22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
State controlled care of the insane in Britain at the start of the twentieth century is often described as conservative because the emphasis was on certification and institutionalization for rate-aided patients. However, Britain cannot be considered as a whole because the laws governing mental health care were different in Scotland and England. Toward the end of the nineteenth century Scotland had temporary care for noncertifiable mental cases and community guardianship schemes for nonviolent cases of insanity. In 1894 Dr. John Carswell wrote that the General Board of Lunacy had “permitted the use of one male and one female ward in Barnhill Parochial Hospital for the treatment of doubtful and temporary non-certified cases.” In England borderline conditions were not acknowledged and prophylaxis and outpatient facilities were rare. This situation was the exact opposite of the psychiatric practice developing in Germany. The main protagonists in this chapter explored these German developments for their own clinical practice. Dr. Helen Boyle (1869–1957) and Dr. Isabel Hutton (1887–1960) traveled extensively in Europe and the United States in search of new ideas and good practices in an effort to improve the treatment of acute, temporary, and noncertifiable mental disorders in England.
The Law, Psychiatric Clinics, and the Treatment of Noncertifi able Mental Disorders
Under the 1890 and 1891 Lunacy Acts for England and Wales there was no possibility of treatment in a public asylum without certification; hospitals admitting mental patients had to be approved and registered by the regulating authority and nursing homes were not allowed to take mental cases. Dispensaries were new to the nineteenth century and a few asylums and general hospitals had them for mental disorders, but they were rare outside London. St. Thomas’s and the Charing Cross Hospital had clinics for mental disorders. In 1890 Dr. L. S. Forbes Winslow opened a charitable outpatient clinic in Euston Road, London for the mentally disordered poor, which was known as the British Hospital for Nervous Disorders.
The decades around 1900 were crucial in the evolution of modern medical and social sciences, and in the formation of various national health services systems. The modern fields of psychiatry and mental health care are located at the intersection of these spheres. There emerged concepts, practices, and institutions that marked responses to challenges posed by urbanization, industrialization, and the formation of the nation-state. These psychiatric responses were locally distinctive, and yet at the same time established influential models with an international impact. In spite of rising nationalism in Europe, the intellectual, institutional, and material resources that emerged in the various local and national contexts were rapidly observed to have had an impact beyond any national boundaries. In numerous ways, innovations were adopted and refashioned for the needs and purposes of new national and local systems. 'International Relations in Psychiatry: Britain, Germany, and the United States to World War II' brings together hitherto separate approaches from the social, political, and cultural history of medicine and health care and argues that modern psychiatry developed in a constant, though not always continuous, transfer of ideas, perceptions, and experts across national borders. Contributors: John C. Burnham, Eric J. Engstrom, Rhodri Hayward, Mark Jackson, Pamela Michael, Hans Pols, Volker Roelcke, Heinz-Peter Schmiedebach, Mathew Thomson, Paul J. Weindling, Louise Westwood. Volker Roelcke is professor and director at the Institute for the History of Medicine, Giessen University, Germany. Paul J. Weindling is professor in the history of medicine, Oxford Brookes University, UK. Louise Westwood is honorary research reader, University of Sussex, UK.
The decades around 1900 were a crucial period in the making of the various national systems of health services, as well as the formation of the modern medical and social sciences. The field of psychiatry and mental health care can be understood as located at the intersection of these spheres. Here, concepts, practices, and institutions emerged that marked responses to the challenges posed by urbanization, industrialization, and the formation of the nation-state. Psychiatry had a considerable impact on the modes of perception and evaluation, and on the patterns of action toward contemporary social concerns and political issues. These psychiatric responses were locally distinctive, and yet at the same time they established, in part, influential models with an international impact.
This volume addresses two important topics of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century history. The essays deal with the transformation of psychiatry into one of the most contested and influential modern sciences; and they link this focus to broader issues of international relations and transfers of concepts, practices, personnel, as well as funds in a context of rising internationalism and nationalism.
For instance, an orientation toward new career opportunities in the United States by European physicians in the context of innovative and flexible institutional structures and systems of funding may be documented for the 1920s; yet this orientation has found almost no attention in the historiography of psychiatry.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.