Skip to main content

I think that it may be laid down as a rule that the. management of the insane.should be the same as nearly as possible as for the sane.I consider that seclusion .as a means of punishment, is not only of no value, but is positively hurtful. The same may be said of punishment of any kind. I never allow it to be adopted, except as a means of separation, as for instance where two patients quarrel and require [sic] to be kept asunder.to allow their tempers to cool.Restraint is both unnecessary and hurtful..but is .at certain times indispensable.Sometimes patients. are better invested with a garment which prohibits the use of the hands as. they will the sooner lie down and sleep overcome them, than if allowed to irritate themselves by tearing and knocking about all night. In short, with careful and kind conduct on the part of the attendants, not one case in 100 requires restraint in the daytime.In this house, both restraint and seclusion are the sure exception, and .patients are treated. in the same manner as those with whom they are associated in the performance of the duties of the farm, garden and household. It soon became apparent that the policies put into practice at the asylum differed from those described by Norton. During one inspection it was found that a patient had been fastened to a fixed chair by a strap around her waist almost continuously for long periods and at times she had been placed in a strait waistcoat. Their complaints, which included comments about the diet rice milk is a very insufficient substitute for herrings' and the 'very cheerless and gloomy dayrooms' met with no reponse from the magistrates. Nor did the justices pay any more attention to the legal rights of those accepted as patients at Amroth Castle. In order to minimise the risk of illegal detention, the law required that scrupulous attention should be paid to details concerning the compulsory admission of patients. The most serious breach of legal protocol occurred when the certificate used to detain the patient 'was wholly insufficient' and, presumably, Norton had no alternative but to allow him to leave, regardless of his clinical state. Having considered these matters carefully, Shaftsbury acknowledged that magistrate's opinions: are not always in agreement with the views expressed by Visiting Commissioners as to the shortcomings [and] it is only in cases of great abuse that we can feel justified in adopting the extreme course of applying to your Lordship for a revocation of the license.