Atlas›Domain XVI · Historical, discredited & harmful›Guide 023
Guide XVI-023

Morison's rotatory machine

Alexander Morison1828
A 28 · L 59 · M 1319 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: the rotatory machine as illustrated in Alexander Morison's Cases of Mental Disease, with Practical Observations on the Medical Treatment (1828), read in the context of the swinging and rotating chairs of the early asylum (Cox 1804; Hallaran; Horn; Rush) as historians describe them. This guide covers the psychotherapist's own work only. It does not teach, describe the mechanics of, or endorse any rotation or 'shock' method.

What it was. Rotation therapy belongs to a family of early-nineteenth-century asylum devices that Tromans (Tate Papers 13, 2010) groups with spinning, restraining and drenching apparatus. In it, a patient held in a chair was "swung around as if on a merry-go-round" [source: Tromans 2010]. Tromans identifies Morison's Cases of Mental Disease (1828) as the source of a well-known illustration of a "rotatory machine" [source: Tromans 2010]. Whether Morison designed the machine, used it at the asylums he inspected, or only described and illustrated it, is [uncertain: not verified]. No wording about the device is attributed to him here [uncertain: not verified]. The best-documented advocate of rotation is Joseph Mason Cox, a private-asylum proprietor near Bristol, who promoted the swinging chair in Practical Observations on Insanity (first published 1804) [source: Tromans 2010; Winter et al. 2013]. Ernst Horn at the Berlin Charité is reported to have introduced rotation on a bed in 1807 and later on a chair. Benjamin Rush developed a rotational chair because he believed it improved circulation to the brain [source: Snopes; uncertain: secondary, unverified]. Hallaran in Ireland is associated with a "circulating swing" [source: Winter et al. 2013].

Its proponents' theory of change. Proponents described rotation as both a medical and a 'moral' (psychological) remedy. Wade, Norrsell and Presly (2005) take their title from a contemporary phrase calling Cox's chair "a moral and a medical mean in the treatment of maniacs". Medically, Cox called it "a mechanical anodyne" that calmed body and mind and brought sleep [source: Winter et al. 2013]. Morally, it was used to frighten agitated patients into compliance: in a phrase Snopes quotes from the historian Andrew Scull, such machines could reduce "the most violent and perverse to a meek obedience" [source: Snopes, quoting Scull, The Most Solitary of Afflictions; uncertain: Scull's text not verified]. Cox suggested that darkness, unusual noises and smells could heighten the effect [source: Tromans 2010]. The method was widely taken up in Europe in the first decades of the nineteenth century and soon fell out of favour. Its aversive effects and its abusive use are the reasons historians give [source: Winter et al. 2013, citing Wade et al. 2005; Snopes].

The person. Alexander Morison (1779–1866) took his Edinburgh MD in 1799 and moved to London in 1808 to specialise in mental illness. He became Inspecting Physician of the Surrey lunatic asylums in 1810 and was President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh from 1827 to 1829. In 1835 he was appointed physician to Bethlem, and he was knighted in 1838. For many years he gave an annual lecture course on mental diseases [source: RCPE heritage page; AIM25 catalogue]. Museum of the Mind describes his Bethlem role as superintendent, while RCPE says physician [uncertain: sources differ on title]. His books include Outlines of Lectures on Mental Diseases (second edition 1826, with plates); Cases of Mental Disease (1828); an Edinburgh Outlines of Mental Diseases, with Seventeen Illustrative Engravings (dated [1829?] by the Wellcome catalogue); and The Physiognomy of Mental Diseases (1840 per RCPE; a German translation appeared in 1853, and the 1838 date sometimes given is [uncertain]) [source: Wellcome Collection catalogue records; RCPE]. Wellcome's record credits him with founding the Society for Improving the Condition of the Insane. The RCPE Morison Prize for attendants honoured "humane attention to their patients" [source: Wellcome; Tromans 2010]. The RCPE also records that Morison was an heir, in 1817, to a sugar and rum plantation in Jamaica that was worked by enslaved people, and that these inheritances helped fund his early career [source: RCPE, Legacy of Slavery section]. The same physician is therefore remembered for reform, for physiognomic portraiture and for the illustration of a coercive device. Section 4 uses that tension.

