Convulsions induced by mild pulse current (Cronholm and Ottosson, 1963; Ottosson, 1960) have been reported to be as beneficial as unilateral or bilateral sinusoidal ECT in depression while not associated with as many undesirable effects (Valentine et al., 1968). However, confirmatory work is needed, and the authors did not distinguish between response rates in neurotic and endogenous depression.

In 1959, J. M. Roberts claimed that in 50 depressed women aged 40–60 years the response to the intravenous injection of 15 mg. methylamphetamine differentiated significantly between those diagnosed as ‘psychotic’ and those diagnosed as ‘neurotic’. Following the injection each patient was observed closely for two to three hours, and in the great majority one of two responses occurred. Either the patient experienced a ‘sustained period of general uplift of mood and a feeling of greater well-being'—the ‘normalization’ response; or the patient showed ‘an immediate, or almost immediate, intensification of symptoms, particularly a worsening of any agitation present, often together with a deepening of the depressive affect'—the ‘intensification’ response. In only two patients, both with neurotic depression, was it not possible to classify the response.

Systematic desensitization using bodily responses other than relaxation as the specific anxiety inhibitor has produced positive results in phobic states. Jones (1924) used feeding, Wolpe (1969) advocated motor activity using a conditioned motor response, Ventis (1973) described a case where induced laughter was effective and Orwin (1971) paired the respiratory relief obtained after maximum voluntary respiratory arrest with the anxiety evoking stimuli. A derivation of this latter technique utilized the autonomic excitation caused by the vigorous physical exertion of running, to compete with the anxiety response in the agoraphobic syndrome (Orwin, 1973). This brief report describes an unusual situational phobia treated by this latter method (‘the running treatment’), following previous experience with simple claustrophobia.

All the papers about flat dwelling (Central Housing Advisory Committee, 1952; Hopper, 1962; Hird, 1966; Fanning, 1967; Gunn, 1968; Gilloran, 1968 and Stewart, 1970) except one (Sheerboom, 1962) state that it has an adverse effect on mental health. They are almost unanimous in naming the care of children as a cause. The best study from a scientific point of view (Fanning, 1967) showed a significantly higher rate of psychiatric consultations among those living in the same flats as in the present study. This was thought to be due to social isolation caused by the nature of the flats and being confined in them by children. A widely held belief that bad housing can cause or aggravate mental illness is not justified by the evidence. Three investigations (Martin, Brotherston and Chave, 1957; Wilner, Walkley, Schram, Pinkerton and Tayback, 1960 and Hare and Shaw, 1965) failed to show any benefit to mental health from new housing. The only one (Taylor and Chave, 1964) to find an improvement studied new housing which was socially planned. All four studies failed to allow for two other variables. One was the adverse effect of the move itself (Maule and Martin, 1956; Hall, 1964 and Shepherd, Cooper, Brown and Kalton, 1966) on those in new housing. The other was moving to better old housing among controls (Wilner et al., 1960).