The “Great LSD Scandal” at Newhaven Private Hospital & the Social Foundations of Mental He
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Beyond the aetiology debate: the “great LSD scandal” at Newhaven Private Hospital & the social foundations of mental health legislation in Victoria, Australia Megan Kristine Lomax ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1457-8247 Doctor of Philosophy October 2017 Department of History & Philosophy of Science School of Historical & Philosophical Studies Faculty of Arts Thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 ABSTRACT This research presents a case for the extension of existing analyses of Australian psychiatric scandals beyond the conclusion that such events are an inherent feature of the profession by virtue of its failure to resolve the aetiology debate. A mid-century impasse in the aetiology debate – the continuous shifting over time of professional commitment between organic and environmental aetiologies of mental illness – has been identified as the catalyst for the emergence of the therapeutic paradigm of eclecticism that fostered the deep sleep therapy and ‘Therapeutic Community’ programs that were central to Australia’s two infamous psychiatric scandals at Chelmsford and Townsville, respectively. While these two affairs were enduring the scrutiny of commissions of inquiry, the recommendations of which translated to the legislative reform of mental health services in the states of New South Wales and Queensland, a third such scandal was unfolding at Newhaven Private Hospital in Victoria involving the “injudicious use” of therapeutic LSD. By the late 1980s and early 90s, a number of former “patients” of Newhaven emerged claiming that they had never suffered any mental illness and that the LSD they had received had not been administered for therapeutic purposes but rather as a recruitment tool for a fringe religious sect known as The Family that had commandeered the hospital and the loyalty of a number of its staff. What constituted the scandal at Newhaven, however, was the fact that these activities continued unchallenged despite the implementation of statutory regulations – the Poisons (Hallucinogenic Drugs) Regulations 1967 – designed specifically to protect against the abuse of therapeutic hallucinogens. Having avoided any formal inquiry of its own, the Newhaven case represented not only a compelling narrative history opportunity, but also a test of the robustness of the prevailing argument that such scandals emerge as a consequence of the profession’s 2 failure to achieve consensus on the aetiology of mental illness against the implication that inadequate legislation facilitated the abuse. Using the case of Newhaven as a working example, this research analyses the historical mental health legislation of Victoria and parliamentary debates to construct a legislative history of the aetiology debate and confirm its role in the emergence of psychiatric scandal, arguing that the Poisons (Hallucinogenic Drugs) Regulations 1967, and indeed mental health policy more broadly, were in fact products of the debate. Furthermore, it demonstrates how, far from being insulated within the profession of psychiatry, the debate itself was informed by wider prevailing social, cultural, political and economic trends. The abuse of therapeutic LSD unfolded under permissive regulations which reflected the permissive nature of broader mental health policy embodied in the Mental Hygiene Acts and their signature initiative of deinstitutionalisation. This permissiveness was a symptom of the underlying atmosphere of eclecticism that characterised mid-century psychiatry in Victoria as it sought to accommodate simultaneously the biological and social bases for the eugenic and community-based measures, respectively, that developed in response to the co-emergent social forces of the ‘mental hygiene’ and ‘anti-psychiatry’ movements. 3 DECLARATION This is to certify that: the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD; due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used; the thesis is fewer than 100 000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. Signed: Megan Kristine Lomax Date: 22 October 2017 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank all those who assisted me in accessing the primary sources on which this research is based – from the Victorian Department of Health, my thanks are due to Sally Yeoland, Jim Sotiropoulos, John McCormack and Brendan Nathan; thanks to Jon Cullum of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists; Shelley Wilkins and Jan Eastgate of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (Australia and the United States, respectively); Asa Letourneau of the Public Record Office Victoria; and Dorothy Benyei of the Kew Historical Society. I am also indebted to the