Why it matters to a psychotherapist today. Nobody uses the device now. Its legacy reaches clients in five ways: as an image of 'what psychiatry did'; through family histories of asylum admission; through the history of coercion, restraint and fear-based compliance in care settings; through occasional modern claims that spinning or vestibular stimulation can change mood (one small 2013 laboratory study in healthy volunteers found spinning worsened feelings of being good, relaxed and comfortable, and its authors' therapeutic suggestion was speculative) [source: Winter et al. 2013]; and through the profession's own history.

2. Framework

The frame describes the psychotherapist's work, not the practice. Session number and length follow the client's needs and the setting [synthesis].

Historical phases of the practice (outline only) [source: Tromans 2010; Winter et al. 2013; Snopes]

  • Precursors: rotation and swinging are presented as "another ancient therapy" [source: Tromans 2010] [uncertain: not verified].
  • Promotion (c. 1804–1820s): Cox's 1804 book. Horn at the Charité (reported 1807). Rush's rotational chair (before his death in 1813). Hallaran's circulating swing. Wide adoption across Europe.
  • Illustration and teaching (1828): the rotatory machine is illustrated in Morison's Cases of Mental Disease.
  • Decline: the method soon fell out of favour, given its aversive effects and abusive application. It sits beside the reform movements (moral treatment, non-restraint) covered in this domain's "Asylum era and its reforms" guides (028, 029).
  • Afterlife: a possible influence on vertigo research, on the Bárány chair used in clinical vestibular testing, and on fairground rides [source: Winter et al. 2013]. These are legitimate or recreational uses, not psychiatric treatment.

Phases of the psychotherapist's work [synthesis]

  1. Orientation and historical literacy. Goal: know the history accurately and without sensationalism. Move on once you can explain it in a few neutral, sourced sentences.
  2. Recognition and assessment. Goal: find out how the theme reaches this client. It may come as fear of psychiatric care, as family history, as personal experience of coercion or restraint, as interest in or attraction to a 'shock' or 'spinning' method, or as professional or institutional concern. Move on once the route and any current risk are clear.
  3. Safety and safeguarding. Goal: act on any current coercion, abuse, restraint misuse or risk to self. This phase overrides all others and is revisited whenever new information appears.
  4. Processing and repair. Goal: meaning-making, grief, anger and trust repair for survivors and families, and correction of distorted fear of present-day care. Move on when the client can hold the history without being flooded or avoiding it, and can make informed choices about current help.
  5. Advocacy and follow-up. Goal: complaints, records access, advocacy and institutional change where wanted, plus the therapist's own professional duties. This phase ends when the client's chosen actions are complete or handed on.

