Mental diseases: a public health problem

by James Vance May

Boards of control exist in Arkansas, California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. California has, in addition to this, a board of charities and corrections and a commission in lunacy. Vermont has a director of state institutions. In New Hampshire the board of trustees of the state hospital constitutes a commission in lunacy. A number of states have special departments for the supervision of hospitals for mental diseases and in some instances for the control of all institutions. Delaware has a board of supervisors of state institutions. This is essentially a board of control. This is true of the board of commissioners of state institutions in Florida. Illinois has a department of public welfare, which places the control of the charitable, penal and corrective institutions, as well as the hospitals for mental diseases, largely in the hands of one man, a layman. Michigan and Pennsylvania also have departments of public welfare. Kansas has placed its hospitals under the control of a board of administration of state charitable institutions. Maryland has a lunacy commission and Missouri a board of managers. Montana and Nevada each have a board of commissioners for the insane. New Jersey has a state board of control of institutions and agencies, the direction of the state hospitals being delegated to a commissioner of charities and corrections. New York has the largest department in the country having exclusive state hospital functions. It is under the supervision of a hospital commission. Ohio has a board of administration which manages and governs all of the charitable, corrective and penal institutions of the state. This is, of course, a board of control pure and simple. Oklahoma has a commissioner of charities and corrections who is an elective officer, and has, in addition, a lunacy commission and a board of public affairs. Rhode Island has a penal and charitable commission of nine members. Utah has a board of insanity and Wyoming a board of charities and reform. Massachusetts has a department of mental diseases under the direction of a medical commissioner, with four unpaid associates. In addition to the hospitals for mental diseases the department has under its jurisdiction the institutions for the feebleminded and the epileptics.

The necessity of some form of central supervision or control, of state institutions in general and hospitals for mental diseases in particular, has long been a subject of serious consideration and discussion. The administration of hospitals, prisons, reformatories, etc., by a central board of control may be indicated in states where there are only a few institutions and the creation of highly specialized and expensive departments obviously would not be warranted. The question may very properly be raised as to the necessity of any supervision other than that by local boards of trustees in such communities. A study of methods of supervision made some years ago by the medical director of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene [25] shows that the board of control system leaves much to be desired. He has expressed himself on this subject in no uncertain terms, as is shown by the following:—"Under Boards of Control, politics influence the care of the sick to a degree unknown under different types of supervision and the scientific and humane aspects of the work undertaken are generally subordinated to doubtful administrative advantages. With hardly an exception, these Boards of Control have not endeavored to secure better commitment laws, to lead public sentiment so that higher standards of treatment will be demanded or to deal with the great problems of mental disease in any except their narrowest institutional aspects. There has been striking absence of evidences of any feeling of personal responsibility in these matters; indeed many members of these boards would doubtless unhesitatingly state that their duties do not involve such considerations. What the results would have been if efficient and fearless local boards of managers had been retained when these states created Boards of Control cannot be stated. It is an essential part of the policy which places the care of the insane under this form of administration that there shall be no "division of responsibility" and, seemingly, there is no place in such a scheme for bodies which are as much interested in the personal welfare of the wards of the State as they are in governmental "efficiency" and, which, moreover, are directly accountable to their neighbors—the friends and relatives of patients. It is interesting to compare some of the conditions mentioned with those existing in States in which the care of the insane is entrusted to Boards created for that special purpose. In these States,—California, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York,—it can be said truly that the care of the insane reaches its highest level."

The experience of the past has shown that the injection of politics into the administration of state institutions is almost invariably due to the over-centralization of power in state departments, the local boards of trustees or managers either being abolished or largely deprived of their authority. The greatest menace to the future welfare of the hospitals for mental diseases is, in the opinion of many, the unfortunate result of a popular and more or less legitimate demand for the reorganization of state governments, reducing their administrative activities to a few separate departments, each one under the entire charge of a director responsible only to the Governor. The argument for this procedure is that it does away with innumerable commissions, boards and departments working along independent lines without any reference to the desirability of coordinating the activities of the state as a whole and places the affairs of the commonwealth on an efficient, systematic and economical basis. There is no question as to the theoretical advisability of such methods. The difficulty is, that in putting into practical operation this unquestionably commendable undertaking, the humanitarian aspect of the charitable enterprises conducted by state governments for more than a century, is likely to be lost sight of. It is almost invariably urged that the directors of these various departments should be experienced business men of recognized ability and that in only such a way can the affairs of the state be put on a "businesslike basis." It must be confessed that this argument is one which appeals very strongly to the taxpayer, who naturally has not given the matter very careful thought. There are other important considerations, however, where the question of administering hospitals is involved. As Commissioner Kline [26] has said:—"If it be conceded that the care and treatment of the mentally sick is a highly specialized medical problem, requiring the services of medical experts, and that the institutions function primarily for the welfare of the patient, then the supervision and control of institutions should be in the hands of medical men especially trained for the purpose."

