- Email: [email protected]
A CHAIR OF PSYCHIATRY
415 A CHAIR OF PSYCHIATRY SIR,—Basking in reflected glory, and accepting without noticeable diffidencethe lavish and undiscriminating flattery showered on all those who make a direct contribution to victory, some of our uniformed psychiatric colleagues seem to be in danger of losing their sense of proportion. In brief, they appear to haveforgotten that morale-their veritable stock-in-trade-is commonly bolstered with adulation. That some psychiatrists should develop narcissistic traits is however not surprising if we recall their sheltered institutionalised lives in times of peace, and the fact that, among the sciences, the psychiatric cult is but a parvenu enjoying a recent and immodest vogue in great affairs. the paradox—the lack of insight for which many practitioners in psychology are notorious and the failure to apply the principles of their specialty to their personal
Hence
adaptations. To mitigate
the anxiety, frustration, and distrust aroused in Service doctors (as reported by Brigadier James, Dr. Pearce, et al.) a little unfashionable realitythinking is desirable ; it is necessary to bear in mind that the majority of military psychiatrists are just those junior mental-hospital doctors who were most easily spared some years ago, and that, while their judgments on men and affairs have been heard with extraordinary though perhaps decreasing deference in military circles, it is by no means proved that their skill in finding the appropriate peg for the appropriate hole is any greater than that of other moderately educated observers (neutral or otherwise). It is also debatable whether they have gained any more useful psychiatric experience or competence than their civilian colleagues during the war years. Indeed it is highly improbable that a war-time mutation has rendered these junior field officers ripe for professional honours. As for their military seniors, for whom apparently Dr. Main is concerned-one can, it is true, conjure up the vision of potential professors in the jungle beating out applications for peace-time appointments on their tom-toms. But, putting this
fascinating fantasy aside,
it seems more likely that, wheresoever their theatre of operations, these gentlemen will be found ensconced in their club-chairs with all the resources of modern communications at their elbows. No doubt when appointments aremade, and many are seriously overdue, reasonable opportunities will be given to all suitable candidates, and all professional experience will carry due weight; but it is to be hoped that employing authorities will not "give way now or later to the khaki election " and be peremotional fervour of a suaded to exalt or promote these ancillary warriors over the heads of their civilian colleagues who, having been refused permission to join the Forces, were left, depleted in numbers and without normal opportunities of advancement, to bear, often in a very real sense, the heat and burden of battle. Much as I should like my name to appear at the end of this letter, I must ask you to withhold it. Firstly, I belong to a public service which cannot fairly be asked to give consent (explicit or implicit) to its publication. Secondly, I have not yet given up hope of being allowed to join the Forces ; and possibly the appearance of these opinions over my name would be an unfortunate prelude to a military debut. J. M. .
SIR,—Other Service correspondents, whose experience abroad in positions of professional responsibility adds weight to their views, haveamply confirmed the importance of ensuring that medical officers abroad have a fair opportunity of applying for permanent medical posts at home. I do not wish, therefore, to comment further on aspect of the letter from the London County Council this in your issue of Feb. 2-I except to say that it appears unnecessary for the LCC to advise the University of London on how to provide this fair opportunity. The University’s reputation for a " fair field and no favour " in making its appointments is, to say the least, as good as that of the LCC. It has never made a practice of recruiting its professors entirely from its own lecturers and readers. The offering of this advice by the LCC is further evidence of that proprietary attitude towards the chair which prompted my earlier letter to you.
