A Heated Dispute Over the Treatment of the Mentally Ill
A Superior Court Judge and an asylum superintendent trade sharp insults in the press over the quality of care provided to a committed patient.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The case of Mrs. Mary Pitner, committed to the Steilacoom insane asylum, has ignited a public feud between Judge Lichtenberg and Dr. J. W. Waughop, the asylum superintendent. After Judge Lichtenberg wrote to the doctor suggesting a specific course of treatment for Mrs. Pitner, Dr. Waughop returned the letter, stating, 'I do not feel disposed to be directed by you... as to what is the proper treatment of an insane person.' The judge responded by accusing Dr. Waughop of indifference and questioning his professional competence, threatening to bring the matter before the board of trustees. Dr. Waughop published a fiery rebuttal in the Post-Intelligencer, defending his twelve years of experience and characterizing the judge's interference as the product of 'unnatural miscegenation' between different medical schools.
“Your duty ceases with the commitment, and mine begins. I trust that after twelve years' experience I may be pardoned for claiming to know how to treat an insane person intelligently.”
This dispute over who holds the authority to mandate 'proper care' for vulnerable populations reflects the ongoing modern struggle to balance judicial oversight with the professional autonomy of public healthcare institutions.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.