se suggestions.

We are all familiar with the frequent difficulty we encounter in our
efforts to discover the actual mental disturbance which is supposed to
exist in our patients. It is often a question of wit against wit as
between patient and doctor, and not infrequently a rational and
intelligent conversation may be maintained on an indifferent subject.
The fact too that the disturbance is so frequently only temporary
suggests that the loss of rational control is a less serious phenomenon
than was generally supposed and we know that the control can be
frequently restored by a period of rest or by a helpful stimulus. Quite
recently a patient who in hospital had been confused, undisciplined,
abusive, and threatening, was removed to a house of detention. The shock
of finding himself, as he said, amongst a lot of lunatics, led him to
face reality from a fresh point of view. He admitted that it had taught
him a lesson and when he revisited the hospital, if not entirely
grateful to us for the experience, he evidently bore no ill will.

But not only is it necessary to recognize what rational powers remain to
the patient, we must also inquire how much in their disturbed mental
activity can be considered a rational reaction to the stimuli which
have operated, and still may be operating, on them.

In connection with this I would suggest that there are two aspects to be
considered. First, what is the standard according to which we are to
judge them? Secondly, to what extent are the reactions of the patient
abnormal in kind to the driving stimulus? They may perhaps be reckoned
abnormal in degree, but, to what extent, if at all, are they abnormal in
kind?

It may be readily admitted that the behavior of those suffering from
mental illness offends against conventional usages and is anti-social.
It must also be recognized that amongst human beings living in
aggregates some conventional usages must be evolved and insisted on in
order to insure the greatest good of the greatest number. These usages
are regarded not merely as protective measures for the body corporate,
but they are also supposed to indicate a beneficial standard for the
individual. But such a standard being adopted, observation is liable to
be limited so much to results without sufficient attention being given
to the causes which had led to those results.

By the recent advances in scientific knowledge and in methods of
investigation we have been led to see that