471E4--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Miss Bowen on page 67 had alot of freedom in her treatment. She was decribed as "not-terribly-crazy" and I was wondering what she was diagnosised with. Do you think that her freedom was because she had a mild form of illness or was it typical of these elite patients to have this autonomy. -Kasey Moore

On page 97, Beam mentions that the Mclean doctors believed that their patients were beyond talk therapy. I not sure if we discussed this already, but who/what illness was primarily being treated through talk therapy? Was there a certain point were talk therapy simply wouldn't make sense? I know with many illness they believe the sooner they undergo treatment the better, but talk therapy seems to be a whole different ball game (dependent on type of illness or tramatic past). -Kasey Moore

Why was it so important for the McLean hospital to not give off the appearance of a mental hospital? If it was so famous and had that reputation, why did they try and hide it? ~ Emily Barry

On pages 76-77, there are descriptions of descriptions of water treatments. What makes each treatment unique, is it the technique or do they each cure certain ailments? ~ Emily Barry

On several occasions Beam calls McLean a museum: "living museum," "cultural museum," "museum of the many therapies advanced over more than two hundred years." Do he really mean to call it this or would "example" be a better term? A museum usually educates and preserves pieces or artifacts of history...does McLean do this? Did anyone else catch this word choice?--Carly W.

On page 9, there is a description of McLean Hospital as being like a college campus. This idea ties back to Benjamin Reiss when he claims that there were striking similarities to college campuses and mental hospitals. In this case it is used to make McLean seem more prestigious rather than in function. As Emily pointed out it was all about appearance. – Courtney Collier

I loved how the author showed the negative effects of trying to look so perfect and come off as prestigious. While McLean thought they were promoting all good descriptions they did not realize that when they messed up or received bad press that they would be in the spotlight way more. On page 119 it explains how they were ridiculed because of a sex story. Any mistake would have made them an easy target. –Courtney Collier

This makes me wonder, how many therapies are there? And how have they advanced through the years? Also, I wonder, like Carly, about Beam's use of the word "museum." Does Mclean preserve its history in a way in which it informs modern conversations about the nature of this branch of medicine? ~ Alex Young

In response to everybody's comments about the use of "museum"...I think that Beam literally implied that McLean is a bit of a relic because it has existed for so many years, and the changes it has undergone not just in its patient base but also in the way in its treatments in a way stand as a testament of time for mental institutions. yes, it preserves a tangible history from which we can learn, but perhaps it also serves as a warning and a potential area for analysis? --Chelsea Chin

What struck me was the number of big names at McLean. The Emersons and the McCormicks are among the celebrity patients, and those do not even reflect the patients of the later twentieth century. What drew the wealthy to McLean? Was it the quality and the appearance of the insitution? --Chelsea Chin

To answer Carly’s question I believe the author used the word “museum” for the hospital because McLean truly exemplifies the deep history of mental illness and the asylum. McLean is the best example of what the history of mental illness has to offer in the United States and thus it is a museum and some way or another in the author’s eyes. I for one find this book the perfect capstone to addressing the many questions associated with mental illness. –Jack Hylan

I wish the author went more into detail about the opening of the hospital. Though that would diverge from the topic of the book, it most certainly would be an interesting history to learn. Nonetheless, Beam has done an excellent job at depicting the history of America’s mental hospitals through McLean. –Jack Hylan

Did I read this right: the author is inferring that some of the upper class patients in the late 19th/early 20th century, with no history of mental illness, sometimes used the McLean Asylum as a way to meet potential qualified suitors? – Scott Campbell

Beam does an excellent job of getting the patients' voice out along with the family and physicians. Additionally, his commentary is light/fun and also informative. I really enjoyed the various stories of wealthy clients whose lives played out like soap operas (Frick, Thayer, etc.). And after reading most of the other books its nice to see how mental illness treatment affected the rich. – Scott Campbell

I was stunned by the differences in treatments used at McLean. Some of the patients were subjected to horrible things that may not have even been effective, but others lived in their own houses with personal staff and were allowed to come and go as they pleased. Beam mentions that the most affluent patients were not subject to some of the same treatments as the others, but what specifically was different about their treatment? -Joanna Jourdan

Was Miss Bowen there to get away from her husband? Was she there to meet a husband? Was she on vacation? I am fascinated by the doctors description of her freedom! - Katie Tryon

The so called success that Sakel described of his insulin comas reminds me of the “success” of other treatments such death being described as cured or patients being released after sterilization. – Katie Tryon

−	I couldn't help but notice that all of the examples of patients treated by Freud didn't improve. Surely there were others that did? Sometimes it seemed like this book had a narrow scope. I'm curious what cases were left out of the book and how they compared to those that Beam used. Did the less wealthy patients have fewer records, or did Beam just select the cases he thought were the most interesting? -Joanna Jourdan

I thought the use of big social names was a good way to grab the readers attention. The most prime example being Stanley McCormick. The problem that I have with the use of so many big names though is that I felt like Beam got wrapped up the individual's history in and out of the asylum and as a result, lost focus of the McClean asylum.-Maggie Nunn

I love Beam's quote on pg. 14- 15 that discussed why he wrote the book. "Who can't understand the need for shelter? And who can't sympathize with people who seek shelter? And who could fail to be interested in a place that offered that shelter?" This quote immediately drew me into the reading because it gave me the sense that book wasn't a story of a bucolic facility or the rising medical treatments but was a story of the people. -Maggie Nunn

The varying degrees of water therapy and other therapies in the asylum was interesting. Like others, I wonder how doctors determined which patients received what therapy. It seems like many of the therapies purposes overlapped. -Maggie Nunn

This book is different from the others we have read because it focuses on the rich. To me it seems that the treatment of the patients is a whole lot better than what we have read about before. Does this bother anyone that the rich get better treatment because they have the money and the status, while the government fights over having to take care of the lower income families? - Morgan H.