On the State of Lunacy and the Legal Provision for the Insane
We have, indeed, in previous pages (p. 91, et seq.), shown that unfit and occasionally non-lunatic patients are sent to asylums; but, even did such an event never happen, we should still hold that the protection to the alleged lunatic intended by the requirement of an order signed by the officials designated, is very little worth, and would be advantageously replaced by the order of a district medical officer appointed and authorized by the scheme we propose. It is also worthy of note, that patients sent to asylums under the order of the chaplain and relieving officer feel themselves sometimes much aggrieved that no magistrate or other independent authority has had a voice in the matter. They regard the relieving officer or the overseer, as the case may be, to be directly interested in their committal to the asylum, and only look upon the chaplain of the union as a paid officer, almost bound to append his signature to any document matured at the Board of Guardians, when called upon to do so. Moreover, they can recognise in him, in his professional capacity as a clergyman, no especial qualifications for deciding on the question whether they are proper persons to be confined on the ground of their insanity. This remark, too, extends to every other clergyman called upon to act in the matter. Nay, more, there is another more potent objection at times to a clergyman signing the order; viz. when the patient is of a different faith, or when perhaps animated by strong prejudices against the clergy of the English Church, and when, consequently, it is possible for him to imagine himself the victim of religious persecution or of intolerance.
Even Lord Shaftesbury, who is so identified with the interests of religion and of its ministers, manifests no disposition to entrust to the clergy the interests of the insane. In reply to the query (No. 838, Evid. Com.), whether he would desire ministers of religion to pronounce on the fitness or unfitness of persons for confinement as of unsound mind, he replies, “I should have more distrust of the religious gentleman than I should have of the medical man; and I say that with the deepest respect for the ministers of religion. The difficulty of it would be incalculable, if you were to throw the duty on the parochial clergy in the neighbourhood, who are already overburdened.”
In truth, there is no more reason for assigning to the clergy the determination of the question of sanity or insanity of an alleged lunatic, than for entrusting it to any other respectable and educated class of society. We have seen that magistrates sometimes exercise their privilege of deciding the question in an arbitrary and injudicious manner, and it is permissible to suppose the clergy not to be always in the right in exercising the same function. Indeed, we have at least one instance on record that they are not, in the Supplement to the Twelfth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy; viz. in the case of an epileptic woman, subject to paroxysms of dangerous violence and destructiveness, – such as are common to the epileptic insane in asylums, and reported by the master of the workhouse “as unsafe to be associated with the other inmates. For these offences she had been subjected to low diet, restraint, and seclusion, and on three occasions had been sent to prison. The medical officer of the workhouse considered her of unsound mind, not fit to be retained in the workhouse, and improperly treated by being sent to prison. In March 1856, and February 1857, he had given certificates to this effect, and steps were taken to remove her to the asylum. When taken on those occasions, however, before the vicar of the parish, he refused to sign the order, and she was consequently treated as refractory, and sent to prison.”
Taking the foregoing remarks into consideration, the only circumstances under which we would call upon an officiating clergyman, not being the chaplain of the Union, to make the order, would be where no magistrate resided in the neighbourhood, and where, from the remoteness of the locality, the district medical examiner could scarcely be expected to visit the individual case, – an event that would be of rare occurrence in this country.
There are indeed cases, such as of acute mania, where the justification of the confinement of a lunatic, by the order of a magistrate or clergyman, is a mere formality, and might be altogether dispensed with, and all legal protection guaranteed by the medical certificate, and an order signed by a parish officer to authorize the asylum authorities to receive the patient at the charge of the parish sending him. But if this were objected to, then assuredly the examination of the lunatic immediately upon or just before his admission into the asylum by the district medical officer, would supply every desideratum in the interests of the patient, and such an examination would, according to our scheme, be always made at this stage of the patient’s history.
Lastly, let it be remembered that a magistrate’s order is not required for the admission of a private patient into an asylum or licensed house. A relative or friend may sign the order and statement, and the alleged lunatic is thought to be sufficiently protected by the two medical certificates. Now, were a magistrate’s or a clergyman’s order any real security against the commission of a wrong to an individual, it would be much more necessary in the instance of private patients possessing property, and whose confinement might serve the interests of others, than in the case of paupers, for whose confinement in an asylum no inducement, but rather the contrary feeling, exists. In fact, the confirmation given to the propriety of placing a pauper lunatic in an asylum by the district medical officer, as proposed, might be considered supererogatory, considering that a certificate is required from the superintendent of the asylum shortly after admission, had it no other purpose in view.
According to the proposition advanced by us, an experienced opinion by an independent authority would be obtained in lieu of one formed by an inexperienced magistrate (who would generally prefer escaping an interview with a madman, mostly act upon the medical opinion set forth, or if not, be very likely to make a blunder in the case), or of one certified by two inexperienced, paid, and therefore not sufficiently independent, workhouse functionaries.
