Henry Cotton was a man of remarkable education, who carried with
him a notable resume that earned him much respect in his field. He trained at
the University of Maryland and at Johns Hopkins and was mentored by dominant
figures in psychiatry such as Adolf Meyer, Emil Kraepelin and Aloid Alzheimer.
Cotton worked on the belief that mental illness was simply germ infestations that
accumulated in the body and released poisons, which resulted in mental illness.
These infections, referred to as ‘focal sepsis’, were then surgically removed
from patients by extracting affected organs and counter parts, leading to
thousands of fatalities and mutilations. Since research and science have ruled
out the need for such bizarre treatments, many have gone back and analysed
Henry Cotton’s practices to determine if he was a well-reasoned practitioner of
his time, or one who
arrogantly could not accept the evidence of his failed treatments and theory.
Anne Jones’ journal ‘The cautionary tale of psychiatrist Henry Aloysius Cotton’ and Anthony
Daniels review ‘The madness of a cure for insanity’ in The Telegraph explore
some interesting points of view.
Jones’ journal article draws in on the fact
that it was Henry Cotton’s professional egotism that unfortunately lead to the
horrific deaths at Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. In assessing Cotton’s nature
she draws parallels to the conceited work of a Doctor Truffle who, removed patients
belly buttons as they interfered with the straight lines of his stomach
incisions. Such a comparison highlights that in her eyes, much like Cotton, a practitioners
need to succeed and ironically help others with a new direction in medicine can
result in a clear disregard for the patient. Cotton’s flawed beliefs were
fueled by his uncontrollable desire to be right, which lead to more rigorous
treatments even after concerning results. Hudson states, ‘Emboldened
by the high rates of cure that he believed he saw, Cotton became such a true
believer that in patients recalcitrant to cure he began to remove gall
bladders, stomachs, uterus, ovaries, testicles, even colons.’ (Jones, A H, 2005)
Henry Cotton was well respected and therefore it is no surprise he
was able to widely enforce his theories of mental illness and execute his
dangerous practices for as long as he did. It is with this fact that Hudson emphasizes
that blame is ‘not confined to an aberrant, megalomaniac doctor [Cotton] but
extended to prominent psychiatrists who endorsed Cotton's theories and emulated
his treatments’ (Jones,
A H, 2005). The misguided wealth of support and protection from ignorant
believers unfortunately allowed Cotton to prolong his horrific reign. She draws
attention and blame to a system that failed many innocent mentally ill patients
seeking refuge from their own minds, as investigations into the falsified
reports and perceived success of Cotton’s works were sadly hidden and buried.
Interestingly, Daniel explores an opinion
of Cotton that many, after the shocking deaths and brutality that occurred,
failed to make sense of. Looking at the time period Cotton was practicing in,
it becomes apparent that his theory was not so ludicrous then as it is now with
modern medicine. Germ theory was the recent discovery of the early 20th
century and was beginning to unfold the cause of many illnesses such as
malaria, cholera and syphilis. With this in consideration, Daniel explores a
side of Cotton that was once perhaps reasonable when he formulated his theory. It
was no great leap during Cotton’s time to attribute mental illness to bacteria
and with a mentor like Meyer, a strong believer in the link between the mind
and germs, Cotton was perhaps merely an outcome of the era he lived in. When
Daniel states, ‘the syphilitic cause of general paralysis had just been
discovered, and hidden infections…often result in acute confusion in the
elderly, including hallucinations and delusions’ (Daniels, A, 2005), he depicts a
Cotton that many not have been as foolish as we perceive him to be today.
However, in saying so Daniel’s review
also expresses Cotton’s egotistic nature, supporting the fact that his
obsession with his work and supposed ‘cure’ made him ignorant to the fact that
he was just simply wrong. Overall it’s Daniel’s opinion that although Cotton
may have postulated a seemingly reasonable theory, his inability to self
evaluate his work made him a monster as he began to brutalise innocent patients.
In this review, there were also many references made to the inexcusable actions
of Meyer, who for so long covered up the fatal works of Dr Henry Cotton. Thus,
he like Jones, also describes a flawed review process, which he claims is not a
possibility in our time.
