Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Mental diseases / by Charles F. Folsom. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Lamar Soutter Library, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
11/122
![By CPIARLES F. FOLSOM, M. D. Definitions of Insanity.—The term insanity conveys quite different meanings to the community, to hiw^yers, and to physicians. From the three points of view its definition has been constantly widening for the past century. A great part of the alleged recent increase in insanity ia due to the fact that its definition is applied to more people. Our insane asylums are more quiet and orderly, not only because of the more humane treatment of the inmates, but largely also because quieter and less insane people are now sent there than formerly. Doubtless the mistake is some- times made of going so far, in zeal for science and philanthropy, as to make the definition of insanity too broad; and in a refined civilization the nice adjustment of complicated social relations, or even a fastidious taste, requires people to be sent to insane asylums Avho in simpler states of society would be cared for at home.^ The popular idea of insanity is of wild, incoherent, or crazy conduct. If maniacal, the timid or frightened young girl who would not hurt a fly, and the tottering, harmless old man if confused and partly demented, are hurried off to the asylum M'ith the use and show of force suitable for a desperate criminal, while the victim of overwhelming delusions, because he seems clear, logical, and collected, is vigorously defended against the physician's imputation of insanity until he commits an offence against the laws, when he is fortunate if he is not treated as a criminal. It is often impossible for judges, juries, counsel, and even medical experts, to wholly divest themselves of the popular notions of insanity in cases appealing strongly to the passion or prejudice of the day. Cases involving the question of responsibility for crime are decided against science and the evidence because of certain preconceived notions upon insanity which no amount of skilled o])inion can controvert. Jurors, and less often judges, make up their minds what a sane man would do under given conditions, and of what an insane man is capable, judging from the facts within their own experience; and in forming their decisions it is the act itself, and not the man, diseased or otherwise, in connection with the act, that chiefiy governs them. Often they are right, not seldom wrong. Strange, apparently purposeless, illogical, inconsistent action is frequently attributed to the author of it being insane on that subject, whereas he may be sim- ' The physician in general practice is referred to Clouston's Clinical Lectures on Menial Diseases, and to Part 1 of Spitzka's Mnnwd of Insanity. For those who wish to study insanity thoroughly tlie literature is rich and its bibliography is readily available. Of many parts of the subject only an outline, of course, can be given within the limits of the present paper.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2119760x_0011.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