following librarians and archivists for their assistance with this research: Dr Caitlin Stone, Dr Jim Berryman and Katie Wood of the University of Melbourne Baillieu Library, Jennifer Warburton of the Melbourne School of Graduate Research; and Dr Jenny Bars and Robin McComiskey of the Queen’s College Archive and Library. I offer my thanks to Drs Dolly MacKinnon, Anne Westmore, Belinda Robson, Lee-Ann Monk and Associate Professor Michael Salzberg for their advice and guidance throughout my candidature. My thanks also to fellow enthusiasts of this topic, the late Dr Sarah Moore, Dr Ian Weeks and Lex de Man for their thought-provoking conversation. To my HPS postgraduate colleagues Alison Marlin, Natasha Szuhan, Michaela Spencer, Christian Clark – thanks for listening, reading and discussing this work with me. To Dr Anna Rogers – thank you for helping me with my other two little projects along the way. I would like to thank all members of my advisory panel for their comments, suggestions and time, including Drs Keith Hutchison, Nurin Veis, Mike Arnold and Professor Janet McCalman. I would especially like to thank my primary supervisor Dr James Bradley for his years of support, friendship, patience and choice of football team – without that, such a pleasant working relationship would not have been possible. 5 I would also like to acknowledge the support I received from the University of Melbourne in the form of the Melbourne Research Scholarship. I thank my family and friends for their support and interest in my work, and finally, I am, of course, eternally grateful to Ben for everything – together, I think we know just about all there is to know about Newhaven. 6 CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction – The scandalous history of Australian psychiatry 8 PART I Legislating lunacy in Victoria: the aetiology debate as mental health policy 41 1 The migration of moral therapy: the Lunacy Statute 1867 48 2 Inherited insanity: the Lunacy Amendment Act 1888 and the Lunacy Act 1903 66 3 Shell-shock and the talking cure: the Lunacy Acts Amendment Act 1914 and the Mental Treatment Act 1915 86 4 Emerging eclecticism: the Mental Hygiene Act 1933 and the Mental Hygiene Authority Act 1950 107 PART II LSD’s trip down-under: constructing the Poisons (Hallucinogenic Drugs) Regulations 1967 128 5 Psychotomimetics for psychotics: LSD psychotherapy’s Victorian debut 137 6 Disciplining the “problem child”: the custody battle between Sandoz and the Victorian Department of Health 159 7 “Unnecessary red-tape”: inadequate regulations and professional non- compliance 179 8 LSD-assisted enlightenment: the psychiatrist as the “doctor of souls” 197 9 “Injudicious medical use”: the Newhaven Family 218 Conclusion – Consequences of eclecticism: mental hygiene meets anti-psychiatry, and the permissive policy of deinstitutionalisation 239 Bibliography 245 Appendices 292 7 INTRODUCTION The scandalous history of Australian psychiatry “One day somebody is going to write a detailed chronicle of the great LSD scandal and the professional hysteria concerning psychedelic substances in the late 1960s.”1 --- Ronald Conway, consultant diagnostic psychologist, Newhaven Private Hospital In July 2011, industry magazine Australian Doctor published its seventh annual “Top 50” supplement entitled ‘50 Medical Scandals’. In compiling this list, editor Dr Kerri Parnell explained that the selection committee’s first task was to “define a ‘scandal’”2 – taking the Macquarie Dictionary definition of “a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.; offence caused by faults or misdeeds”3 as their guide, Parnell went on to explain that the committee decided to restrict their search to: … events that involved a flawed practice or intentional wrong-doing, and perhaps involved deception or a cover-up. We deliberately steered away from one-off medical errors, or individual cases of medical negligence, instead seeking instances that had widespread or lasting consequences for a large number of people.4 The result of their search was indeed a list of fifty instances of where things have gone wrong, accidently or deliberately, in medicine. A related result that emerged as a theme throughout the list, whether intentionally or otherwise, was the implication that 1 Conway, R. (1988), Conway's Way: Memories, Endeavours and Reflections, Collins Dove, Blackburn, p. 98. 2 Parnell, K. (ed.) (2011), ‘50 Medical Scandals’, Australian Doctor, Reed Business Information, Chatswood DC, p. 3. 3 ibid., p. 3. 4 ibid., p. 3. In his analysis of contemporary Australian scandals, Emeritus Professor of Political Science Rodney Tiffen explains that more than the dictionary definition of a disgraceful or discreditable action caused by faults or misdeeds, the significance of a scandal actually resides in the underlying judgment of moral opprobrium: