The Moral Management of Sick or Invalid Children : Part 2

Doctor and Patient
by S. Weir Mitchell, M.D.

(Page 6 of 8)

Children are singularly imitative, and more or less prone to suffer from this tendency. Hence the curious cases in which a child simulates, I do not say dissimulates, the malady it sees constantly before it, as when one child has attacks of false epilepsy, owing to having seen the real attack in a sister or brother, or when St. Vitus's dance runs through a school or an asylum.

To sum up, we credit these little ones with a simplicity of moral organization which forbids us to believe that the causes which are active for mischief in their elders are not as potent for evil in them. The popular and reasonable creed of moral education, which teaches us to ask from a well child self-control, self-restraint, truth of statement, reasonable endurance of the unavoidable, good temper, is not too lightly or too entirely to be laid aside when sickness softens the rule of health and all our hearts go out in pity to the little sufferer.

Certain of the nervous and other maladies of children sometimes keep them a long while under treatments which are annoying, painful, or disabling. They often end by leaving them as strong as their fellows, but crippled, lame, disfigured, or with troubles that attract remark, or, at least, notice. Thus, a child may have hip-disease, and, after years of treatment, get well, and although vigorous enough to do all that is required in life, be more or less lame. In another case, there is disease of the bones of the spine. After a wearying treatment, it is well, but the little one has a distorted spine, - is humpbacked. Again, we have the common malady, palsy of childhood, and here, too, most probably, there is left a residue of disability, or, at all events, some loss of power.

In each case there are years of troublesome treatment, all sorts of unpleasant limitations, pain it may be, and certainly, at the best, a variety of discomforts. The joy and little pleasures of youth are gone. It makes one sorrowful to think of such cases, even when all that competent means can do to help them is at their disposal, and still more to reflect on those who have to battle for health with no more resource than is left to the needy. What shall we not do for them! The woman's whole tendency is to give them all of herself and all else that she can control. Indulgence becomes inevitable, or seems to become so, and the mother is rare who does not insist that they shall have what they desire, and that her other children shall yield to them in all things.

Her answer to herself and others is, "They have so little; let them at least have what they can." As rare as the reasonable mother is the sick child who can stand this treatment and survive with those traits of character which it above all others requires to make its crippled life happy, not to say useful. The child thus unrestrained and foolishly indulged must needs become ill-tempered. It loses self-control, and yet no one will need it more. It learns to expect no disappointments, and life is to hold for it less than for others. Disease has crippled its body and the mother has crippled its character.

I have no belief that long illness is good for the mass of people, but the character of the adult sufferer is in his or her own hands to make, mar, or mend. In childhood the mother is in large measure responsible for the ductile being in her care. If she believes that unrestraint is her duty, she is laying up for the invalid a retribution which soon or late will bitterly visit on the child the sin or, if you like, the mistakes of the parent. It is her business and duty, no matter how hard may be to her the trial, to see that this child, above all others, shall be taught patience, gentleness, good temper, and self-control in all its varieties, nor should she fail to point out, as health returns and years go by, that it is not all of life to be straight and uncrippled. I need not dwell on this. Every wise woman will understand me, and be able to put in practice better than I can here state what I might more fully say.

I do not wish, however, to be understood as urging that all children long ill or crippled grow to be unamiable and spoiled. I do not quite know why it is, but, after all, children are less apt to suffer morally from long illness than adults, and very often, despite careless or thoughtless usage, these young sufferers come out as wholesome in mind and heart as if they had known no trial, or, perhaps, because of it. It is in a measure a matter of original temperament. In other words, what the sick child was as to character modified results, and this is especially true as concerns the peculiarities which attract unpleasant notice. One person who has twitching of the muscles of the face is made miserable by the attention it invites; another is indifferent.

The cases of Lord Byron and Walter Scott are to the point. The former was sensitive and morbid about his deformity. I cannot help thinking that had his mother been other than she was, he would have been brought up to more wholesome views as to what was after all no very great calamity. Walter Scott suffered from a like trouble, but healthy moral surroundings and a cheerful nature saved him from the consequences which fell so heavily upon his brother poet.

Epilepsy is a malady but too common in childhood, and as to which a few words apart are needed. Usually a child epileptic for some years will carry the disease with it for a time, the length of which no man can set. The disease may be such as to ruin mind and body, or the attacks may be rare, and not prevent courageous and resolute natures from leading useful lives. All intermediate degrees are possible. As a rule, no children need so inflexible a discipline as epileptics. Indulgence as regards them is only another name for ruin. Do as we may, they are apt to become morally perverted, and require the utmost firmness, and the most matured and educated intelligence, to train them wisely. Difficult epileptics and most idiots are best looked after, and certainly happiest, in some one of the competent training-schools for feeble-minded children.

Even the milder epileptic cases are hard to manage. I rarely see one which has been intelligently dealt with. Few mothers are able or willing to use a rule as stern, as enduring, as unyielding as they require.

As to education, I am satisfied that these children are the better for it, and yet almost invariably I find that in the cases referred to me some physician has, with too little thought, recommended entire abandonment or avoidance of mental training. I have neither space nor desire to go into my reasons for a different belief. I am, however, sure that education limited as to time, education of mind, and especially of the hands, has for these cases distinct utility, while to them also, as to the other children crippled in mind or body, all that I have already urged applies with equal force.

As to the management of sick or crippled childhood, I have said far more than I had at first meant to say, and chiefly because I have been made to feel, as I thought the matter over, how far more difficult it is in practice than in theory. But this applies to all moral lessons, and the moralist must be credited by the thoughtful mother with a full perception of the embarrassments which lie in her path.

About the Author

Silas Weir Mitchell was an American physician and writer. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania in that city, and received the degree of M.D. at Jefferson Medical College in 1850. During the Civil War he had charge of nervous injuries and maladies at Turners Lane Hospital, Philadelphia, and at the close of the war became a specialist in neurology.