Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:06:06.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Remarks upon the term “Weakmindedness,” with Observations upon the need of Definite Nomenclature for Cases of Congenital Mental Defect which are not certifiable as Imbecile or Insane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

A. R. Douglas*
Affiliation:
H.M. Prison, Portland

Extract

The term “weakmindedness” is a most misleading and ambiguous one, and it is imperative that it should receive early attention. It is confusing from the very comprehensive scope of its significance, and altogether so capable of such extremely varied and general interpretation that it is rendered worthless, and perhaps worse than worthless, for the purposes of actual practice. By some, the slightest departure from the normal mental standard is regarded as “weakmindedness,” although the case in question might be one of mere eccentricity; by others, again, the term is accepted in its full comprehensiveness,—the lunatic and imbecile, the idiot and person of defective intellect (who cannot be classified with either of the above three divisions), are all included together, and in the absence of a qualifying statement, confusion is the result. It is most improbable that any two alienists would be likely to interpret the meaning of the term in the same way, and the Commissioners in Lunacy, who are most strict in the matter of validity of certificate, would certainly not accept it per se on account of its ambiguity.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1898 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.