2. Confinement with criminals. In cases of unusual violence, dangerous persons were confined in jails, lockups and prisons. If necessary, under certain circumstances the law in some states even authorized the use of chains.
3. Almshouse care. There has been a time in practically every state when the poorhouse has been looked upon as the proper place for the insane.
4. Asylum care. As a result of the agitation of Dorothea Dix and others, mental diseases were eventually given custodial care in asylums.
5. Modern hospital care.
In 1894 Dr. S. Weir Mitchell [29] delivered the annual address at the semi-centennial meeting of the American Medico-Psychological Association in Philadelphia. It was a very painful occasion for many. His remarks may be summed up as a vigorous arraignment of the asylum methods of that day. He severely criticized the public, the state legislatures, boards of management and the hospital superintendents. His principal charge was that they were operating asylums along the lines of the past and were perfectly satisfied with what they had accomplished. He pointed out the necessity of properly qualified physicians, more scientific methods and modern treatment. "We have done with whip and chains and ill usage, and having won this noble battle have we not rested too easily content with having made the condition of the insane more comfortable?" It seems incredible that in the case records of that day he should have found no evidences "of blood counts, temperatures, reflexes, the eye-ground, color fields, all the minute examinations with which we are so unrestingly busy." One institution was unable to furnish Dr. Mitchell with a stethoscope or an ophthalmoscope! One of his criticisms was that few institutions for mental diseases had a training school for nurses or any provisions for hydrotherapy. His last words were almost a prophecy: "Fifty years hence, when we must all have been swept away, another will possibly stand in my place and tell your history, and to him and the bountiful wisdom of time I leave it to be declared whether I was right or wrong." Dr. Mitchell's description of the asylums and their methods was bitterly resented. Who is there today who would not feel that he was fully justified?
The time has come when we must again look to the future and prepare for it. The purely custodial care of mental diseases has led to a dread of asylums on the part of the public. There are unfortunately too many hospitals that are asylums in everything but name. The establishment of psychopathic hospitals and psychiatric clinics and the way in which they have been welcomed by the public is suggestive. The problems of mental diseases, as far as possible, must be approached from a general hospital point of view and the psychiatric hospital of the future must have a modern equipment, an efficient staff and adequate facilities for the employment of the latest methods. Above all, the institutions must be such that they will be looked upon by the community not merely as a place to which the insane may be sent for final disposition, but as hospitals where the development of mental diseases may be prevented and where recoveries may be reasonably expected if the patient is given early treatment. This should be the principal object of the state hospital of the future. "The concept of its beneficent ministration to the mind diseased as any physical part of the human body," as Copp[30] has pointed out, "is just appearing in shadowy outline in public consciousness. The effacement of this barrier to early treatment is slowly but steadily progressing. Its pace will be hastened if every mental hospital continues to become, as speedily as may be, the real hospital in the broadest sense, with emphasis laid upon its treatment function and subordination of its control relation within the reasonable limit of caution. The mental hospital and the general hospital are essentially alike. Mental factors predominate in the former, but are potent influences in the latter. The difference is one of degree only. All the imperative requirements of the one must be met by the other. They are supplementary agencies in curing and alleviating disease and must be, eventually, viewed in the same light and administered in the same spirit on even planes of humaneness and efficiency."
One thing should be made clear at the outset. A comprehensive and progressive program for further development means an expenditure of money. If the state hospitals are to fulfill their obligations to the community which they serve they must have more physicians. Provisions must be made for directors of clinical psychiatry, pathologists, internists, surgeons, dentists, and specialists of various kinds. Experts in hydrotherapy, massage and electrical treatments are necessary, as well as dietitians, industrial instructors, occupational teachers, specialists in reeducational work, psychologists, social workers, etc. Furthermore, they must be provided in sufficient numbers if anything is to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, no very great outlay of funds would be required in making a tremendous increase in efficiency. Although the institutional expenditures have increased enormously of late years, largely as a result of war conditions, increased costs, higher wages, etc., the amount actually invested in this humanitarian movement by the various states is not commensurate in any way with the results which are to be obtained. If we leave out of consideration everything except the saving in dollars and cents to be effected by methods which will in many instances render a protracted hospital residence unnecessary, the outlay involved would be well warranted. It should be brought to the attention of the public that very few states are expending as much as one dollar per day for the maintenance of the individual patient. Modern hospital treatment of the highest type, under these circumstances, is manifestly impossible. The time has come when we should no longer be satisfied with the purely custodial care of mental cases.