The Mental Treatment Act 1930: the first five years and the London County Council mental hospitals.

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Claire Hilton
{"title":"The Mental Treatment Act 1930: the first five years and the London County Council mental hospitals.","authors":"Claire Hilton","doi":"10.1017/mdh.2026.10077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Mental Treatment Act 1930 amended the Lunacy Act 1890 for England and Wales. It sought to make access to treatment for mentally unwell people more accessible and less stigmatising. The 1930 Act introduced 'voluntary' patient status, permitting any adult to seek early treatment for their mental symptoms, rather than waiting until they were legally 'certifiable' as insane. The Act also created a new category of 'temporary' treatment without certification, which was conceptually challenging to understand and awkward to put into practice.This paper explores the implementation of the 1930 Act over its first five years. It draws on national and London County Council archival sources to gain insights at all levels of implementation.Implementation was a vast undertaking. Considerable cultural adaptation was necessary among those providing services in the community and in institutions. Culture shift was slow, as is common when new interventions are perceived to be more liberal and potentially riskier than tried and tested methods.In the context of the Great Depression, the Act faced competition with other societal and healthcare needs. These matters appeared as influential as whether the Act's directives were mandatory or optional. Lessons from this episode may help inform processes for implementing new mental healthcare legislation in the twenty-first century.</p>","PeriodicalId":18275,"journal":{"name":"Medical History","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2026.10077","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Mental Treatment Act 1930 amended the Lunacy Act 1890 for England and Wales. It sought to make access to treatment for mentally unwell people more accessible and less stigmatising. The 1930 Act introduced 'voluntary' patient status, permitting any adult to seek early treatment for their mental symptoms, rather than waiting until they were legally 'certifiable' as insane. The Act also created a new category of 'temporary' treatment without certification, which was conceptually challenging to understand and awkward to put into practice.This paper explores the implementation of the 1930 Act over its first five years. It draws on national and London County Council archival sources to gain insights at all levels of implementation.Implementation was a vast undertaking. Considerable cultural adaptation was necessary among those providing services in the community and in institutions. Culture shift was slow, as is common when new interventions are perceived to be more liberal and potentially riskier than tried and tested methods.In the context of the Great Depression, the Act faced competition with other societal and healthcare needs. These matters appeared as influential as whether the Act's directives were mandatory or optional. Lessons from this episode may help inform processes for implementing new mental healthcare legislation in the twenty-first century.

《1930年精神治疗法》:头五年和伦敦郡议会精神病院。
《1930年精神治疗法案》修订了《1890年英格兰和威尔士精神错乱法案》。它力求使精神疾病患者更容易获得治疗,减少污名化。1930年的法案引入了“自愿”病人身份,允许任何成年人为他们的精神症状寻求早期治疗,而不是等到他们被法律“证明”为精神失常。该法案还创造了一个新的类别,即没有认证的“临时”治疗,这在概念上具有挑战性,难以理解,难以付诸实施。本文探讨了1930年法案在头五年的实施情况。它利用国家和伦敦郡议会的档案资源来了解各级执行情况。实施是一项艰巨的任务。在社区和机构中提供服务的人必须进行相当程度的文化适应。文化转变是缓慢的,当新的干预措施被认为比经过试验和测试的方法更自由,潜在风险更大时,这是很常见的。在大萧条的背景下,该法案面临着与其他社会和医疗保健需求的竞争。这些问题似乎与《法令》的指示是强制性的还是任意性的一样具有影响力。这一事件的教训可能有助于为21世纪实施新的精神保健立法的进程提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical History
Medical History 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical History is a refereed journal devoted to all aspects of the history of medicine and health, with the goal of broadening and deepening the understanding of the field, in the widest sense, by historical studies of the highest quality. It is also the journal of the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. The membership of the Editorial Board, which includes senior members of the EAHMH, reflects the commitment to the finest international standards in refereeing of submitted papers and the reviewing of books. The journal publishes in English, but welcomes submissions from scholars for whom English is not a first language; language and copy-editing assistance will be provided wherever possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书