In some instances where the state governments have been reorganized and the proposed consolidation of departments effected, the administration of the state hospitals has come under the direction of a single individual without hospital or institution experience of any kind and without any special knowledge of medicine or psychiatry. There is no escaping the fact that the administration of a hospital is a medical problem. Nor is there any question as to the advisability of some central supervision and financial control of institutions. The hospital departments in our more populous states are, however, so extensive and so important that they cannot be merged with other interests without sacrificing to a considerable extent the welfare of the patients. It should be remembered, moreover, that the administration of hospitals for mental diseases is a specialty and a large one, not specifically related to the problems arising in the management of charitable institutions or prisons. The best results have been obtained where there is a division of responsibility between local boards of trustees or managers and a central body charged with the supervision, and a limited or complete financial control, of institutions for mental diseases only. The head of such a department should unquestionably be a medical man with psychiatric hospital experience. This policy has been responsible for the high standards maintained in the state hospitals of Massachusetts and New York.

It is, unfortunately, true that the care of mental diseases is not exclusively a function of the state or private hospitals. In thirteen states, county or municipal institutions are maintained and in twenty-five, persons suffering from mental diseases may legally be cared for in almshouses or poorhouses.

There is little uniformity in the laws of the various states relative to the hospital care of mental diseases, aside from the fact that almost without any exception they are designed to provide solely for the legal custody of the so-called "insane" and the protection of the public. "Insanity," as a matter of fact, is a purely legal and not a medical term, and may be said to relate to mental diseases only in so far as they come within the jurisdiction of the courts.

Statutory enactments relative to the forms of mental disease which render the individual subject to legal custody and detention in an institution are illustrated by the provisions of the Civil Code of Illinois. This defines an "insane" person as one "who by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of managing his own estate, or is dangerous to himself or others, if permitted to go at large, or in such condition of mind or body as to be a fit subject for care and treatment in a hospital or asylum for the insane." In Alabama a person is legally insane "if he has been found by a proper court deficient or defective mentally so that for his own or others' welfare his removal is required for restraint, care, and treatment." As a general rule, provision by law is made 1, for an application for commitment; 2, for a medical certificate of two or more properly qualified physicians showing the person to be insane and a proper subject for care and treatment in an institution, and 3, for the order of the Judge of a Court of Record for commitment to a state hospital. The necessity of some form of legal authorization for detention is a result of the fundamental principle in English procedure that no man, against his will, may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. This right was recognized and perpetuated by the Magna Charta signed by King John in 1215 and is very definitely referred to in at least two different articles in the Constitution of the United States.

