Miller Edgar
Centre for English Local History, University of Leicester.
Hist Psychiatry. 2007 Mar;18(1):25-38. doi: 10.1177/0957154X07067670.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the vast majority of those recognized as insane were pauper insane. The local poor law officials and magistrates determined who was regarded as one of the pauper insane and what happened to them. This paper shows that there was considerable variation across England in the proportion of the population regarded as insane. Although most of the insane were committed to an asylum, a substantial minority (20-25%) were retained in the workhouse, and there was also considerable variation in the numbers dealt with in this way. Contrary to views expressed at the time and more recently, areas with higher levels of industrialization did not have higher rates of insanity. In fact the trend was definitely in the reverse direction. The factors that influenced the poor law authorities to retain the insane in the workhouse did not appear to be the additional expense of asylum care or the availability of beds in local asylums. The majority of the insane retained in the workhouse were idiots and imbeciles rather than lunatics, although some workhouses contained considerable numbers of the latter. The management of the insane in the workhouse was generally poor.
在19世纪后半叶,绝大多数被认定为精神错乱的人都是贫民精神病患者。当地的济贫法官员和治安法官决定谁被视为贫民精神病患者之一以及他们的遭遇。本文表明,在英格兰,被视为精神错乱的人口比例存在相当大的差异。尽管大多数精神病患者被送进了精神病院,但仍有相当一部分少数群体(20% - 25%)被留在了济贫院,而且以这种方式处理的人数也存在很大差异。与当时及最近表达的观点相反,工业化程度较高的地区精神病发病率并不高。事实上,趋势恰恰相反。影响济贫法当局将精神病患者留在济贫院的因素似乎不是精神病院护理的额外费用或当地精神病院的床位供应情况。留在济贫院的大多数精神病患者是低能儿和痴愚者,而非疯子,尽管有些济贫院收容了相当数量的疯子。济贫院对精神病患者的管理普遍很差。