Evening star., 1954-10-17

and even If sued. any recovery
would be nominal"
District General authorities
have since protested bitterly that
they should have had a chance
to explain the various types Of
treatment being offered in the
hospital. under what circum-
stances they would offer them.
The assistants who worked
with Mr.. West on the ruling said
they did not consult with Dis
trict General or st. Elizabeths
or the District Medical Society
or officials of psychiatric wards
in other city hospitals because
they considered this a legal
question.
Ruling Changes Treatment.
DR.. Schultz said yesterday the
ruling has this result:
Voluntary patients are given
whatever their condition re-
quires. Involuntary patients are
given sedatives and tub baths.
but not the intensive treatment
the Commissioners apparently
assumed was available to all.
These examples of the diff
ferent types Of treatment were
drawn from DR.. Schultz files:
A 26-year-old housewife and
active church worker went into
drug store one day and bought
5000 worth Of merchandise. She
had no money to pay for it.
Police took her to District
General for mental observation.
She ran up and down the
ward, kneeling and praying,
screaming about the voices she
heard, talking constantly.
Neither continuous tub baths nor
sedatives calmed her. She was
dangerous to herself.
Her relatives begged the hos
pital to give her electric shock
therapy. The hospital felt it
was the thing to do. The psychi-
artists felt she was suffering
from an acute attack rather
than long-term condition.
They felt that once the pattern
of her behavior could be altered,
they could find out what was
bothering her and start her on
the road to recovery. But under
the West ruling, they had to
refuse to give her electric shock
treatment. She was formally
committed to St. Elizabeths Hos
pital.
On the other hand, take the
case of 49-year-old widow with
five grown children. She had
reached the point where she
couldn't make the simplest deci-
sion. Fixing breakfast was too
great an obstacle. She stopped
eating. She couldn't sleep. She
mourned her dead husband, felt
she had done him some irrepa-
rable wrong and insisted she
hadn't done all she could for
her children.
Her children persuaded her to
go voluntarily to District General
for treatment. When she came
in, there was a look of longing
and distress in her eyes, as
though she were crying out for
help. For the first week, the
psychiatrists tried talking to her
but they weren't getting any,
where. She still wasn't eating or
sleeping. She talked, but only
about her failures.
After a complete physical
check-up and signed consent
from the patient and her rela-
tives, the hospital started electro
shock therapy. In the first week
of treatments, the patients ap-
petite picked up and she began
to sleep.
Other Patient Recovered.
In the second week, she was
eating like one starved. She slept
the night through, began to read
and take an interest in what
went on around her. In the
third week, she began making
decisions. She wanted to talk
things over with her minister
All this time, she was getting
help from a psychiatrist assigned
to her case. She has left the
hospital for home, completely re-
covered.
"It was our impression" DR..
Schultz summed up the ruling,
that no one would seriously
question our right to treat sick
people in a hospital, to give