Despite this, he was declared perfectly healthy in mind and body by the regimental surgeon.
In 1914, Q. fell suddenly ill in prison (he was presumably in prison for a military offence), and smeared the cell with feces, saying that he was able to do that as he could pay for anything. He stared at the floor and failed to answer questions. He remarked, however, that he had frequently been convicted for breach of the peace and assault and battery, and he said his father had been a drunkard, and he acknowledged hallucinations to the extent of saying that he heard his name called when he was alone.
The story of this case warrants our inquiring why such a patient was kept in the army. He was kept there clearly on account of the report of the regimental surgeon, who could not have taken seriously the previous history of the case, or else thought the patient perfectly good cannon fodder.
The hypothesis of syphilis apparently need not be entertained. That of feeblemindedness is possibly the fundamental diagnosis, yet epilepsy was considered by the German diagnosticians, doubtless on account of the sudden violent attacks and breaches of peace on the part of the patient. There is clearly something behind mere alcoholism in the entire story of this state ward. On the whole, the periodicity of the attacks is equally consistent with the picture presented by numerous feeble-minded persons, and the institutions that had to deal with Q. regarded him rather as epileptoid. There seems to be evidence of actual intellectual defect. Accordingly it seems wiser to consider the case of Julius Q. one of feeblemindedness, possibly of the moron group. We should then consider the epileptoid features as part and parcel of the feeblemindedness. We should consider the intellectual defect a part of the process; and the uncontrollable impulse to drink, the sudden violent attacks, and the cruelty in childhood would then be regarded as merely symptomatic of the feeblemindedness. It seems clear that either mental tests by the regimental surgeon or an examination of the patient’s previous history would tend to exclude such a patient from the army.
How can a rifleman be an imbecile?
Case 45. (Kastan, January, 1916.)
Anton K. was down in the list as “missing.” He was found at home. He said his feet had become sore from the marching. He had lain down and become unconscious. Coming to his senses, he was possessed only of trousers and a shirt but he got a civilian suit in a village. He had gone home part way by train, part way on foot. It seems that he did not tell his father any details about his coming back although he expressly denied deserting.
It seems no mental weakness had been noticed in the army. It had been observed, however, that after seeing the first corpses he was deeply impressed and did not want to see any more. On examination in the hospital he gave the impression of indifference and low spirits. He had to be urged to eat and work. No great amount of intelligence defect could be determined, though his knowledge and capacity were below the average. The physician examining him thought his depression was either caused by or increased by his imprisonment; but this examiner thought that the protection of Section 51 did not extend to the patient at the time of his desertion. The examiner thought that an examination by a psychiatrist was not necessary, though both judge and prosecutor urged it.