Source and Methods Essay<\/p>\n
As you read these works, pay careful attention to the text as well as the citations. In an essay of no more than 1500 words, discuss the kinds of sources the authors drew on in their work. How are the authors\u2019 interpretations shaped by the types of sources used? How does the selection of sources shape the credibility of the work? Discuss the ways that the authors do or do not make their research processes\/decisions\/challenges plain to readers. How does methodology shape the work that you have selected? When authors discussed challenges, did they also discuss how they met those challenges? Do these strategies seem to effectively meet the challenges posed by medical history?<\/p>\n
Book 1<\/p>\n
Cristin O\u2019Keefe Aptowicz, Dr. M\u00fctter\u2019s Marvels: A True Tale of Intrigue and Innovation at the Dawn of Modern Medicine (New York: Avery, 2014).<\/p>\n
Post 1<\/p>\n
To begin this week\u2019s discussion I have to state that I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and found the story of Dr. Mutter to be quite engaging. I read through most of the book in one day. I found Mutter himself to be a unique character, and a person who largely embodies the spirit of the medicine of his day, innovative, progressive, and forward looking.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I have to say that I disagree with the critics of Aptowicz\u2019s work. I actually felt as I read the many stories and descriptions of Mutter\u2019s patients that rather than creating a side-show type attraction, that the narrative humanized these individuals that suffered so much due to their ailments. While the reality is that they were largely characterized as monsters and side show attractions in the nineteenth century, Mutter never treated them as such, and took pains to alleviate their suffering. Aptowicz discusses at length and in various places throughout the book, how Mutter had such an amazing bedside manner, and took time to explain and prepare each patient. \u00a0\u201cWhen the trembling woman entered his office, Mutter greeted her severely deformed face with the same warmth with which he greeted friends on the street; his glittering blue eyes locked directly onto her misshapen ones.\u201d (Aptowicz, 143) She goes on to describe how the fact that Mutter insisted on making eye contact was disarming, because she was used to people avoiding it, or looking at her altogether. \u00a0I also found that, despite the many rare conditions, and horrific injuries Mutter treated in his career, and exist in his collection, the book only mentions a select few, and none of them are presented as a side-show curiosity. Rather, the narrative emphasizes the fact that Mutter was trying to change the stigma, and he taught his students his same humanistic approach. As far as painting Mutter as a hero because he was willing to treat stigmatized bodies, I disagree with that presentation as well. I never got the feeling that Mutter was being portrayed as a hero, but rather as a scientist and a healer. The very fact that Mutter did not publish heavily, largely because he couldn\u2019t take the time away from treating his patients, belies this narrative. He did not see himself as a hero, but as a healer. Aptowicz portrays him as he was, if some interpret that as heroic, then so be it, but I did not get the impression that that was the intention of the book. I also feel that Aptowicz did unpack the stigma and harm that accompanied the \u201cmonster\u201d label attributed to so many of Mutter\u2019s patients, but she did not make it the focus of her narrative, because that was not the aim of the narrative. Aptowicz was not writing a treatise on the harm of the use of such terms, or side-shows, or the disabled community. She was writing the biography of a man who tried to help the people suffering from these labels, and who was largely successful, in a time when no one else wanted too, knew how, or was willing to try.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As to the collection of the Mutter Museum and its side-show like qualities, I have to agree to a certain extent that for some visitors to the museum that is the attraction. People like oddities, its, sadly, in our nature. However, I cannot discount the true purpose of the museum, and the value that it holds for the medical community, even today. While today we have computers and can render 3D printed models of the human body lifelike enough to practice surgery on, that is a new advantage. The fact is that until very recently, the only way to gain a better understanding of a rare condition or anomaly, was to study a specimen from a collection like Mutters. There are specimens in Mutters collection that will likely never be duplicated, and their preservation is invaluable. It is also necessary to note that the Mutter Museum is not so unique. There are other collections in other places that contain just as many specimens with side-showesque appeal, and originating from the same purpose as Mutter\u2019s. The reality is that to practice medicine, and learn what is necessary to learn to do so, it is necessary to also deal in things that would otherwise be taboo. For example, outside of the medical profession it is frowned upon to dissect a human cadaver, if they caught Joe Schmo dissecting a human being in his garage he would go to jail, and likely face a detailed psychiatric evaluation, but it is a requirement for doctors. In order to perfect techniques of plastic, or reconstructive surgery, it was necessary to study and practice on cases that might have seemed \u201cmonstrous\u201d, in order to gain understanding of the cause and pathology of those cases, as well as devise effective treatments. The fact that Mutter\u2019s techniques are still in use today speaks to the need and usefulness of a collection such as his.<\/p>\n