The clause proposed by the Commissioners (Supp. Rep. 1859, p. 37), “that the medical officer of the workhouse shall specify, in the list of lunatic inmates kept by him, the forms of mental disorder, and indicate the patients whom he may deem curable, or otherwise likely to benefit by, or be in other respects proper for, removal to an asylum,” is virtually unobjectionable; but, with due submission, we would advocate that, whether with or without this list and those expressions of opinion, the District Medical Officer’s Report should be considered the more important document whereon to act. The evidence given before the late Committee of the House of Commons (1859) shows that we must not expect much book-keeping or reporting from the parochial medical officers, and that many misconceptions and erroneous views prevail, and will damage results collected from them. The Union medical officer will necessarily have his own opinions respecting the nature and prospects of the lunatics under his observation, and no great objection can be taken to his recording them, if thought worth while: yet they would be sure to be given, even without any legal requisition; and might often help, when privately expressed, the District Examiner in his inquiries; and it would, besides, be better to avoid the chances of collision between the written opinions of two officers who should work together harmoniously.
Also, in the instance of private patients to be placed in an asylum, licensed house, or elsewhere with strangers, we look upon the visitation and examination of such a medical officer as we suggest as a valuable additional protection and security to them. He would constitute an authority in no way interested in the detention, and, by the nature of his office, bring to bear upon any doubtful cases an unusual amount of special knowledge and experience. We cannot help thinking that such a functionary would be much more efficient and useful than a magistrate (to whom some have proposed an appeal), as a referee to determine on the expediency of placing a person under certificate as of unsound mind.
Another class of duties to devolve on a district medical officer comprises those required to watch over the interests and welfare of pauper lunatics sent to, or resident in, workhouses. At p. 73, we have advanced the proposition, that, in future, no alleged lunatics should be removed to a workhouse, except as a temporary expedient under particular conditions, such as of long distance from the asylum or unmanageable violence at home; and that in all cases a certificate to authorize any length of detention in a workhouse should emanate from the district medical officer. The object of this proposal is to prevent the introduction of new, and particularly of acute cases of insanity, into workhouses; for, as we have shown in the section ‘on the Detention of Patients in Workhouses’ (p. 40, et seq.), the tendency is, when they are once received, to keep them there. According to our scheme, the district officer would receive notice of all fresh cases from the medical practitioner in attendance upon them, and, in general, visit them at their homes before removal to the workhouse or elsewhere. With respect to the actual inmates of the workhouse, it would be equally his duty to ascertain their mental and bodily state, to suggest measures to ameliorate their condition, and to report on those whom he might consider fit for removal either to the County Asylum or to lodgings out of the Union-house. He would make his report both to the Committee of Visitors of the workhouse, hereafter spoken of, and to the Lunacy Commissioners. It should devolve primarily upon the Committee to act upon the reports, or, on their omission so to do, the Commissioners in Lunacy, either with or without a special examination made by one or more of their number, should be empowered to enforce those changes which might in their opinion be absolutely necessary.
Again, by Suggestion 5 (p. 73), we provide that no person shall be detained as a lunatic or idiot, or as a person of unsound or weak mind, except under an order and a medical certificate to the existence of mental derangement, just such as is needed to legalize confinement in an asylum. The order would best come from the District Medical Examiner, whilst the certificate would, as usual, be signed by the Union medical officer.
Now, by one of the propositions contained in the Supplementary Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy (1859, p. 37), it is sought to render a similar protection by another expedient; viz. that the alleged lunatic “shall be taken before a justice or officiating clergyman, and adjudged by him as not proper to be sent to an asylum.” By the next paragraph, it is further proposed that, “In any case wherein an order for a lunatic’s reception into an asylum shall be made by a Justice or officiating clergyman, it shall be competent for him, if, for special reasons, to be set forth in his order, he shall deem it expedient, to direct that such lunatic be taken, pro tempore, to the workhouse, and there detained for such limited period, not exceeding two clear days, as may be necessary, pending arrangements for his removal to the asylum.”
Now, with all becoming deference to the position and experience of the Commissioners, we must confess to a predilection for our own plan, which, indeed, was drawn out before the appearance of the Supplemental Report. This preference we entertain for the reasons shown when speaking of the relative qualifications of magistrates and clergymen to make the order for admission into asylums; viz. that on the one hand there are no à priori grounds for supposing their discrimination of insanity, and of its wants and requisite treatment, to be better than that of other people; that some direct objections attach to clergymen, and that experience proves that neither Justices nor clergymen have hitherto so performed the duty as to afford any inducement to increase its extent; and, on the other, that in the district medical officer we have an independent and skilled person to accomplish the work.
