We must be talking about two different time-periods then.
I know those institutions like the Magdalen ones existed in England too, and they closed shockingly late, yes.
By the second half of the 19th century through to the first half of the 20ieth century, optimism about being able to cure lunacy wore off. It had started in York with Tuke and had spread like wild-fire, but 'cured' cases which were discharged returned and kept returning and the leading people in the business became aware that their 'methods' which they had deemed so effective at first were maybe not so effective after all to cure lunacy. So, institution became no hospitals where curing was the main object, but just maintaining.
So, yes it could be that some people were put in there who did not really belong there in modern terms, like epileptics for example. But, on the other hand, it is possible that some people got rid of unwanted people by putting them there, though then there must have come either a lot of money into play (because, to be honest, which county wants to pay for a patient which is not one), and a corrupt doctor, or maybe severely lying relatives and disinterested personnel. Otherwise, who wants to occupy himself with a useless case? Even stronger, who wants to give his money to a merely bad case of bad morals? London was full of it in Whitechapel. Why try to treat it as insanity then?
In those days insanity was not promiscuous behaviour merely. Certainly not. It was clearly identified, if even to us a little strange, still identified.
Some may have got rid of famiy members by putting them in an asylum, but that was not the norm and was certainly not deemed insanity.
I know those institutions like the Magdalen ones existed in England too, and they closed shockingly late, yes.
By the second half of the 19th century through to the first half of the 20ieth century, optimism about being able to cure lunacy wore off. It had started in York with Tuke and had spread like wild-fire, but 'cured' cases which were discharged returned and kept returning and the leading people in the business became aware that their 'methods' which they had deemed so effective at first were maybe not so effective after all to cure lunacy. So, institution became no hospitals where curing was the main object, but just maintaining.
So, yes it could be that some people were put in there who did not really belong there in modern terms, like epileptics for example. But, on the other hand, it is possible that some people got rid of unwanted people by putting them there, though then there must have come either a lot of money into play (because, to be honest, which county wants to pay for a patient which is not one), and a corrupt doctor, or maybe severely lying relatives and disinterested personnel. Otherwise, who wants to occupy himself with a useless case? Even stronger, who wants to give his money to a merely bad case of bad morals? London was full of it in Whitechapel. Why try to treat it as insanity then?
In those days insanity was not promiscuous behaviour merely. Certainly not. It was clearly identified, if even to us a little strange, still identified.
Some may have got rid of famiy members by putting them in an asylum, but that was not the norm and was certainly not deemed insanity.
Comment