The latter part of the LC’C’s letter which sets out to remedy my misunderstanding of how these university appointments are filled " fails to answer the points I raised. The university cha,ir, as at present envisaged, is compounded of two ingredients. Firstly,’the salaried post of director of clinical psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital, which presumably has no duties since it has been created to enable the professor to devote his whole time to his professorial activities, and secondly, an unpaid whole-time professorship in the University of "
London. Which of these two ingredients is to be selected the university committee mentioned in the LCC’s letter and who are the " few LCC representatives " on this committee ? Are they laymen whom the residents of Greater London have elected to their civic government ? If so, what is the value of their opinion on the rival merits of aspirants to a university chair ; or are they members of the LCC’s medical service, who may befaced with the difficult task of weighing justly the claims of some of their own colleagues in the Council’s medical service against those of " foreign " applicants. And how many are " a few " ? Do their numbers equal or exceed the four university members of the committee ? In any case, why arethey there if the LCC does not wish to keep a string on its gift ? Whose employee will the professor be ? Will he be an LCC employee and thereby suffer the civil disabilities which employment by a local authority entails ? Would he be able to stand for membership of the Council or of Parliament ? If, like the London children’s magistrates, he believed it to be his duty, would he be permittedto criticise the policy of the LCC ? It would surely be more wholesome if the LCC decided to follow the usual practice of patrons of medical education by merely endowing a chair and leaving the filling of that chair entirely to the University. I hope that the University’s silence in this matter does not betoken consent already given and that there is still time for them to remember Major Barbara and look this Trojan gift horse in the mouth. They might still decide to retain their freedom of choice by devoting some of their newly increased Treasury grant to the payment of this
by
processor
SERVICE PSYCHIATRIST.
***
In reply to our request for further information, H. Claughton, principal of the University of London, informs us that in making appointments to chairs or readerships a selection committee (board of advisers) is set up consisting of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal (who serve ex officio and are chairman and deputy chairman of the board), 3 subject experts (2 of whom are purely, externaland all of whom are selected by the University), representatives of the governing body of the school, appointed by the senate on the nomination of the school. Of the 9 persons, therefore, only 4 represent the school. This procedure is invariable. The board makes a recommendation to the senate, which makes the appointment on conditions previously approved by the University ; but the statutes provide that the consent of the governing body of the school to the appointment shall be necessary. In conclusion Mr. Claughton remarks : " Perhaps I might add that, on the last occasion when an appointment was made to a chair in a school governed by the LCC, the person selected had had no previous connexion with the Council." Mr.
and 4
- En. L.
RESTAURANT HYGIENE SIR,—There are many points which might be answered in Dr. Linfoot’s letter of March 17, but the last paragraph contains a reflection on medical officers of health which was doubtless unintended but should not be allowed to pass. If there were definite evidence implicating cracked crockery as the cause of an outbreak of illness among a number of persons using a certain restaurant, medical officers of health would know about it and would take the necessary action. The fact is that such evidence does not exist at present even though more people are using cracked crockery than ever before. Epidemiology and bacteriology are different subjects. All will agree that a pathogenic organism " may be transferred " from a cracked cup " to a healthy person," but the mere presence of a few pathogenic organisms does not necessarily foretell epidemic disease. Dr. Linfoot
Hence
adaptations. To mitigate
the anxiety, frustration, and distrust aroused in Service doctors (as reported by Brigadier James, Dr. Pearce, et al.) a little unfashionable realitythinking is desirable ; it is necessary to bear in mind that the majority of military psychiatrists are just those junior mental-hospital doctors who were most easily spared some years ago, and that, while their judgments on men and affairs have been heard with extraordinary though perhaps decreasing deference in military circles, it is by no means proved that their skill in finding the appropriate peg for the appropriate hole is any greater than that of other moderately educated observers (neutral or otherwise). It is also debatable whether they have gained any more useful psychiatric experience or competence than their civilian colleagues during the war years. Indeed it is highly improbable that a war-time mutation has rendered these junior field officers ripe for professional honours. As for their military seniors, for whom apparently Dr. Main is concerned-one can, it is true, conjure up the vision of potential professors in the jungle beating out applications for peace-time appointments on their tom-toms. But, putting this
fascinating fantasy aside,
it seems more likely that, wheresoever their theatre of operations, these gentlemen will be found ensconced in their club-chairs with all the resources of modern communications at their elbows. No doubt when appointments aremade, and many are seriously overdue, reasonable opportunities will be given to all suitable candidates, and all professional experience will carry due weight; but it is to be hoped that employing authorities will not "give way now or later to the khaki election " and be peremotional fervour of a suaded to exalt or promote these ancillary warriors over the heads of their civilian colleagues who, having been refused permission to join the Forces, were left, depleted in numbers and without normal opportunities of advancement, to bear, often in a very real sense, the heat and burden of battle. Much as I should like my name to appear at the end of this letter, I must ask you to withhold it. Firstly, I belong to a public service which cannot fairly be asked to give consent (explicit or implicit) to its publication. Secondly, I have not yet given up hope of being allowed to join the Forces ; and possibly the appearance of these opinions over my name would be an unfortunate prelude to a military debut. J. M. .
