View report page

21
available. Within the Hospital the patients' Social Club has been extended and modernised. Christmas parcels
were generously donated and the 6 residents at the Hostel in Wembley were included. A very important service
to patients and relatives alike is the provision of a coach to allow visitors to travel to Shenley. Public transport
from any part of Brent to the Hospital involves a most tedious journey and such a direct coach is therefore
much appreciated.
The Brent Samaritans
This year has shown a considerable increase in the number of requests for help and the Organisation's
facilities were at times stretched to the limits. Unfortunately numbers of volunteers have hardly increased at all,
new ones only just making up vacancies caused by the usual wastage (removals, additional calls on spare time,
increasing physical immobility). It has therefore not been possible to increase the hours of telephone manning
at the Cfentre in Harlesden (from 7—10 p.m.). The Harrow Branch, as before, have taken calls for the remainder
of the 24 hours. This facility acts in some ways as a safeguard but undoubtedly some distressed persons in
great need of help are discouraged when phoning the Harlesden Centre to be redirected by the G.P.O. operator
to the Harrow number. Substantial efforts have failed to improve recruiting in Brent. Quite possibly one of the
reasons could be the location of the Centre. Persons from the Wembley and Kingsbury areas find it difficult to
get to and from Harlesden at night if they have to rely on public transport. Yet it is precisely in these parts of
the Borough that public spirited people with a little time on their hands reside. It is to be hoped that the
proposed strenuous drive in the new year to recruit more volunteers will show some degree of success. The
possibility of amalgamation with the Harrow Branch is the only possible alternative if a 24 hour service can
not otherwise be provided.
Approved Medical Practitioners
There were no changes during the year in the list of doctors approved for the purposes of Section 28,
Mental Health Act, 1959.
Drug Abuse and Dependence
The public's interest in this problem appears to have undergone a slight decline and, with the decrease
of its news value, it is becoming possible to review the drug scene more objectively. Undoubtedly the Minister's
timely move (Dangerous Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations, 1968) to restrict the prescribing of heroin and
cocaine (the "hard" drugs) to the medical personnel of certain designated Out-Patient Treatment Centres only,
has made some impact on this problem. The further restriction in the prescription of the amphetamines particularly
that of Methylamphetamines ("Methedrine") in November, 1968, very speedily cut short what can
only be described as an epidemic. It is of course too early to assess whether these measures have achieved any
reduction in the incidence of drug abuse generally or whether they have only served to redirect the habit into
the misuse of other drugs. Undoubtedly the whole problem of drug abuse in Great Britain is only a very minor
one when compared with that of alcohol and tobacco.
Little change appears to have taken place within this Borough. Again the numbers of known abusers
generally were much higher in the Willesden than the Wembley area. Paradoxically the only case of addiction
in school children occurred in the Wembley area where one boy came before the Magistrate's Court.
Of the two Drug Clinics, the one at Monks Park closed down from lack of use. The Kilburn Square
one, however, functioned well and showed a moderate number of successes.
It will be recalled that this Clinic was set up primarily to assist probation officers with their addiction
cases. A Shenley Hospital psychiatrist and a general practitioner offered their services free of charge.
Approximately 60 persons attended during 1968, 25 of whom were on probation. The average attendance was
10 cases per session at the beginning of the year. The majority were dependent on methylamphetamine, a very
few on cannabis. By the close of the year the amphetamine "epidemic" was over but a number of persons had
changed to narcotics (predominantly Physeptone, a few even to heroin) when their source of supply of the
former drug had dried up. Apart from the probation cases, abusers were referred chiefly through attending
acquaintances and occasionally by a general practitioner. Treatment included decreasing amounts of the dependency
drug (for the minority of cases), group therapy sessions, rarely informal admission to Shenley Hospital
(12 cases) and to "Brentholme" Hostel (2 cases). Group attendances varied but 9 attended regularly, 2 of these
were still on probation. Results were satisfactory in clients with good personality but less so with those of
delinquent propensities.
All attenders could have received the same kind of treatment at a hospital out-patient clinic but the
majority would not have been in this way reached as it is only the very informal atmosphere at Kilburn Square
that allows these suspicious and wary people to accept help.
Experts advise that hostels should be part of the rehabilitative services offered to drug addicts. Tentative
sounding of informed persons in this Borough, however, revealed that there would not be enough local
support to open such a residential service. When exploring the possibility of such a hostel in Brent, it was
fortunate to be able to draw on the experience and advice of a visiting Director of the "Daytop Centre", (a
voluntary New York preventative drug addicition service). This settlement is managed by former addicts for
present ones and it is claimed that excellent results are obtained even with the many cases referred to "Daytop"
from the courts as an alternative to imprisonment. However such a place, or even the more conventional
style hostel staffed with specialist personnel and with psychiatric support, should not, it was recommended, be
established near such centres of easy drug accessibility as this Borough is. It remains therefore a matter for the
joint effort of the London Boroughs to consider providing a few widely scattered hostels.
On the subject of preventive services, I confess to a feeling of ambiguity. Ample teaching aid material
has recently become available to schools and many areas have undertaken all-out drives to warn youngsters
while still at school of the great dangers to their health and general wellbeing of drug abuse. It is very tempting
to join such a campaign but as yet so little is known of the results of publicity of this kind that the dangers
of overstating one's case should not be lost sight of. Psychologists tell us that their knowledge of the science
of attitude change makes it extremely unlikely that all we have to do is to invade a classroom, talk about the