The major emphasis in psychoanalytic literature has been on the aetiology of male, rather than female, homosexuality (Socarides, 1968; Wiedeman, 1962). Those psychoanalytic writers who deal with the parent-child relations of homosexual women present a wide diversity of contrasting descriptions and explanations (Bacon, 1967; Bene, 1965; Fromm and Elonen, 1951; Socarides, 1963). One systematic research approach that has evolved from the psychoanalytic literature involves the evaluation of the ‘triangular system’ hypothesis (Bieber et al., 1962). This hypothesis was formulated as an explanation for male homosexuality, and most of the studies to date that relate to it report on male samples (Siegelman, 1972b). The family pattern of the ‘triangular system’ depicted for male homosexuals is a close-binding, intimate, controlling mother and a detached, hostile, rejecting father (Bieber et al., 1962). Kaya et al., (1967), using questions and methods quite similar to Bieber et al., found that homosexual, compared to heterosexual, women patients had fathers who were close-binding and intimate—the converse of the parent behaviour noted for male homosexuals. Kaya et al., however, found that the mothers of the lesbians did not differ in behaviour from the mothers of the non-lesbians. In a study of 25 adolescent lesbian patients, Kremer and Rifkin (1969) found that the fathers of the homosexual women were hostile, exploitative, detached, and absent, but they were not close-binding. The mothers in the Kremer and Rifkin study were described as overburdened and inadequate in handling their responsibilities. Using 27 items from the Bieber et al. (1962) study, Thompson (1971) discovered that the mothers of non-clinical homosexual women were close-binding and intimate, while their fathers were hostile and detached. Many of the Bieber et al. (1962) questions were also used by Gundlach and Riess (1968), who reported that the parents of non-clinical lesbians were not different from the parents of non-lesbians.

This paper is a continuation of a previous study (Monro, 1962), on the Self-Referent Attitudes of Neurotic and Inadequate Personalities. It deals with the social attitudes of the same population of 150 patients. The techniques used derive from Professor Drever (1949) of the Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, from Cattell (1946) and from Eysenck (1944, 1947). The orientation towards social factors is in accord with one of the main traditions of psychology, exemplified by Adler (1927), H. S. Sullivan (1953), and Murphy (1947), to mention only a few outstanding exponents.

‘Include suggestions for reading which you consider to be important, memorable, relevant, unusual, informative—or whatever’, said the Book Review Editor, his own wording meeting several of these criteria. The informative literature on depression is vast, so that a comprehensive review is not to be considered. I present here an arbitrary selection of what has seemed personally useful or memorable, with a bias, for maximum information value, from each reference, to books and review articles. Apologies for the many fine works of equal quality which have been left out.

One criticism was that the 12-month follow-up failed to capture a true clinical picture, and that more time was necessary to demonstrate their worth. The team that carried out this original work have now published 3-year data on 330 individuals detained under section of the Mental Health Act,1 randomised on discharge to CTO or voluntary status via Section 17 leave. No improvements in readmission rates, time to first readmission, or duration of readmissions were found for those placed on CTOs. The findings are even more powerful than the original results; CTOs now exist in various forms in over 75 jurisdictions, but no solid scientific evidence has yet been produced to support them. If there are subpopulations for whom (or specific circumstances in which) they work, such characteristics have yet to be delineated. A ‘least restrictive’ principle underpins the Mental Health Act, and a strong rebuttal is needed to justify ongoing CTO use – so-called ‘revolving-door patients' should not be replaced by revolving-door policy.

It is accepted that Modestinus (c. 320 CE) is the earliest source of the insanity defence, but Walker posed the question, ‘[w]here did Modestinus get his doctrine and his reasoning?’ (Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1985). The surviving writing of Modestinus reveals a clue as to its origin: