ISOLATION
Isolation is a rather severe proceeding, which, however, one must not hesitate to utilise in rebellious cases, or if the patient's mental state precludes the possibility of prolonged application of systematic discipline. Wyemann[235] cites a successful case, where a youth of seventeen, with a bad family history, suffered from convulsive movements in association with coprolalia, and was cured of the latter by isolation. Some would even recommend the removal of the patient to a hospital for mental disease. Such a step, however, is rather premature, for he may already have begun to improve where he happens to be, and it is not always certain that a sojourn of this character will be beneficial.
Before isolation is resorted to, it is important to familiarise oneself with the patient's mode of life, to ascertain whether it is capable of modification in accordance with one's ideas for treatment, and to determine the exact influence of his environment on him. We have frequently had occasion to remark how potent is this environment as an etiological factor; with young people, in particular, negligence on the part of parent or guardian places the child in jeopardy. To combat this unfortunate tendency must be our aim, as soon as we are convinced of the risk.
Sometimes it is sufficient to draw the attention of the parents to the disastrous consequences of indulgence or indifference; but we shall show our wisdom in not relying too much on promises, however sincere and solemn. These parents may be perfectly honest in their protestations, but they are often as changeable and weak as their offspring, and lack that very firmness and perseverance which they imagine themselves capable of exhibiting. Thus, in spite of their undoubted intelligence and good will, their efforts at control are unsatisfactory, and under such circumstances the withdrawal of the patient from his family circle is urgently indicated.
We cannot think, nevertheless, that the asylum is the ideal—there is risk in the contiguity of other neuropaths or psychopaths; and while the value of rigorous isolation consists in its stimulating and quickening effect on the patient's self-control, whereby the day of his return to ordinary life is hastened, yet it too frequently happens that the old temptations are as powerful as of yore, and that the same causes which operated when his tics first made their appearance reawaken vicious tendencies more or less imperfectly masked.
Most subjects learn to still their tic during the physician's brief visit; further, most achieve a similar result while they remain inmates of a special institution; but as soon as they find themselves in their old quarters, so soon does the impulse to tic dominate them again. In fact, their victory is incomplete; the ground they gain is not held. The goal to strive after is the repression of their tic under all conditions, apart from extraneous intervention and influence. Once he has been instructed in the methods of inhibition, the tiqueur has no one but himself to fall back on when face to face with the allurements of his daily life.
These reserves made, it is clear that removal of the patient from his environment has its advantages, but it is better to maintain only a degree of isolation, and to allow him to come into his own circle from time to time, under a wise supervision. The ideal measure would be to consign him to the care of an attentive and devoted teacher, whose superintendence would be permanent. In this respect, unfortunately, all that we can do at present is to indicate what we think a desideratum, for while well-to-do families may have their tutor, we do not know of any one who has held a corresponding office as an instructor of children with tic. The realisation of this novel proceeding might present genuine difficulties in practice, but we may hope that once parents, patients, and physicians are acquainted with the nature of tics and the efficacy of the re-education method, many prejudices against that fruitful therapeutic contrivance will vanish.