3. Guiding principles

  • Never provide, demonstrate, supervise or refer to the practice or its modern imitations. In practice: rotation, disorientation or fear used as 'treatment' or discipline is a safeguarding matter, not a technique [synthesis].
  • No replication detail. In practice: discuss the device's purpose, context and harms, never its mechanics, speeds or durations, including when clients or trainees ask [synthesis].
  • Accuracy over sensation. In practice: attribute each claim to a source, separate documented fact from popular myth, and mark what is uncertain, such as what exactly Morison himself did with the machine [synthesis].
  • Name the coercion. In practice: proponents openly aimed at fear and obedience. Say so plainly, without moralising [source: Snopes; Tromans 2010].
  • Trauma-informed stance. In practice: assume that a client who brings this history may carry personal or family experience of coercive care. Offer choice, pacing and control over the conversation [synthesis].
  • Consent and the right to stop. In practice: in any discussion of distressing images or histories, the client chooses whether and how far to look, and can stop at any point [synthesis].
  • Then is not now, but coercion has not vanished. In practice: correct catastrophic fears about present-day psychiatric care while taking seriously any account of current restraint misuse or coercion [synthesis].
  • Medical questions go to medical professionals. In practice: dizziness, vertigo or claims about vestibular treatment are referred to a GP or specialist, and you never advise on medicines [synthesis].
  • Hold complexity in historical figures. In practice: Morison can be presented as reformer, portrait patron, illustrator of a coercive device and beneficiary of slavery-derived wealth, each attributed, without canonising or demonising him [source: RCPE; Tromans 2010].
  • Patients are not exhibits. In practice: do not name asylum patients, even famous ones, or use their images as curiosities. Refer to them by role [synthesis].
  • Respect the client's purpose. In practice: a client's interest in this history may be scholarly, artistic, ancestral or traumatic. Ask which before you interpret [synthesis].
  • Professional duty when others act. In practice: if a colleague or institution uses aversive, fear-based or restraint-based 'treatment', use published reporting and safeguarding routes [synthesis].
  • Clear roles. In practice: avoid becoming the client's researcher, archivist or campaign partner. APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 (Multiple Relationships) is the relevant reference [source: APA Ethics Code].
  • Safe messaging. In practice: where distress or suicidality arises, assess risk directly, give no method information, and give crisis resources: 988 (US), Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland) [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work; steps not drawn from a cited source are marked [synthesis].

4.1 Preparing your own historical literacy

  • Purpose / when: before you discuss this history with clients, trainees or teams, so that what you say is accurate and does not sensationalise [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Learn the outline in section 1: the devices, Cox 1804, the 1828 illustration, the decline. (2) Separate what is documented from what is not; for example, Morison's own use of the machine is [uncertain]. (3) Place the device beside the reform movements of the same decades, so that you do not present the era as uniformly cruel. (4) Note the profession's present-day echoes, such as fear-based compliance, restraint and seclusion, without equating them with the past [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Rotating chairs were used in some asylums in the early 1800s, partly to calm and partly to frighten agitated patients into obedience. Within a few decades they had been dropped."
  • Watch for: repeating internet myths, or presenting a striking image as the whole of asylum history. It is working when you can answer a client's questions briefly, with sources, and stay calm [synthesis].

4.2 Responding to a client's historical, artistic or heritage interest

  • Purpose / when: a client researching, writing about or making art about early asylum devices, or visiting collections such as Bethlem's Museum of the Mind or the Wellcome Collection [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what draws them to the subject and what it means to them. (2) Check for personal or family connections and for any distress the material stirs. (3) Support pacing: breaks, choosing which images to view, ways of grounding afterwards. (4) Reflect on the ethics of patients' images and names, if they wish to [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "What is it about these devices that keeps pulling you back? Is it more fascination, more anger, or something closer to home?"
  • Watch for: repeated exposure to distressing images that leaves the client more unsettled, intrusive imagery, or an interest that is really standing in for an unspoken personal history. It is working when the interest feels chosen and contained [synthesis].

4.3 Family-history work: an ancestor in an early asylum

  • Purpose / when: a client has found an ancestor in asylum records, or a family story of 'what they did to her there' [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Hear the story and the feelings that come with it: shame, grief, anger, fear of inheritance. (2) Name the uncertainty: records rarely show which treatments a particular person received [synthesis]. (3) Explore what the family has carried: secrecy, stigma, beliefs about 'madness running in the family'. (4) Support meaning-making and, where wanted, commemoration through writing, a visit or a ritual of the client's choosing. (5) Route questions about heredity to a GP or genetic counselling, not to speculation [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "We can't know from the records what happened to her day to day. What do you most want to understand, or to honour?"
  • Watch for: catastrophic beliefs about inherited illness, and re-enactment of family secrecy. It is working when the ancestor becomes a person rather than a horror story, and the client's fear for themselves eases [synthesis].

