❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the existence and use of a 'restraint mattress' in Casuarina Prison, prompting a response defending its use for preventing self-harm and suicide attempts, while raising ethical considerations compared to chemical restraints.
AnsweredQoN 369Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Some 12 months ago the Executive Director, Offender Management, Robert Harvey, advised that the restraint nicknamed the “Hannibal Lecter bed”, which allegedly did not exist, did in fact exist but would no longer be used and would be removed from Casuarina Prison because of its unorthodoxy in a sophisticated penal environment. Will the minister advise - (1) Does this device still exist? (2) Has this device been employed on inmates in the past 12 months? (3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS
AnswerView source ↗
I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(1) Does this device still exist? (2) Has this device been employed on inmates in the past 12 months? (3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(2) Has this device been employed on inmates in the past 12 months? (3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(1) Does this device still exist? (2) Has this device been employed on inmates in the past 12 months? (3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(2) Has this device been employed on inmates in the past 12 months? (3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(3) Is there more than one of these devices either extant or under construction within or for the Ministry of Justice and its officers and facilities? (4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(4) Are these devices considered “cruel and unusual” treatment, as defined by various United Nations bodies? (5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(5) Are there any plans to remove and/or destroy these Dickensian reminders of our ancient convict history? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
I must dissociate myself from the entire prologue to the question with which I do not agree. It is important to make that clear for the record. (1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(1) A restraint mattress still exists at Casuarina Prison. (2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(2) Yes. In cases where it was considered that this matter of restraint could prevent a serious self-harm/suicide attempt by a prisoner, the restraint mattress is utilised for only the time necessary to prevent serious self-harm. (3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(3) Yes. (4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(4) No. Senior members of the Western Australian Health Department have assessed the restraint mattress as an appropriate and practical device for the purpose for which it is used. (5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
(5) No. The use of the restraint mattress has prevented several serious self-harm/suicide attempts; for example, when prisoners have attempted to headstand in a toilet bowl in an effort to snap their neck, and other regular instances in which prisoners have internally secreted razor blades with the intent of inflicting life-threatening injuries to themselves. This restraint mattress is used as a preventive measure and has been successful in preventing injuries to prisoners that might otherwise have resulted in the use of other methods of restraint. In all instances in which the restraint mattress is used, an immediate examination by a health professional is arranged. The ministry is always prepared to accept any alternative initiatives. An interesting ethical debate is taking place on whether the restraint mattress is a better method than the alternative now used in the health area. The restraint mattresses were used in the health area, but it now tends to use chemical restraints; that is, they inject a person so he or she is incapable of doing anything. It is an interesting ethical question whether a person restrained physically but retaining mental capacity is better treated than the person completely knocked out by a chemical substance having no control whatever over his or her body. Are they better looked after? I remember when we showed this restraint to the heads of churches, I discussed it with Archbishop Dr Peter Carnley who indicated that Anglican aged homes have ceased to use chemical restraints upon aged people as they are regarded as unethical. I believe it is more honest and ethical to restrain people physically rather than knock them out with chemicals.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.