When thinking of spurs to hospital development in the first half of the last century, it would be easy to assume that the greatest watershed was provided by the 1946 National Health Service Act. In this article, however, we focus on an earlier and often overlooked piece of legislation, which had a perhaps equally significant impact on the development of hospitals in England and Wales. This was the 1929 Local Government Act, which changed both the ownership and the focus of many of the largest hospitals in the country. As Robert Pinker has observed, the act “radically altered the percentage distribution of hospital beds in the public sector”. Such observations notwithstanding, municipal medicine in the 1930s has not received the historical attention it deserves, an omission which this article seeks in part to remedy. The terms of the act in respect of hospital development were permissive, and the extent to which local authorities acted had a great effect on the way in which their municipal hospital services developed, and hence the beds and facilities available at the time of the nationalization of the health services. The reaction of local authorities to the act, however, depended partly on their own choices, and partly on constraints over which they had less control.

The purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, published on 15 June 1966, was to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner. When David Steel, a young Liberal MP from the Scottish Borders, put this bill forward, some suggested that a Scottish politician had no need to introduce abortion reform since Scots law was already satisfactory in this regard. Certainly, abortion law in Scotland was more flexible than its English counterpart, and the number of prosecutions few. The line between criminal and non-criminal abortion was, however, just as indistinct, with great medical uncertainty in this area. On becoming law, the 1967 Abortion Act was the first piece of abortion-related legislation to cover Scotland, England and Wales collectively. None the less, for a variety of legal and moral reasons, abortion policy and practice continued to differ on either side of the Border.

Since antiquity, some men have not been considered accountable for their actions when they transgressed the law, and were exempted from legal penalties, or given lesser ones. Why? The rationale for legal exemption has varied over time. So have the labels assigned to such lawbreakers, and even the personnel involved in the labelling process. For centuries, settling the question of deviant mental states of relevance to the court seemed relatively unproblematic. It was thought that personal acquaintance would easily discover such states of mind and the court could then be notified. It was not until the nineteenth century that western society felt a need to regulate this problematique. As a result, or as a precondition for this process of settling the question of legal accountability, the matter came to be construed in part as a medical problem. Physicians, and later psychiatrists, came to be regarded as possessing specific knowledge in this area which qualified them to judge a person's legal accountability. Personal knowledge of the deranged defendant was supplanted by professional knowledge of sanity and insanity as the basis for authority on the matter of accountability.

The concept of drug receptors has played a significant role in the biomedical sciences and in pharmaceutical innovation in the second half of the twentieth century. Although the concept dates back to the work of the German bacteriologist and immunologist Paul Ehrlich and of the British physiologist John Newport Langley at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, its acceptance was delayed because of conflicting ideas about drug action, and because of uncertainties and hesitations about the concept itself.