4.4 Assessing fear of present-day psychiatric care

  • Purpose / when: a client avoids psychiatric assessment, admission or medication review because of images of historical treatments, including spinning chairs and 'shock' devices [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what images or stories are behind the fear. (2) Distinguish historical material, personal or family experience, and current realistic concerns about coercion. (3) Identify the cost of avoiding care. (4) Agree on what information they need and from whom, such as their prescriber or service user information. Do not advise about medicines yourself [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It makes sense to be wary given that history. Let's sort out which of your fears belong to then and which you'd want to put to the team now."
  • Watch for: fear dismissed too quickly by you (you lose trust) or confirmed too quickly (you reinforce avoidance). It is working when the client can approach care with specific questions instead of global dread [synthesis].

4.5 Psychoeducation: then and now

  • Purpose / when: after 4.4, to give accurate, non-reassuring-by-default information [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Give the historical outline briefly: the device was intended to calm and subdue, it was criticised for aversive effects and abuse, and it was abandoned [source: Winter et al. 2013]. (2) Describe today's general safeguards in your jurisdiction (consent, mental health law, advocacy, complaints) in outline, and point to official information rather than your own summary [synthesis]. (3) Acknowledge that coercion in care still occurs and that people have rights in relation to it [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "These chairs were dropped within a few decades because they caused distress and were open to abuse. Care today still involves real power imbalances, so let's look at what rights and support you'd have."
  • Watch for: information overload, and the client taking false comfort. It is working when the client can describe their own rights and their next step [synthesis].

4.6 Trauma-informed assessment after coercive care

  • Purpose / when: a client reports frightening, restrictive or coercive experiences in mental health, care, educational or custodial settings [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Let the client control pace and detail; you do not need procedural detail to help. (2) Assess trauma symptoms, shame, dissociation and current avoidance. (3) Ask directly about suicidal thoughts and self-harm (see 4.15). (4) Ask whether anyone is still at risk in that setting. If so, go to 4.11 [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to describe what was done in detail. Tell me what it left you with."
  • Watch for: retraumatisation through detailed recounting, and your own reactions (outrage or disbelief). It is working when the client feels believed and in control of the telling [synthesis].

4.7 Processing work with survivors of coercive or fear-based 'treatment'

  • Purpose / when: once safety is established, to address trauma, humiliation and loss of trust [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Agree goals: symptom relief, meaning, anger, trust. (2) Use an evidence-based trauma therapy that you are trained in and that fits current guideline recommendations for PTSD in your jurisdiction [synthesis; specific guideline uncertain: not verified]. (3) Attend to themes typical of coercion: forced obedience, helplessness, being treated as an object [synthesis]. (4) Build choice into every step of your own work.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Something was done to you in the name of care. In here, nothing happens without your agreement, and you can stop whenever you want."
  • Watch for: the therapy itself feeling coercive, for example structured exposure that the client has not freely chosen. Stop and renegotiate. It is working when the client experiences agency in the room and the symptoms ease [synthesis].

4.8 Recognising contemporary analogues

  • Purpose / when: you meet accounts of 'treatments', 'discipline' or 'therapy' that use disorientation, fear, physical spinning or deprivation to produce compliance, for example in unregulated residential programmes, in some exorcism or deliverance settings, or as punishment [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Notice the pattern that links them to the historical device: physical distress used to make someone 'meek' or obedient [source: Snopes quoting the period phrase; uncertain: secondary, unverified; synthesis]. (2) Do not ask for or record procedural detail beyond what safeguarding needs. (3) Identify who is affected and whether anyone is at current risk. (4) Act through 4.11 or 4.12. Cross-refer to this domain's guides on harmful initiations and coercive programmes and on harmful practices still found.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When people are frightened or physically overwhelmed until they comply, that's not treatment, and you have a right to safety from it."
  • Watch for: the setting framing it as care, and the client minimising what happened. It is working when the client names what happened as harm and safety steps are underway [synthesis].

