Shrinks vs. shysters

In 1976, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a new mental health law which was designed to give civil and due process rights to the mentally ill, as well as to speed up the deinstitutionalization process. The psychiatric profession voiced loud disapproval of the new law. The public interest bar entered the issue, opposing the psychiatrists. In 1978, the law was amended, and most of the hard-won patients' rights were lost. This paper analyzes the reasons behind the psychiatric demand and victory, as well as the reasons for the lawyer's unsuccessful opposition, using two similar battles, one fought in the British Parliament in the eighteenth century, and one in the California legislature in the early twentieth century. Conclusions are drawn concerning the reason for the legislative “turnabout,” and predictions concerning the course of future battles are made.