Elizabeth Packard: A Noble Fight

14 Working in Her Calling

14 Working in Her Calling In 1872 w it h h er r ef or ms in place in Illinois and her family scattered, Packard looked for other fields of service. Iowa was a logical choice. Not only did she still have good friends in Mount Pleasant, but also her son, Theo, and his wife had settled there. Her focus in Iowa was patients’ rights legislation, and she recorded that she began her efforts with letters to Representatives J. Vanderventer and J. M. Hovey. Hovey was chair of the House Committee on Insane Asylums. When both men discouraged her from pursuing this legislation, she again turned to the press, which provided its usual assistance. The Davenport Gazette, for example, carried a 19 March 1872 editorial on “Rights of the Insane,” which declared that, although “Lunatic Asylums were founded in the interest of humanity” to relieve past barbarity in treatment of the insane, recent evidence revealed that “great cruelties and outrages were practiced within their walls.” The writer was appalled to report, “These palatial structures, built and supported at the public expense, have been converted into prison houses of persons not insane, especially married women.” The editorial called for better regulation of modern asylums and restriction of the authority of asylum superintendents, who possessed “powers well nigh autocratic.”1 The newspaper campaign worked. Packard’s bill was referred to the Committee on Insane Asylums. She immediately traveled to Des Moines, where she boarded at the Pacific House and began to lobby legislators. To the great consternation of Dr. Mark Ranney, superintendent of the Mount Pleasant asylum, she secured passage of a comprehensive patients’ rights package entitled, “Act to Protect the Insane.” Passed on 23April 1872,this legislation became known across the nation as “Packard’s Law.”2 Packard’s Law provided for a visiting committee of three persons (one of whom must be a woman) to inspect Iowa asylums “at their discretion” and report annually to the governor. The visiting committee was authorized to examine witnesses under oath and to obtain papers and testimony necessary to investigate allegations of false commitment or abuse. The committee also had authority to fire any attendant or employee “found guilty of misdemeanor, meriting such discharge.”3 Packard’s Law required that the names and addresses of members of the visiting committee must be posted in every ward, and the asylum superintendent was required to inform patients of their right to correspond with whomever they chose. The superintendent could not read or censure patients’ mail, but could forward their letters to the visiting committee for inspection before giving them to the addressee. Patients were also to be given material needed to write and mail letters, unless otherwise ordered by the visiting committee. The superintendent was charged with ensuring that the patients’ letters were properly mailed.4 Finally, the law required a coroner’s inquest in the event of the sudden or “mysterious” death of a patient. Penalties attached to the law included imprisonment of not more than three years and a fine of up to $1,000 for failure to comply.5 This legislation passed in Iowa despite a belated assault by the superintendents ’ lobby. Packard “supposed [they] had lost track of my programme, having remained quiet so long with my children in Chicago.” However, she said, in Iowa “as in Connecticut, the conspiracy followed me.”6 Superintendent Ranney of the Mount Pleasant asylum protested Packard’s legislation using much the same language McFarland had used to oppose her Illinois laws. He complained that the law took control away from asylum superintendents, disrupted the order of the institution, and “unjustly impugn[ed] the integrity of the officers of the hospital.” Ranney argued that the visiting committee was far less qualified to evaluate hospital conditions than the board of trustees, “most of whom serve faithfully for such periods as to become intelligently acquainted with the managements and needs of the hospital.”7 But when Ranney protested that the law would make the task of “subduing his patients” more difficult, Packard turned his own argument against him. She fumed, “Subduing his Patients! They were not placed under his care to be subdued, like criminals—but to be treated as unfortunates, with kindness and suitable medical treatment.”8 Despite her apparent success in obtaining this law, Packard soon discovered that Ranney had persuaded members of the visiting committee that the new law was of dubious benefit and, insofar as possible, should be quietly ignored. Thus, she said, she learned...