The lunacy question; or, the lunatic benefited and protected; with an inquiry into public and private asylums / by Joseph Williams.

  • Williams, Joseph, 1814-1882.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The lunacy question; or, the lunatic benefited and protected; with an inquiry into public and private asylums / by Joseph Williams. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    30/52 (page 26)
    others, this, being prejudicial to the interests of society, de- mands interference, as it may indirectly cause the death of an individual, as by fright to a pregnant woman, in this way possibly even sacrificing a double life. It is certainly more prudent to remove idiotic or highly eccentric persons, especially if noisy, from public gaze in large towns, as the less such cases are exposed, the fewer examples may be reasonably expected; we are much the creatures of imitation, and there are at all times many hysterical persons who would soon outrival any absurdities they may have witnessed. When it is found that a person cannot control his feelings and actions upon any particular point, it is very necessary that this deficiency should be supplied by the control of others ; the degree of restraint must depend on the degree of defect or of danger. In some instances where intem- perance is habitual, and where the patient gets maddened with drink, it may be only necessary to prevent a repetition of inebriety; but whether rich or poor, to cause mere drunkards, however degraded in society, to associate with lunatics is most wicked, and ought not to be tolerated; consequently, if confinement is essential, it should not be in a mad-house. So, in the case of a man of fortune, where there is ex- travagance, where this gentleman is ruining himself and his family, daily wasting his wealth, the question is, is it not proper to restrain such a person from inevitable ruin, and to remove him into the country, and place him in such circum- stances that he cannot lavish his wealth? perhaps, a few weeks after such seclusion, this very person may feel deeply grieved at his follies, and be grateful that he was prevented from getting rid of more of his fortune. But when a patient thinks himself inspired, that he holds a commission from heaven to take away life, or where, as a general, he imagines he must despatch a victim for the sake of example to his soldiers—where, in fact, there is danger to life, active surveillance, and even active restraint, are sometimes in- dispensable. Removal from home and separation from friends, may often be necessary when it would be very inexpedient to confine such a person in an asylum ; the degree of necessary restraint is the important point to determine. Separation from friends, and change of residence, and of servants, will often be justifiable, when to remove such an individual to a lunatic asylum would be most criminal. A patient rarely