SIR,—Other Service correspondents, whose experience abroad in positions of professional responsibility adds weight to their views, haveamply confirmed the importance of ensuring that medical officers abroad have a fair opportunity of applying for permanent medical posts at home. I do not wish, therefore, to comment further on aspect of the letter from the London County Council this in your issue of Feb. 2-I except to say that it appears unnecessary for the LCC to advise the University of London on how to provide this fair opportunity. The University’s reputation for a " fair field and no favour " in making its appointments is, to say the least, as good as that of the LCC. It has never made a practice of recruiting its professors entirely from its own lecturers and readers. The offering of this advice by the LCC is further evidence of that proprietary attitude towards the chair which prompted my earlier letter to you.
The latter part of the LC’C’s letter which sets out to remedy my misunderstanding of how these university appointments are filled " fails to answer the points I raised. The university cha,ir, as at present envisaged, is compounded of two ingredients. Firstly,’the salaried post of director of clinical psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital, which presumably has no duties since it has been created to enable the professor to devote his whole time to his professorial activities, and secondly, an unpaid whole-time professorship in the University of "
London. Which of these two ingredients is to be selected the university committee mentioned in the LCC’s letter and who are the " few LCC representatives " on this committee ? Are they laymen whom the residents of Greater London have elected to their civic government ? If so, what is the value of their opinion on the rival merits of aspirants to a university chair ; or are they members of the LCC’s medical service, who may befaced with the difficult task of weighing justly the claims of some of their own colleagues in the Council’s medical service against those of " foreign " applicants. And how many are " a few " ? Do their numbers equal or exceed the four university members of the committee ? In any case, why arethey there if the LCC does not wish to keep a string on its gift ? Whose employee will the professor be ? Will he be an LCC employee and thereby suffer the civil disabilities which employment by a local authority entails ? Would he be able to stand for membership of the Council or of Parliament ? If, like the London children’s magistrates, he believed it to be his duty, would he be permittedto criticise the policy of the LCC ? It would surely be more wholesome if the LCC decided to follow the usual practice of patrons of medical education by merely endowing a chair and leaving the filling of that chair entirely to the University. I hope that the University’s silence in this matter does not betoken consent already given and that there is still time for them to remember Major Barbara and look this Trojan gift horse in the mouth. They might still decide to retain their freedom of choice by devoting some of their newly increased Treasury grant to the payment of this
by
processor
SERVICE PSYCHIATRIST.
***
In reply to our request for further information, H. Claughton, principal of the University of London, informs us that in making appointments to chairs or readerships a selection committee (board of advisers) is set up consisting of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal (who serve ex officio and are chairman and deputy chairman of the board), 3 subject experts (2 of whom are purely, externaland all of whom are selected by the University), representatives of the governing body of the school, appointed by the senate on the nomination of the school. Of the 9 persons, therefore, only 4 represent the school. This procedure is invariable. The board makes a recommendation to the senate, which makes the appointment on conditions previously approved by the University ; but the statutes provide that the consent of the governing body of the school to the appointment shall be necessary. In conclusion Mr. Claughton remarks : " Perhaps I might add that, on the last occasion when an appointment was made to a chair in a school governed by the LCC, the person selected had had no previous connexion with the Council." Mr.
and 4
- En. L.
RESTAURANT HYGIENE SIR,—There are many points which might be answered in Dr. Linfoot’s letter of March 17, but the last paragraph contains a reflection on medical officers of health which was doubtless unintended but should not be allowed to pass. If there were definite evidence implicating cracked crockery as the cause of an outbreak of illness among a number of persons using a certain restaurant, medical officers of health would know about it and would take the necessary action. The fact is that such evidence does not exist at present even though more people are using cracked crockery than ever before. Epidemiology and bacteriology are different subjects. All will agree that a pathogenic organism " may be transferred " from a cracked cup " to a healthy person," but the mere presence of a few pathogenic organisms does not necessarily foretell epidemic disease. Dr. Linfoot