Post 2<\/p>\n
Dr. M\u00fctter\u2019s Marvels\u00a0explores the life of Dr. Thomas M\u00fctter and his contributions to the medical community throughout the mid to late 1800s. By focusing on Dr. M\u00fctter, Aptowicz displays the complex progress and ideologies of medicine and disease throughout the 1800s, while also displaying how people with disabilities were treated and seen. Dr. M\u00fctter\u2019s many contributions to medicine and disease are revealed throughout this book, especially his introduction of how he treated patients pre and post surgery. Aptowics mentioned that M\u00fctter\u2019s methods were rare during the 1800s, where he would \u201cpush forward his theories on presurgical care\u2013how hours, day, or even weeks spent working with the patient prior to a surgery could be instrumental in a successful outcome.\u201d (170) Along with pre surgical care, M\u00fctter would examine \u201chis patients several times a day after surgery, checking and cleaning their wounds, deciding new treatment strategies and even strictly monitoring what the patient ate or drank\u2014not just the types of food and beverages, but their volume and frequency as well.\u201d (95) M\u00fctter also focused on making connections between he and his patients, treating them as human beings rather than science experiments. This approach that M\u00fctter utilized versus the opposite approaches other physicians employed revealed the many debates throughout the medical community and how physicians such as M\u00fctter advocated for a more humane, patient focused approach in medicine.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Along with M\u00fctter\u2019s more humane and patient focused approach to medicine, M\u00fctter promoted ideas that were not commonly shared in the medical community during the mid 1800s. For example, M\u00fctter believed that \u201call diseases\u2014including and especially their causes\u2014must be viewed separately.\u201d (260) He also believed in sanitation methods and that diseases were \u201cseparate entities, produced by separate organisms.\u201d (260) M\u00fctter\u2019s promotions of these ideas to his students and other physicians prompted some to embrace these ideologies and to further research on sanitation and diseases.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Dr. M\u00fctter\u2019s accomplishments and contributions to the field of medicine were vast, but I thought what was very important was the way he taught his students and how his students became future physicians who further shaped the field of medicine to what it is today. One of M\u00fctter\u2019s students admired M\u00fctter\u2019s push for inhaled anesthesia, prompting him to figure out how to regulate ester anesthesia, where he succeeded and provided the information for free. This student then went on to advocate for the Pure Food and Drug Act, which then inspired the creation of the FDA (268). Learning about the influence that M\u00fctter had on students revealed how physicians learn from each other every day, pushing each other to expand their knowledge and help their patients and the medical community. Although I enjoyed this book a great deal, I felt as though by focusing on Dr. M\u00fctter only, we lost a bit of insight on how female, people of color, queer, lower class, disabled, and people of different occupations in medicine inspired the medical community.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Finally, Dr. M\u00fctter\u2019s approach in treating patients who were viewed at the time as \u201cmonsters\u201d was very interesting to read. The teaching tools that Dr. M\u00fctter collected that is now shown in the museum are \u201csideshow-like quality\u201d, but I think if the museum incorporates information such as the stories from chapter 13, then spectators would get a sense of the lifestyle of the 19th century and how \u201cto cut away the damaged skin and replace it with healthy skin from another person or even another area of the victim\u2019s body\u2014was assumed to be impossible.\u201d (141) Also, if the museum highlighted how M\u00fctter emphasized the importance of patients and their own feelings, this would prevent the teaching tools from seeming \u201csideshow-like quality.<\/p>\n
Post 3<\/p>\n
This week we had yet another truly riveting read! Aptowicz provides us with so much detail, not just about Thomas Mutter and his work but also about several of the other major figures of his time. I was left with what I felt was a much clearer picture of how early medicine was taught as well as a more personal take on the process of innovation in medicine. While, at times, I found the description of procedures difficult to read (the descriptions of early amputations were particularly horrific!), I concluded the book with mixed feelings regarding the \u201csideshow-like\u201d nature of the presentation of these stories.<\/p>\n
On one hand I can fully understand the critiques by disability scholars regarding the treatment of patients. Prior to anesthesia, surgical procedures were an experimental, brutal process. The large surgical \u201ctheaters\u201d used for observation often turned into opportunities for more experienced surgeons to showcase their methods in a theatrical manner. The prevailing attitude of surgeons at the time was that once a patient agreed to a procedure, it was the surgeon\u2019s job to complete the operation at any cost. Patients were purposefully misled regarding the pain they could expect and the steps in the procedure (p. 94). Aptowicz even details the commonality of physical abuse by surgeons toward their patients, describing practices by Guillaume Depuytren where he would strike patients and grab them by their noses to induce submission. It was dehumanizing and exploitative. Surgeons would equate attendance at their lectures and demonstrations with expertise, when ultimately students were drawn not to the instructors with the best practices but rather to those who were notorious for putting on a good show. The professors that brought in the biggest crowds and drew students to enroll at their schools were well compensated.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, though, I can see the necessity of conveying these brutal practices exactly as they were. I do not fault Aptowicz for representing these procedures as they were documented, which requires the use of language and descriptions that may be offensive to some. I feel that she is simply trying to convey the stark difference between Mutter\u2019s practices and those of other leaders in the field. It makes Mutter appear more revolutionary in his methods.<\/p>\n
