Shell-shock and other neuropsychiatric problems

by Elmer Ernest Southard

89. We are now ready to consider in how far Shell-shock[13] is a distinctive disease. The physical event, shell-shock[13] we have seen at work in most of the major groups of mental disease and in some groups of nervous disease. Shell-shock, the physical event, has started up a “Shell-shock” paresis, a “Shell-shock” epilepsy, a “Shell-shock” Graves’ disease, a “Shell-shock” dementia praecox, wherein the term “Shell-shock” is merely a more specific term than the term “traumatic.” The physical event, shell-shock, has in special ways also changed the responses of the feeble-minded, the alcoholic, the cyclothymic, and the psychopathic person of whatever ill-defined sort may get into military service.

[13] I capitalize Shell-shock here (as elsewhere) to indicate the name of a supposed disease entity and leave shell-shock without an initial capital to indicate the physical event.

The physical event, shell-shock, has likewise caused focal irritative and destructive brain disease, spinal cord disease, peripheral nerve disease; and many well-recognized species of the so-called “organic” diseases of the nervous system have been produced. Shell-shock “organic” diseases have proved as difficult to tell from all sorts of Shell-shock “functional” diseases as ever have been the organic and functional analogues of these diseases in peace practice.

But, besides (a) sharing in the cause of mental and nervous disease (in the sense of “Shell-shock” general paresis and “Shell-shock” tabes, wherein at least one other factor, viz. the spirochete, is known to be at work) and (b) producing mental and nervous disease by killing or weakening or sensitizing neurones in the classical manner of the “focal” lesion, the physical event, Shell-shock, (c) appears able to bring out the subtler diseases and dispositions of mind which we term psychoneuroses, that is, hysteria, neurasthenia, psychasthenia. Just as we have for years spoken of “traumatic” psychoneuroses, so we may now speak of “Shell-shock” psychoneuroses—nor should anyone believe we cheat ourselves with the idea that the adjective “Shell-shock” has helped us more re genesis than the adjective “traumatic.” “Shell-shock hysteria” and “traumatic hysteria” are on precisely the same—slippery—footing in the matter of their origin. The physics and chemistry of the psychoneuroses remain in Egyptian darkness.

The physical event, shell-shock, then, as the common man might say, affects body, brain, and mind in a great number of familiar ways; and these familiar ways remain as plain or as blind as the neuropathology and the psychopathology of today leave them. If thunderstorms and earthquakes got suddenly more frequent, we should have numbers of “lightning neuroses” and “earthquake hysterias,” neither of which would render the physics and chemistry of the psychoneuroses immediately a whit clearer.

When the common man speaks of some one as suffering from lightning stroke or earthquake, he is entitled to be met halfway by his hearer, who readily understands that the victim is suffering some sort of transient or permanent effects of the stroke or quake. In a like common sense should the term shell-shock be taken. Stroke, quake, or shock, each physical event is recognized as a factor in the situation. An event has become a factor. A condition for which the noun “shell-shock” was descriptive, in the present tense of some event, has passed into history; and the adjective “shell-shock” is now explanatory of the past cause, or one of the past causes, of a new situation. Shell-shock, the physical event, takes part in a great number of pathological events and as such lapses from noun to adjective.

But what are these pathological events, viz., the conditions of disease, that supervene? So far, in our consideration of psychoses incidental in the war, we have found Shell-shock varieties, perhaps, of mental disease; again, possibly a few Shell-shock species, using both these terms, variety and species, in a quasi botanical or zoölogical sense. But in either instance we do not rise, under the ordinary principles of nomenclature, beyond the adjective: Is there any evidence that shell-shock, the physical happening, has issued in a pathological event of greater dignity, namely, a genus of disease? Can shell-shock rise to the dignity of a proper noun, Shell-shock, so that we might think of e.g., a new genus of the psychoneuroses, something coördinate with hysteria, neurasthenia, psychasthenia? None, I believe, has the hardihood to propose a new genus of mental or nervous disease for Shell-shock regarded as a pathological event. A fortiori, it is unheard-of to think of Shell-shock, the pathological event, as representing a new order of such events, coördinate with the psychoneuroses or the epilepsies, for example.

Shell-shock, the pathological event, we conclude, is a variety or a species, hardly a genus or an order of mental or nervous diseases. If we can keep in mind the obvious distinction between shell-shock, the physical event, and Shell-shock, the pathological event, we shall save ourselves much trouble. And if we can apply the ordinary criteria for the differentiation of the great groups (or orders) and the lesser groups (or genera) of mental and nervous disease to the given concrete case, we shall not go far wrong therapeutically in any case of so-called Shell-shock. For Shell-shock, the pathological event, becomes a humble variety or species of disease whose therapeutic indications are in larger part those of higher and comparatively well-recognized genera of disease, e.g., hysteria, neurasthenia, psychasthenia.

A shock is not a smash, a crush, a breach. A shock literally shakes. The shaken thing stays, for a time at least. Shaken up or down, the victim of shock is not at first thought of as done for. The spirit of the language is against the thought of shock as destruction or even as permanent irritation. Shock ought to be a “functional” rather than an “organic” thing, as medicine bandies these terms about. Shell-shock or Surgical Shock, it is all one to the logic of shock, which is thought of as a physical or chemical disturbance of mechanisms and arrangements that are, or ought to be readjustable. The one character which the late Professor Royce told me (in conversation) he could find in the term “functional” was the idea “reversible.” Shock is or ought to be, as a pathological event, reversible.