Thirty-first annual report of the directors of James Murray's Royal Asylum for Lunatics, near Perth. June 1858.

  • James Murray's Royal Asylum for Lunatics
Date:
1858
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Thirty-first annual report of the directors of James Murray's Royal Asylum for Lunatics, near Perth. June 1858. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/64 (page 37)
    presence of a witness. The Lord Ordinary further “ appoints him ”_ that is, the patient—“ to lodge answers thereto—[referring to the proposed appointment of a Curator bonis]—“ if so advised, within eight days from the date of service.” Now we have no wish, and we shall not presume, to constitute ourselves umpires or judges of the legal bearings of this practice. We do not venture to assert that such a proceeding is legally unnecessary or absurd. But this we feel bound to assert—and we do so, hoping that a legal remedy may be found for the evil complained of—that this practice is almost invariably attended with bad, nay, sometimes with most serious, results to the patient. We have frequently seen the favourable progress of a case at once Evils of per- checked, and all that had been accomplished in the course of months of copy-ap- 01 years of careful treatment undone and rendered nugatory by the Curatory, abrupt and unexpected visit of the messenger-at-arms with his service, and the copy of the application to the Court of Session. Only recently, a case occurred in which such visit produced a crisis in the disease of the patient visited : up to that point and that period he had been progressing favourably : subsequently to that visit, and the annoyances to which it gave rise, the progress of the disease had been downward and decided. There are many evils or disadvantages flowing from this legal proceeding—the more prominent of which alone we would here allude to. The copy of the petition does not come through the usual channel—the Superintendent—through whose hands pass, and properly pass, all letters and documents, messages, &c., to or from patients. This fact, of itself, either gives rise to suspicion on the part of the patient, or it shows him that there are certain things over which the Superintendent has no control; and the autho¬ rity of this officer is thus virtually set aside or susperseded by that of the Court of Session. But it is the Superintendent and not the Court of Session that is responsible for the health and comfort of the patient : the former removes and keeps away everything which can irritate or disturb, and surrounds the patient with everything that can cheer and soothe. But on what principle can he be justly held responsible for the state of mind of his patient, when, in spite of all care and solicitude, documents of the most irritating and hurtful kind are put into the hands of such patient. This is a direct interference G