4.9 Working with a client drawn to spinning or 'vestibular shock' as self-help

  • Purpose / when: a client believes that being spun, deliberately disorientated or 'shocked' will reset their mood, perhaps after reading about the history or a lay account of research [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explore what they hope it will do: escape, punishment, a reset. (2) Share, accurately, that the only cited modern laboratory study, in healthy volunteers, found that spinning reduced feelings of being good, relaxed and comfortable, and that any therapeutic use is speculative [source: Winter et al. 2013]. (3) Screen for self-punishment and self-harm motives. (4) Refer physical or vestibular questions to a GP. (5) Offer supported alternatives (4.16) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like you want something strong enough to switch the feeling off. Can we look at what you're trying to get away from?"
  • Watch for: self-harm, risky behaviour, falls or injury. Route any of these medically and assess risk. It is working when the underlying distress becomes the focus [synthesis].

4.10 Medical routing for vestibular and physical symptoms

  • Purpose / when: a client reports dizziness, vertigo, nausea or falls, whether linked to the history, to self-experiment or to unrelated causes. Cox himself recorded vertigo, pallor, nausea and vomiting as effects of rotation [source: Winter et al. 2013].
  • Steps: (1) Do not interpret physical symptoms as purely psychological. (2) Encourage assessment by a GP, who may refer on to a specialist. (3) Do not advise on medicines. (4) Keep working on the psychological side alongside the medical assessment [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Dizziness like that deserves a proper medical check. Would you be willing to see your GP about it, and we'll keep working on the anxiety side here?"
  • Watch for: health anxiety spirals, and missed medical causes. It is working when the client has a medical plan and the two strands are not confused [synthesis].

4.11 Safeguarding when coercive physical practices are disclosed

  • Purpose / when: a client discloses that they, a child or an at-risk adult are being subjected to fear-based, disorientating, restraining or punitive 'treatment' in any setting [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Listen and record the disclosure factually, in the client's words, without leading questions. (2) Assess immediate danger. If there is any, contact emergency services. (3) For a child, follow mandatory reporting and child-protection procedures in your jurisdiction. Seek the child's assent and the involvement of appropriate adults where safe. Never promise confidentiality. (4) For an adult at risk, follow adult safeguarding procedures and seek consent where capacity allows. (5) Consult your safeguarding lead or supervisor, and document your decisions [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Thank you for telling me. Because a child may be at risk, I can't keep this just between us. I'll tell you what I need to do and who I'll contact."
  • Watch for: delays while you seek 'more evidence', and the client withdrawing after disclosure. It is working when a report is made, the client is kept informed, and the therapeutic relationship holds [synthesis].

4.12 Duties when a colleague or institution uses aversive or coercive methods

  • Purpose / when: you learn that a colleague, service or programme uses fear, physical distress, disorientation or punitive restraint as 'treatment' [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Do not participate in, supervise or refer clients to it. (2) Protect anyone currently at risk through 4.11. (3) Raise the concern through your organisation's safeguarding and whistleblowing routes, and with the relevant professional regulator or licensing board as it publishes its procedures. (4) Seek consultation from your professional body or ethics service. (5) Document your actions [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative), to a manager: "I'm concerned that this practice causes distress to gain compliance. I'm raising it formally under our safeguarding procedure."
  • Watch for: pressure to stay quiet, and normalising language ('it's just how we manage him'). It is working when the concern is formally recorded and acted on [synthesis].

