Search

Summary: Many people like to perceive themselves as better than previous generations: more knowledgeable, moral, tolerant and humane. Values associated with these aspects of ourselves may affect how we understand our professional forebears. In the early 20th century, some psychiatrists adopted new biomedical theories, including focal sepsis and eugenics, which resulted in inestimable harm. Detrimental clinical practices arose and were perpetuated in the context of societal values, medical ethics and other forces within and outside the medical profession. Historical understanding of the processes by which these things took place may help inform debate concerning current and future challenges of providing psychiatric care. The methods by which psychiatrists consider their predecessors may also have a bearing on how psychiatrists of the future will perceive us, the psychiatrists of the 2020s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Royal College of Psychiatrists' antiquarian book collection originated from the library of psychiatrist Daniel Hack Tuke (1827-1895). A proposal to name the collection after him led us to investigate aspects of his life and work, particularly related to his attitudes concerning race, gender and homosexuality. We juxtaposed his ideas with those of some of his contemporaries. We cannot separate psychiatrists, past or present, from the societal and scientific context that shapes their professional understanding and standards. However, changes in language, knowledge, values and other sociocultural factors over time can affect how we perceive our forebears and how future generations of psychiatrists may perceive us. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This brief commentary reflects on navigating two dangers of historical research into psychiatry: hagiographic representations of psychiatrists; and accusations of their self-interest and oppression of vulnerable people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical evidence can be useful to inform debate about current dilemmas in health service policy. However, concepts of historical analysis may be problematic for doctors, for whom a model of 'history' is often based on clinical history-taking: a clinical history aims to explain the present, whereas a historical analysis aims to elucidate the past. This article discusses and illustrates these concepts, and highlights potential pitfalls of poor historical methodology. It also provides pointers about researching the history of psychiatry in the UK and how to contribute historical evidence to health service policy debates today. Declaration of interest: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]