If we view our definitions of \u201cdisease\u201d and \u201cmedicine\u201d as a social construction, then we must include the social context of the time periods being discussed in our study of history. Because Aptowicz provides such context by using detailed explanations of the practices of other surgeons of the time as well as references to the attitudes of the general population to people with afflictions that would result in them being labeled \u201cmonsters\u201d. In discussing the social and emotional consequences of the label I feel Aptowicz is guiding the reader through the process of constructing the reality that many of Mutter\u2019s patients were facing.<\/p>\n
When compared to someone like Charles Meigs, Mutter does, indeed, come across as a hero. In reading Mutter\u2019s approach to the procedures on Nathaniel Dickey (p. 62-65) and the woman upon which he first performed the \u201cMutter flap\u201d procedure (p. 149-153), Aptowicz invokes a portrait of Mutter as a caring, empathetic physician\u2014one who focuses on his patient before, during, and after the operating theater instead of the observers.<\/p>\n
Post 4<\/p>\n
This week\u2019s reading,\u00a0Dr. Mutter\u2019s Marvels\u00a0by Cristin O\u2019Keefe Aptowicz, again confirms how many amazing and important pieces of the world of education I have missed in my 68 years! I had never heard of the Mutter Museum, much less the great Dr. Thomas Mutter. We see in this biography that Dr. Mutter had a tremendous impact on not only the medicine of the 1800\u2019s, but that of today. This book is a great follow up to last week\u2019s reading of\u00a0Bellevue,\u00a0in that both include several areas of controversy of this era. This helps us see how the schools of thought were common to many of the trained professionals of the time.<\/p>\n
Aptowicz, who is an author\/poet, manages to weave the history of Dr. Mutter with that of the evolution of medicine in 19th century America. As a child in Philadelphia, she took many field trips to Mutter Museum. She became curious by who Dr. Mutter was. As an accomplished author, she decided to research his life. The result is this engrossing book which shed light on his life and accomplishments as a groundbreaker of plastic surgery in America. True to her specialty, Aprowicz begins each chapter with poetic-like entries from speeches Mutter made to graduates of Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia. She presents this interconnection of medicine in the context of the times. From women with serious medical issues, they didn\u2019t share because of the modesty of society, to the belief that a fetus isn\u2019t human until \u201cthe quickening\u201d (movement mother can feel), to developing of standards in the medical community, the author\u00a0well-researched Mutter\u2019s life and career in the setting of early modern medicine. As in James Patterson\u2019s \u201cHow Do We Write the History of Disease,\u201d we can see through the lens of the context of the interaction of society\u2019s values of the times and the unfolding medical knowledge.<\/p>\n
One of the most incomprehensible points brought out is the rivaling opinions of Mutter and Dr. Charles Meigs. As a prominent obstetrician, Meigs believed pain was a necessary evil. He quoted Genesis 3:16: \u201cIn sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.\u201d (page 192) This was part of reason to be so against the use of anesthesia in medicine. This ridiculous stance received its just reward. In his attempt to prove how dangerous ether could be, he made a habit of demonstrating with sheep and letting students watch them slowly die. It is told that with one such presentation\u2014after the sheep was \u201cpronounced\u201d dead and moved\u2014he continued to lecture about possible problems. Suddenly the crowd heard a moan; before long, the students were witness to a stumbling but alive sheep! (page 193-4). Unfortunately, Meigs never changed his conviction when it came to anesthesia. Having had a few medical procedures with only numbing medicine (breast biopsies, liver biopsies and bone marrow extraction), I can\u2019t fathom a radical surgery without it. I believe I\u2019d just go meet Jesus!<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dr. Meigs also held to the viewpoint that diseases were not infectious. While it wasn\u2019t mentioned whether Meigs resisted the ideas of germ therapy because they came from Europe as Oshinsky claimed at Bellevue, the opposition to these changes were not unusual. While many believed diseases came from miasmas, Meigs took it a step further. He claimed the puerperal fever after childbirth was a coincidence. Even when presented with evidence that \u201ccleaning\u201d techniques reduced the cases, he never wavered. (page 256-7)<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As a five-year survivor of breast cancer, I found myself relieved I live in the 21st century. In the 1800\u2019s, breast cancer was mostly not found until the lump became large and had progressed too far into other tissues to be cured. (page 220-1) Fortunately, mine was so small (identified by mammogram) that even I couldn\u2019t feel it. Considering the prospect of ultimate death during Mutter\u2019s era, I wonder how I would have wanted to have been treated. It seems Dr. Mutter, faithful to transparency, would be truthful with the patient. That is what I would want. I had the choice of lumpectomy\/radiation\/pill or mastectomy. After consulting with my primary care doctor (whom I have had since 1992), I opted for the lumpectomy. That was a trying time so I can\u2019t imagine the decisions of the 19th\u00a0century women.<\/p>\n