4.13 Conversations about consent, power and obedience

  • Purpose / when: a client's history, whether of care, family, religion or institutions, taught them that being 'meek' and obedient was the price of safety. This echoes the documented aim of rotation [source: Snopes; Tromans 2010; synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Link current patterns, such as compliance, fear of authority and difficulty saying no, to that history when the client finds it useful. (2) Practise consent in the room: invite the client to decline topics or to stop the session. (3) Build the skill of assertion step by step [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "You learned that going along was the only safe option. Here, saying 'no' or 'not today' is welcome."
  • Watch for: the client complying with your suggestions to please you. It is working when the client disagrees with you or declines something without fear [synthesis].

4.14 Using historical images responsibly in therapy, teaching and supervision

  • Purpose / when: you or a client want to look at the 1828 illustration or similar images, or you are teaching trainees about the profession's history [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Give advance notice of the content and offer an opt-out. (2) Present the images with context: who drew them, why, and what happened to patients. (3) Do not show patients' faces or names as curiosities. (4) Never discuss mechanics or settings. (5) Debrief afterwards [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "The next image is an 1828 engraving of a rotatory machine. It's distressing for some people. You can skip it, and we'll talk about what it tells us about power in care."
  • Watch for: voyeuristic 'chamber of horrors' framing and distress among people with lived experience. It is working when discussion turns to lessons for present practice [synthesis].

4.15 Suicide-risk assessment and crisis planning

  • Purpose / when: a survivor of coercive care, or a family member overwhelmed by historical discoveries, shows hopelessness, suicidal thoughts or self-harm [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask directly about suicidal thoughts, intent and plans, following current standard risk-assessment practice. (2) Collaborate on a safety plan, including warning signs, coping steps, people to contact and safe storage or removal of means. Give no method detail. (3) Give crisis resources: 988 (US) and Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland). (4) Arrange urgent assessment where risk is high, and explain how you will involve services while keeping the client as much in control as possible, given how they may fear coercive care [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "With all that you've been through, I want to ask you straight out: are you having thoughts of ending your life?"
  • Watch for: a client concealing risk for fear of admission. Address this openly. It is working when the client engages with a plan they helped write [synthesis].

4.16 Referral to supported care and survivor support

  • Purpose / when: a client needs help beyond your scope: psychiatric, medical, trauma-specialist or peer support [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explain your reasons and the options, which may include current evidence-based care as national guideline bodies set it out [uncertain: specific guidelines not verified], independent advocacy, and peer and survivor-led organisations as they describe themselves. (2) Choose with the client. (3) Offer a warm handover. (4) Never refer to any fear-, restraint- or disorientation-based programme [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "There are services, including some run by people who've been through coercive care themselves. Shall we look at them together?"
  • Watch for: referral being experienced as rejection. It is working when the client attends and feels the choice was theirs [synthesis].

4.17 Advocacy, records and complaints

  • Purpose / when: a client wants to access their own or an ancestor's records, complain about current care, or contribute to commemoration [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Clarify what the client wants and what the risks are for them. (2) Signpost official records access, the organisation's complaints process, independent advocacy services and archive services. Historic Morison papers, for example, are held by the RCPE and by the Royal College of Physicians, London [source: AIM25]. (3) Support the emotional side, but let the client or an advocate do the casework (see 4.18) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "An independent advocate can help with the complaint itself. Here we can make sure you're supported through it."
  • Watch for: the process becoming retraumatising, or advocacy replacing therapy. It is working when the client feels effective and supported [synthesis].

4.18 Boundaries and multiple roles

  • Purpose / when: you are also a historian, heritage volunteer or campaigner, or the client invites you to research their ancestor or join their campaign [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Check whether the extra role could impair your objectivity or harm the client. APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 (Multiple Relationships) is the relevant reference [source: APA Ethics Code]. (2) Decline roles that blur the therapy. (3) Discuss the question in supervision [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm really interested in this history too, which is exactly why I'll keep my role as your therapist rather than your researcher."
  • Watch for: pleasure in the subject pulling sessions away from the client's needs. It is working when the history serves the client's goals [synthesis].

