In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

15 “Great and Noble Work” Imple ment a t ion of t he AMSAII’s “Project of The Law” clearly slowed, but did not stop, Packard’s progress. From 1875on in state after state, asylum superintendents promoted legislation to repeal or amend Packard’s laws. Indeed, the degree of Packard’s success is remarkable given the countermeasures of the AMSAII. Because of these countermeasures, the effectiveness and longevity of the specific laws for which Packard was responsible varied from state to state. In Iowa, for example, comments by Superintendent Albert Reynolds of the Hospital for the Insane in Independence indicated that the visiting committee in that state remained relatively ineffective, despite Packard’s efforts. Noting in May 1875that Packard’s Law was still in force, Reynolds remarked that he had “received only kindness and courtesy” at the hands of the Iowa visiting committee and that they had “never made a suggestion towards the control or management of the Hospital.”1 In April 1876, American Journal of Insanity editor John Gray was delighted to report that Mark Ranney, who had resigned rather than work under Packard ’s Law, had returned to his position as superintendent at the Mount Pleasant , Iowa, asylum after the portion of Packard’s Law affecting postal rights had been amended to return “control of correspondence where it formerly was, in the hands of the superintendent.” Gray declared, “Thus has the folly of legislation, brought about by pseudo philanthropists, urged on by the specious pleas of an uncured lunatic . . . been fully manifested.”2 However, by the latter decades of the nineteenth century, the AMSAII had become the object of substantial criticism, not only from former patients like Elizabeth Packard, but also from other professionals. British psychiatrists believed that American psychiatrists “relied too much on restraint.” They also suggested that American asylums had become largely custodial in nature.3 An Australian physician visiting American asylums in the early 1880sreported that “superintendents were so overburdened with the details of management and clinical duties that they had no time or inclination for scientific studies, or even for the proper care of their patients.”4 The AMSAII had by then conceded the issue of external oversight of asylum superintendents and trustees. However, rather than resisting the establishment of Boards of Charity, commissioners of lunacy, and visiting committees , the Association now pressed for inclusion of asylum superintendents as members of such groups. They also opened AMSAII meetings to members of state Boards of Charities with the expressed aim of “educating” lay members of the boards and cultivating their support. The effectiveness of this effort is apparent in comments by Reverend Fred H. Wines, secretary of the Illinois state Board of Charities, who attended the AMSAII’s conferences in 1876 and 1877. In his remarks to the superintendents, Wines professed “a sincere and profound respect” for the profession and sought their advice regarding the need for additional institutions for care of the insane in Illinois.5 In 1876, Dr. Thomas Kirkbride, presiding over the annual meeting of the AMSAII, touted the achievements of the AMSAII and assured colleagues that their Association had, since its founding, done more “to promote the best interest of the insane than all other causes combined.” He was gratified that the Association’s “carefully matured declarations” were “recognized as authority , by legislative bodies, building commissions, boards of management, and others” who were interested in the insane, “both at home and abroad.”6 He did not mention that these building commissions and boards of management would probably not have existed without the persistent efforts of Elizabeth Packard and those who shared her views. Although the superintendents at times succeeded in regaining some of the authority and control denied them by Packard’s laws, they were rarely able to escape investigation or to overturn her laws completely. This was especially true in states where others continued to monitor legislation when Packard’s attention was diverted elsewhere.7 It is evident from the work of the Bradwells in Illinois and men such as Nathan Allen and Wendell Phillips in Massachusetts that Packard’s reform efforts were neither solitary nor anomalous. Although she was unable to establish a national organization and considered herself an independent humanitarian, she clearly worked within a network of like-minded individuals. In Illinois, for example, Myra Bradwell used the increasingly prestigious voice of her Chicago Legal News to sustain the legislation put in place in response to Packard’s work. Bradwell spoke out against the “Private MadHouse ” bill, which...

Share