In terms of governmental views, the British Parliament was deeply concerned of the fast rising numbers of cases involving shell shocked male soldiers. With Prime Minister David Lloyd George stating, “It is prevalent through out the world. It is not merely here; it is in France, it is in Germany; and to a less extent in the United States of America. The world is suffering from shell-shock on a great scale.” On April 20, 1915 Cecil Harmsworth, Assistant Home Secretary, proposed the Mental Treatment Act of 1915 which urged the treatment of soldiers for six months before being certified as insane. Since the act that was in place, the Lunacy Act of 1890, did not permit soldiers to receive treatment prior to being certified as insane and sent them
…show more content…
As illustrated by Peter Leese, a Polish historian, who stated that “army authorities on the Western Front continued to prosecute, convict and execute war-traumatized neurotics until the Armistice in November 1918.” One such case was that of Lance-Sergent Walton who was court-martialed due to his desertion near Ypres, France in November 1914. Although Walton presented evidence to support his claims that he deserted due to mental confusion and not by his own volition, he was executed by firing squad on March 23rd, 1915. Another such case was that of Sub-Lietenet Edwin Dyett, who in 1917 was executed for desertion even though during his arrest he displayed erratic behavior. It wasn’t until February 19, 1918 that Parliament began to debate whether or not medical testimony should be used during cross-examination as justification for desertion. As pointed out by Mr. Macpherson, the Under-Secretary for War, during that time courts martials denied soldiers the right to use cross examination of a military doctor or medical evidence that supported their claims of shell shock. Walton and many others were not given a fair trial, they were wrongfully executed due to shell shock not being defined legally, which would change in 1922 with the Parliamentary …show more content…
The Parliamentary Report was created in 1920 and aimed to legally identify what the shell shock diagnosis entailed. Since, “the misdiagnosis of ‘war heroes’ and their unjust incarceration in asylums, as well as the failures of the Ministry of Pensions treatment system, were also of continuing concern.” The committee concluded in 1922, “To consider the different types of hysteria and traumatic neurosis commonly called ‘shell shock’ … with a view to recoding for the future use the ascertained facts as to its origins, nature and remedial treatment, and to advise whether, by military training or education, some scientific method of guarding against its occurrence cannot be devised.” Southborough and the committee believed that shell shock was a form of hysteria, which it was originally believed to be, caused by one’s “own thoughts and fears and external suggestion arising from the condition of the modern battlefield.” The main conclusions drawn from the report were; first and foremost by eliminating the term shell shock from ‘official nomenclature’ as to remove its appeal. As stated by Southborough, “this class of case [shell shock] excited more general interest, attention, and sympathy than any other, so much so that it became a most desirable complaint from which to suffer.” In
As illustrated by Peter Leese, a Polish historian, who stated that “army authorities on the Western Front continued to prosecute, convict and execute war-traumatized neurotics until the Armistice in November 1918.” One such case was that of Lance-Sergent Walton who was court-martialed due to his desertion near Ypres, France in November 1914. Although Walton presented evidence to support his claims that he deserted due to mental confusion and not by his own volition, he was executed by firing squad on March 23rd, 1915. Another such case was that of Sub-Lietenet Edwin Dyett, who in 1917 was executed for desertion even though during his arrest he displayed erratic behavior. It wasn’t until February 19, 1918 that Parliament began to debate whether or not medical testimony should be used during cross-examination as justification for desertion. As pointed out by Mr. Macpherson, the Under-Secretary for War, during that time courts martials denied soldiers the right to use cross examination of a military doctor or medical evidence that supported their claims of shell shock. Walton and many others were not given a fair trial, they were wrongfully executed due to shell shock not being defined legally, which would change in 1922 with the Parliamentary …show more content…
The Parliamentary Report was created in 1920 and aimed to legally identify what the shell shock diagnosis entailed. Since, “the misdiagnosis of ‘war heroes’ and their unjust incarceration in asylums, as well as the failures of the Ministry of Pensions treatment system, were also of continuing concern.” The committee concluded in 1922, “To consider the different types of hysteria and traumatic neurosis commonly called ‘shell shock’ … with a view to recoding for the future use the ascertained facts as to its origins, nature and remedial treatment, and to advise whether, by military training or education, some scientific method of guarding against its occurrence cannot be devised.” Southborough and the committee believed that shell shock was a form of hysteria, which it was originally believed to be, caused by one’s “own thoughts and fears and external suggestion arising from the condition of the modern battlefield.” The main conclusions drawn from the report were; first and foremost by eliminating the term shell shock from ‘official nomenclature’ as to remove its appeal. As stated by Southborough, “this class of case [shell shock] excited more general interest, attention, and sympathy than any other, so much so that it became a most desirable complaint from which to suffer.” In