Nevertheless the suggestion offered by the Commissioners is a great improvement upon the practice in vogue, which leaves the determination of the place and means of treatment, and of the capability of a patient to be discharged or removed, to the parish authorities. On this matter we have commented in previous pages, and illustrated at large in the history of the condition of the insane in workhouses, or boarded with their friends outside.
By suggestion 4 (p. 73), we propose that no lunatic or other person of unsound mind in a workhouse should be allowed to be discharged or removed without the sanction of the district medical officer. This proposition we regard as of great importance; for we have seen (p. 90, et seq.) with what recklessness, contempt of common sense, and cruelty, poor lunatics are removed from workhouses to asylums under the operation of existing arrangements. Again, some directing, experienced and independent authority is needed (p. 89) to overrule the removal of imbecile and other inmates to the houses of their relatives or of strangers; to indicate the cases to be sent, and to examine the accommodation, and ascertain the character and fitness of the persons offering to receive them. These functions also we would delegate to the district medical officer. Once more, imbecile, partially idiotic, and occasionally patients more rightly called lunatic, are sent away, or allowed to discharge themselves from, the workhouse, with the sanction of the authorities of the House and of the Guardians. The terrible evils of this proceeding are alluded to at p. 77, and more fully entered into in the Commissioners’ Supplementary Report (1859), and in the evidence before the Committee on Lunatics (1859, Queries 1594-1596). The district medical officer would here again come into requisition, and, under a distinct enactment of the law, resist the discharge, unless satisfied that the relatives of the disordered or imbecile paupers, particularly when females, could afford proper supervision and accommodation, and exercise due control over them.
The sixth suggestion we have made (p. 73) contemplates the visitation of lunatics in workhouses, not only by the Lunacy Commissioners, as heretofore, but also by a Committee of Magistrates, and the district medical officer.
The powers committed to the Lunacy Commissioners by existing Acts to inspect workhouses are very inadequate and unsatisfactory; for, as the Commissioners observe, they can make recommendations, but have no authority to enforce attention to them, and the only course open to them is, to get their views represented through the medium of the Poor Law Board; and, although this Board co-operates most readily in their recommendations, yet it has no positive power to enforce them. The result is, the Commissioners find that the circuitous and troublesome proceeding to which they are restricted renders their endeavours in behalf of workhouse lunatics almost nugatory.
To rectify this objectionable state of things, the first principle to be recognised is, that the Lunacy Board shall be charged with the custody of all lunatics, whose interests it shall watch over and have the necessary power to promote, however and wherever they may be found. It should not have to exercise its authority, to enforce its orders and regulations, through the medium or by the agency of any other Board. No competing authority should exist. All lunatics should be reported to the Commissioners; all should be subject to their visitation, or to that of any assistants appointed under them; and the power of release should be lodged in their hands in respect of all classes of patients when they see reason to exercise it. In the instance of pauper lunatics in workhouses, they should be able to interpose in their behalf, to require every necessary precaution to be taken for their security, and due accommodation and treatment provided.
The district medical officer would be their local representative; would make frequent inspections, and report to them and act under their direction. He would indeed be responsible to them in all duties connected with the interests of the insane.
We have (p. 73) proposed a Committee of Visitors of Workhouses, for each county or for each division of the county, selected from the magistrates and from the respectable classes of ratepayers, not being guardians or overseers, although chosen with a view to represent parochial interests. This Committee should visit, at least once a quarter, every workhouse containing a person of unsound mind or an idiot, in the district under its jurisdiction; and it would be desirable that the district medical inspector should visit in company with the Committee, besides making other visits by himself at other times.
We are happy to find that this suggestion tallies in general with one made by the Commissioners in Lunacy in their recent Supplementary Report, as well as with the views of Dr. Bucknill. But we conceive it rather a defect in the Commissioners’ scheme that they propose that “the Visiting Commissioner and the Poor Law Inspector be empowered to order and direct the relieving officer to take any insane inmate before a Justice, under the provision of the 67th Section of the Lunatic Asylums Act, 1853.” For, according to the principle enunciated in the last page, the Lunacy Commissioners, as the special guardians of the insane, should alone be concerned in the direct administration of the Laws of Lunacy, and on this ground we object to the power proposed to be conferred on the Poor Law Inspectors; and we take a further objection to their being called upon to form an opinion respecting the lunatics who require Asylum treatment, and those who do not. There is truly no impediment, in the abstract, to their forming an opinion; yet, on the other hand, we would not have them to act upon it, but desire them to report the circumstances falling under their notice to the Lunacy Commissioners, who would thereupon examine into them, and decide on the steps to be taken. By the plan, however, which we have drawn out, and by the functions proposed to be entrusted to the district medical officer, the whole clause last discussed would be rendered superfluous.