As a rule the application for commitment can be made only by certain persons definitely specified in the law,—parents, near relatives, the guardian or various public officials such as overseers of the poor. In Massachusetts any person may sign such a petition. In Florida a request must be jointly made by five reputable citizens. This would not appear to be a material point in law. Some courts require that a notice of the application be served upon the person whose commitment is requested. In New York a notice must be served at least one day prior to the hearing of the case unless the judge personally certifies that substituted service has been made upon some other person or that personal service was considered inadvisable for some adequate reason noted and has therefore been dispensed with. The Arizona law requires the judge to hold a hearing and have the alleged insane person before him for examination. In California a jury trial may be requested and a commitment made only on a verdict of insanity requiring a vote of at least three-fourths of the jurors. A trial by jury may be asked for in Colorado, Connecticut and many other states and must be granted. Trial by jury is necessary in all cases in Georgia. Provision is usually made for an appeal to some higher court. In many states hearings are mandatory, in others they are optional with the court. In Iowa each county has a board of three commissioners of insanity, one of whom must be a physician. They have full authority under the law to make commitments to institutions. Hearings are required in Kansas but inquests in lunacy may be either by jury or commission at the discretion of the court. In Kentucky inquests in lunacy must be held by the Circuit Court of a county. The hearings are always in the presence of a jury. In Louisiana two physicians must examine the patient in the presence of the court. If the physicians do not agree the judge himself decides the case. In Maine parents and guardians may send insane minors to an institution without a commitment. Other insane persons are subject to examination by the municipal officers of towns. In Mississippi the Chancery Courts have jurisdiction over writs of lunacy and an inquest may be made by jury. Nebraska has three commissioners in insanity in each county, appointed by the judge of the District Court. In the case of persons found insane they issue a warrant authorizing admission to a state hospital. Each county in New Jersey has a commissioner in lunacy, who has jurisdiction over the steps relating to admission to institutions. Commitments are made by the judge of a Court of Record. All orders for commitments in North Carolina must be made by the clerk of a Superior Court. No person who has moved into the state while insane is deemed a resident. North Dakota has a board of three commissioners of insanity in each county, the county judge being a member. The commissioners authorize hospitals to receive persons found to be insane. Appeal may be made to a commission of three persons to be appointed by the county judge. A jury trial is provided for, on demand, in Oklahoma. In cases of appeal the county judge must appoint a commission of three, one of whom is a physician, for the examination of the patient. Examination by a commission of three is required in Pennsylvania before commitment by a justice of a Court of Common Pleas or Quarter Sessions. South Dakota has a board of three commissioners of insanity in each county, the county judge being a member. An insane person may be received in a hospital in Vermont on the certificate of two physicians or by the order of a County or Supreme Court without a physician's certificate. Appeal may be made to the state board of control. In Virginia the committing judge and two physicians constitute a commission for the examination of alleged insane persons. In West Virginia there is a county commission of lunacy composed of the president and clerk of the County Court and the prosecuting attorney. Commitments are ordered by the commission. On the arrival of the patient at a hospital a board composed of the Superintendent and assistant physicians must be convened for the examination of the patient. Application for commitment must be made in Wisconsin by three reputable citizens. The determination of insanity in Wyoming must be made in all instances by a jury of six men.

When an insane person has been committed to an institution it is sometimes the duty of an officer of the court to accompany the patient to the hospital. The order of the court in Massachusetts includes the following:—"Now, Therefore, You, the said Sheriff, Deputies, Constables or Police Officers, and each of you, with necessary assistance, ... are hereby commanded, in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, forthwith to convey the said —— to the hospital aforesaid, and to deliver h— to the Superintendent thereof, and make due return of a copy of this precept with your doings therein." This practically amounts to a warrant of arrest and makes the removal of the patient to the hospital to all intents and purposes analogous to a criminal proceeding.

Attention should be called to one of the very excellent and humane provisions of the New York Law:—"All county superintendents of the poor, overseers of the poor, health officers and other city, town or county authorities, having duties to perform relating to the poor, are charged with the duty of seeing that all poor and indigent insane persons within their respective municipalities, are timely granted the necessary relief conferred by this chapter. The poor officers or authorities above specified, except in the city of New York and in the county of Albany, shall notify the health officer of the town, city or village of any poor or indigent insane or apparently insane person within such municipality whom they know to be in need of the relief conferred by this chapter. When so notified, or when otherwise informed of such fact, the health officer of the city, town or village, except in the city of New York and the county of Albany, where such insane or apparently insane person may be, shall see that proceedings are taken for the determination of his mental condition and for his commitment to a state hospital. Such health officer may direct the proper poor officer to make an application for such commitment, and, if a qualified medical examiner, may join in making the required certificate of lunacy. When so directed by such health officer it shall be the duty of the said poor officer to make such application for commitment. When notified or informed of any poor or indigent insane or apparently insane person in need of the relief conferred by this chapter such health officer shall provide for the proper care, treatment and nursing of such person, as provided by law and the rules of the commission, pending the determination of his mental condition and his commitment and until the delivery of such insane person to the attendant sent to bring him to the state hospital, as provided in this chapter."