4.19 Repair: working with complicated legacies, including the profession's own

  • Purpose / when: a client, often a clinician, a descendant or someone with lived experience, struggles with the fact that one figure can be a reformer and the source of a coercive image. Morison funded prizes for humane attendants, illustrated a rotatory machine and benefited from slavery-derived inheritance [source: RCPE; Tromans 2010]. The same applies to the client's own trust in therapy [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Invite the client to hold several truths at once. (2) Explore what this means for their trust in care today. (3) Where the client has been harmed by care, including by previous therapy, acknowledge the harm and repair openly [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It's possible to respect the reforms and still be angry about the chair and the money behind it. What does holding both feel like for you?"
  • Watch for: splitting into idealisation or condemnation. It is working when the client can tolerate the complexity and choose where to place their trust [synthesis].

5. Handling problems

The problems below are the psychotherapist's own synthesis [synthesis]; a source tag marks any point drawn from a cited source.

  • Client floods on seeing images or reading accounts. Stop the material, ground the client in the present, and return to the topic only if and when the client chooses, at a lower level of detail. Afterwards, review what was too much [synthesis].
  • Client asks how the machine worked, or for speeds and durations. Decline the mechanics and explain why: it adds nothing to understanding and risks imitation. Redirect to purpose, context and harm [synthesis]. (Illustrative) "I don't go into the mechanics. What matters is what it was used for and what it did to people."
  • Client insists the history proves all psychiatry is torture, and refuses all care. Validate the documented harms and the client's own experience. Then separate past from present and explore specific, answerable fears (4.4, 4.5). Respect the client's choices about care unless there is acute risk (4.15) [synthesis].
  • Client dismisses the history ('they meant well; it was the times'). Present the documented aims plainly: proponents wrote of producing fear and "meek obedience" [source: Snopes; uncertain: secondary, unverified]. Contemporaries and later historians criticised the device for aversive effects and abuse [source: Winter et al. 2013]. Explore what minimising protects the client from, for example a family member's role in an admission [synthesis].
  • Stuck in rumination about an ancestor's unknown treatment. Name the limits of the records, move from investigating to mourning, and consider a time-limited approach to research with a planned end point [synthesis].
  • Non-adherence to safety planning in a survivor of coercive care. The plan may feel like another imposition. Rewrite it in the client's words, with options instead of instructions, and check whether fear of forced treatment is driving concealment [synthesis].
  • Rupture: client experiences you as an agent of the system. This may happen after a safeguarding report, a referral or a risk assessment. Acknowledge the power you hold, explain your reasoning, invite anger, and repair openly. Do not defend yourself at length [synthesis].
  • Client wants to try spinning or 'shock' self-experiments. Assess risk and motive (4.9). Give the accurate evidence statement [source: Winter et al. 2013] and route any physical symptoms to a GP (4.10) [synthesis].
  • You learn a service uses fear-based or disorientating 'calming' methods. Act through 4.11 and 4.12 without waiting for certainty about intent [synthesis].
  • Your own reactions (horror, fascination, guilt about the profession). Take them to supervision, and keep the client's purpose central (4.18) [synthesis].
  • Disputed facts (Morison's role, dates, his Bethlem title). Say what is documented and what is uncertain, rather than resolving it by guesswork [synthesis].
  • Crisis. Use 988 (US) or Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland), or emergency services where life is at immediate risk [synthesis].