The seventh suggestion (p. 73) submitted to consideration is, that every workhouse containing lunatics should, under certain necessary regulations, be licensed as a place of detention for them, by the Committees of Visitors of Workhouses when situated in the provinces, and by the Lunacy Commissioners when in the metropolitan district, and that the licence should be revoked by the Committees, after reference to the Lunacy Board, in the case of workhouses licensed by them, and by the Commissioners solely in the instance of any workhouse whatever. This plan confers the requisite power on the Commissioners to control the accommodation and management of workhouse wards for lunatics, and resembles the one pursued at present with regard to asylums. It would likewise permit them to order the closure of lunatic wards, and the removal of all lunatics from a workhouse, when they were persuaded that proper Asylum or other accommodation was available for the insane inmates.
Whatever course they adopted, or whatever decision they arrived at on such matters, they would be chiefly guided by the results of the inspection and the reports thereon made by the district medical officer, and further established by their own visitation. The present number of Commissioners is far too small for them to visit each workhouse even once a year; and, if our views respecting the necessity of a complete examination of every one of such institutions, at least four times a year, be correct, it would still be impossible to get this work done by them, even though their number was trebled; therefore, as just said, the inspection made by the district medical officer would afford the chief materials for their guidance in dealing with workhouse lunatics, and save them an immense amount of labour.
Our eighth suggestion (p. 73) is to the effect that all lunatics in workhouses should be reported to the Lunacy Commissioners, and that this should be done by the district medical officer (p. 97). The number, age, sex, form and duration of malady, previous condition in life and occupation, and all particulars touching the mental and bodily condition of the patients, would be thus duly registered. The advantages of such a system of reporting are obvious, and, as this branch of the district officer’s work has partially come under notice before, it need not be enlarged upon here.
The law provides for the occasional visitation of pauper lunatics in asylums chargeable to parishes, by a certain number of the officers, and among them the medical officer of the parish to which, as paupers, they are chargeable; and something, by way of remuneration for their trouble, is allowed out of the funds of the union or parish. This arrangement keeps up a connexion between a parish and the lunatics chargeable to it in the county asylum, which in various respects is desirable, and probably satisfactory to the ratepayers. But the lunatic inmates of an asylum chargeable to the county do not receive the benefit of any such wise provision: when once in the asylum, they find none interested in their condition save the staff of the asylum, its visitors, and the Commissioners. The last-named, in their annual visit, can have no time to consider them apart, – not even to discover and distinguish them from the rest. Very many of them are foreigners, and their condition is consequently more deserving commiseration, as being, most likely, without friends, to interest themselves in their behalf. If the inquiry were made of the superintendents of county asylums, we believe it would be found that the omission of the law in providing for the more immediate watching of these poor lunatics is attended with disadvantages and injuries to them. To supply this want, we are disposed to recommend the district medical inspector as their special visitor; for he would be identified, on the one hand, with the county in which his duties lie, and, on the other, with the Lunacy Board, in such a manner as to be able to lay before it, in the readiest and best manner, any circumstances respecting these county pauper lunatics which it might seem desirable to report, and, when they were foreigners, to bring about a communication with the Foreign Office, and secure their removal to their own country.
The visitation of these lunatics would rightly entitle the district officer to remuneration, which might be the same as that now paid per head for the visitation of out-door pauper lunatics, viz. half-a-crown per quarter. This amount would be payable by the county to which the patients were chargeable, and would add to the fund applicable for the general purposes of the Lunacy Board.
The Supplementary Report of the Lunacy Commissioners (1859, p. 13-14) contains some observations relative to the decision, in the instance of workhouse inmates, of the question who among them are to be reckoned as “Lunatics, Insane Persons, and Idiots” on the parish books? It is at present a task left to the guardians, the master, or to the parish medical officer; but the Commissioners rightly recommend that it should be entrusted to the last-named officer. However, we should prefer to see the duty delegated to the district medical inspector, as better qualified, in general, by experience, and, what would be of more importance, as being independent of parochial functionaries: for the duty is a delicate and responsible one; and, the disposition of guardians being economical where money is to be expended on the poor, they always desire to escape the heavier charge entailed by lunatics, and, where they can manage it, are pleased to witness the discharge of imbecile paupers, and of others more correctly called insane, whom they may choose for the time to consider as sane enough to be at large. The difficulties besetting this question of determining what paupers are to be considered insane, and what not, is remarked upon by the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners in their recently-published First Report (1859), and was referred to in the English Commissioners’ Report for 1847 (p. 239 & p. 257). The enormous evils attending the present loose mode of deciding the question are sketched in the Supplementary Report quoted, and in previous pages of this book.