept the disclaimer. So if by repeating this little story of Raoul's I have put into the heads of Canadian Women's libbers, it will be seen by some as sweet irony. That's not news, but that too is reality. to residing in now condemned boarding houses. She wrote a series of articles for a Toronto daily newspaper based on her experiences. Another fact to be considered is that all the people who appeared before the panel were mem- bers of OPSEU. It should be noted that testimony was not given by psychiatrists, administrators, Ministry of Health staff or by any person who is not an OPSEU member. 1 Therefore, although it is held that those who testified are probably honest and sincere, the panel heard only one side of the story. It cna also be assumed that the panel's report will reflect these biases. The government of Ontario should also be criti- cized for its reactions to the panel. Ashe described the panel's function as a "witch hunt." While we have no way of saying whether or not this is true it would indicate that the government is skeptical of any outside body looking into its operations. The current government is beginning to in- stitute policies that are further "to the right" of the political spectrum, primarily in reaction to policies enacted by the federal government and the Government of the United States. This means that the government desires to practice finàncial restraint, something with which we can totally agree. However, it seems that when the government finds the need to cut spending the obvious targets are education and health. It seems that no matter where the government reduces spending, some individual or group is ad- versely affected, therefore, loud criticisms are heard. Surpassing all of these facts is the question of patient care. Is it adequate? If not, are we pre- pared to pay the price to make it adequate? That is the central issue at dispute here. The general public has a ~responsibility to require the government to ensure that these questions are answered in an objective and equit- able fashion. It also appears to us that this question cannot be resolved by the OPSEU panel or by the Gover- nment of Ontario. Therefore, the government should appoint a Royal Commission, preferably headed by a judge, to examine these questions. A Royal Commission is neutral, objective body that has many of the powers assigned to a court. It can hear testimony under oath, It can examine any and all evidence and cannot be interfered with either by the union or by the government. This Royal Commission should be given a clear mandate. That is, to examine the mental health care system and determine Its adequacy and make recommendations for its improvement. It seems to us that the mental health care system is in deep trouble. If so much as 10 per cent of the allegations made last week are true then the problems are more far reaching than imagined either by the government, the union, or the general public. There are many issues involved here, and.none of them can be ignored ... for If they are, they will surely come back to haunt us. Without a Royal Commission, it Is possible that the government and the union will spend years and an untold amount of taxpayers' money bicker- ing about this vital issue. It is time to set the record straight and the best way to do that is to get a neutral, unblased body to examine the issue.