Harm account

What was actually done

In the early nineteenth century, some asylum physicians in Britain, Ireland, the German states and the United States placed agitated, manic or stuporous patients in chairs, beds or swings that were rotated or swung. Patients were spun "as if on a merry-go-round" [source: Tromans 2010; Winter et al. 2013; Snopes]. Joseph Mason Cox promoted the method in Practical Observations on Insanity (1804). Ernst Horn is reported to have used it at the Berlin Charité from 1807, first on a bed and then on a chair [source: Snopes; uncertain: secondary]. Benjamin Rush developed a rotational chair. William Saunders Hallaran is associated with a 'circulating swing' [source: Winter et al. 2013; Snopes]. A 'rotatory machine' is illustrated in Alexander Morison's Cases of Mental Disease (1828) [source: Tromans 2010]. How far Morison used or recommended it is [uncertain: not verified]. The stated aims were to calm patients, to bring sleep, and to make them compliant and receptive to other treatment. Cox also proposed adding darkness and unfamiliar sounds and smells to heighten fear [source: Tromans 2010; Winter et al. 2013]. It was one of a group of devices meant to shock or subdue, alongside Rush's 'tranquillizing' chair and sudden immersion baths [source: Tromans 2010]. In the form Cox described, the patient was fastened into a chair suspended from the ceiling, sometimes also in a strait-waistcoat, and an attendant kept it turning until the patient was giddy, pale and vomiting, often with loss of bladder control; the patient could not stop it [source: Snopes, citing Cox 1804; Winter et al. 2013].

How it caused harm

  • Physical: Cox himself recorded vertigo, pallor, nausea, vomiting and loss of bladder control [source: Winter et al. 2013].
  • Psychological: the method used fear and physical distress to produce obedience. In a phrase Snopes quotes from the historian Andrew Scull, such machines could reduce patients "to a meek obedience" [source: Snopes, quoting Scull; uncertain: Scull's text not verified]. Historians describe its "abusive applications" [source: Snopes; Winter et al. 2013, citing Wade et al. 2005].
  • Consent and dignity: patients did not choose it. Its use as a disciplinary tool blurred treatment and punishment [synthesis based on the sources above].
  • Abandonment: the method was abandoned because of its highly aversive effects and its abusive use [source: Winter et al. 2013]. Exact dates of abandonment are [uncertain].

Recognising it today

  • The device itself is not in clinical use. Rotating chairs survive in legitimate clinical vestibular testing (the Bárány chair), in research and in fairground rides, none of which is psychiatric treatment [source: Winter et al. 2013].
  • The pattern to recognise is the use of physical distress, disorientation or fear to subdue or gain compliance, presented as therapy, care or discipline. It can appear in unregulated residential programmes, in abusive religious settings, in punitive institutional practice, or in self-experiments promising a mood 'reset' [synthesis].
  • In clients the legacy shows as dread of psychiatric care, family stories of asylum 'tortures', or trauma after coercive care [synthesis].
  • Modern claims that spinning or vestibular stimulation treats mood are speculative. The one cited study, in healthy volunteers, found that spinning worsened feelings of being good, relaxed and comfortable [source: Winter et al. 2013].

What to do instead and how to help those harmed

  • Supported care: for agitation, mania or stupor, current care follows national guideline bodies' recommendations for assessment, de-escalation and treatment by qualified clinicians [uncertain: specific guidelines not verified]. The psychotherapist does not advise on medicines.
  • The reform tradition: the moral treatment and non-restraint movements that grew up in the same decades are covered in this domain's "Asylum era and its reforms" guides (028, 029). The RCPE prize Morison endowed honoured attendants' "humane attention to their patients" [source: Tromans 2010; RCPE].
  • Survivors of coercive care today: trauma-informed assessment and evidence-based trauma therapy, peer and survivor-led support as those organisations describe themselves, and independent advocacy (sections 4.6, 4.7, 4.16, 4.17) [synthesis].
  • Families and descendants: family-history work, meaning-making and commemoration (4.3, 4.19) [synthesis].
  • Reporting duties and legal routes: safeguarding and mandatory reporting for children and adults at risk. Organisational whistleblowing and regulator complaints where a professional or service uses fear-, distress- or restraint-based methods. The organisation's complaints process and independent advocacy (4.11, 4.12, 4.17) [synthesis].
  • Crisis: 988 (US); Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland).

Sources

← Previous · XVI-022Horn's rotatory machines and drenchingsNext · XVI-024 →Rush's tranquillizing chair