Problem
I. Dr. Duncanson, the doctor who supports Elizabeth in her insanity trial, testifies that: "I did not agree with... her on many things, but I do not call people insane because they differ with me?" How relevant is this statement in America today when political opinions are so divided, and what does it do to public discourse when the idea of insanity is brought into politics? Do you think we might ever return to a time when people are locked up for holding an opposing viewpoint to those in power?
II. Elizabeth and McFarland have a complicated relationship to say the least. What did you think of her continuous attempts to redeem him. Did she truly think he would change, or was she just trying to improve her own circumstances? What were the long-lasting effects of the relationship on each of them?
III. When Elizabeth is first released from the asylum, how does her homecoming compare to her daydreams and expectations? Have you ever had a similar experience? How did you handle the difference between your expectations and reality?
IV. Elizabeth's landmark case for her sanity was originally a trial regarding habeas corpus. What did you think of the judge's decision to shift focus? Is a jury qualified to confirm or deny someone's sanity? What is the process today of involuntary commitment into a psychiatric facility?
V. What did you think of the spate of releases that occurred right before Jacksonville came under scrutiny? Can you provide an example of a similar occurrence in more recent time?
VI. Right or wrong, McFarland was completely trusted by the Jacksonville Asylum's Board of Trustees. What impact did this have on his patients? How did the Board respond to Fuller's investigation and recommendations? Can you think of a way to avoid such conflicts of interest?