Post 5<\/p>\n
Dr. Mutter\u2019s Marvels\u00a0by Cristin O\u2019Keefe Aptowicz details the life of a 19th century surgeon while also bringing to light broader changes in medicine and surgery. Although there are potential issues with the more narrow framework used by Aptowicz, there is a lot of value in her ability to showcase the impact of philosophy and morality on how doctors approached patients, specifically in the different approaches of Dr. Meigs and Dr. Mutter. As Aptowicz writes, \u201cMeigs truly saw his role as God-given, and thus his opinions as actual absolutes\u201d (190). While treating patients, Dr. Meigs not only believed but taught students that women deserved pain during labor because of sin which encouraged his opposition to ether anesthesia. He was also known to\u00a0 \u201ccondemn anyone he thought was disobedient\u201d (135) while conducting surgeries. His views surrounding the role between surgeons and patients lead to the eventual collapse of his medical reputation with his outward refusal that doctors played a detrimental role in the spread of childbed fever (256). On the other hand, Dr. Mutter\u2019s approach to surgery included a thorough pre-surgery regimine, constant reassessment of patients during surgery, and intensive aftercare and attention to the patient\u2019s progress post-surgery. The different approaches to medicine boiled down to how surgeons and doctors viewed their role within healthcare and what their ultimate duty was to patients. While surgeons similar to Dr. Meigs viewed themselves as God-like doctors who had complete control and power over patients, other surgeons such as Dr. Mutter were instead focused on their role of restoring better lives to those with diseases and ailments. Although a focus on physicians and the role of medical practitioners provides a limited\/narrowed understanding of medical history, it also showcases the views of surgeons towards patients which are essential to understanding how patients were treated.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As we have discussed in the past two weeks, medicine and healthcare are often socially constructed and influenced by societal values and beliefs. Aptowicz also demonstrates the ways in which medicine is socially and politically constructed through the role of politicians and leaders in medical care which was heightened by those who were connected to alcohol-related crimes leading to the poor being viewed as having \u201cearned their lot in life and thus deserved no charity\u201d (125). Consequently, some Philadelphia politicians believed poverty was a result of sin; therefore, they did not want to use public funding to clean poor areas in order to eliminate risks of disease. Not only did doctors play a key role in influencing the public perception of disease, but politicians were essential to creating and maintaining views of \u201cworthy\u201d and \u201cunworthy\u201d people with diseases which often centered on metrics of wealth and morality.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The most interesting component of Aptowicz\u2019s analysis was her focus on women\u2019s healthcare in 19th century, especially her analysis of abortion. The Eliza Sower\u2019s case drastically changed not only the legal definition of abortion, but also had a substantial influence on the health of women, especially in relation to obstretics and the health risks of pregnancy. Aptowicz argues that Sower\u2019s case brought about the \u201cfirst time abortion was legally viewed as something that could bring harm to the mother as well as the death of the unborn\u201d (134). Abortion is an interesting example of the social construction of disease because of the transformation of fetuses receiving \u201crational souls\u201d (130) from quickening to conception due to the limited understanding of reproduction along with the role of religion and morality in healthcare.<\/p>\n
Book 2<\/p>\n
Adria L. Imada, An Archive of Skin, An Archive of Kin: Disability and Life-Making during Medical Incarceration (Oakland: University of California, 2022). <\/p>\n
Post 1<\/p>\n
An Archive of Skin, An Archive of Kin\u00a0explores the process in which leprosy patients in Hawaii were subjected to harsh quarantine that stripped away their freedom and lives. Imada navigates how non white leprosy patients were subjected to quarantine through the narrative that non white people contracted leprosy because of their culture and behavior. In addition to investigating how leprosy patients in Hawaii were subjected to racial and gendered ideologies and harsh quarantine, Imada explores how leprosy patients sought to preserve their control of their lives and culture through kinship. I had never learned about the leprosy quarantine in Hawaii, but I am so glad I had the opportunity to study the experiences of Kalaupapa and other places where leprosy patients were forced to quarantine.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A particular part in Imada\u2019s work that reminded me of the reading,\u00a0Medical Bondage, from last week was when Imada stated that, \u201cNineteenth century German natural scientists accessed prisons, graveyards, and colonies to source human bodies and body parts for anthropological and medical science.\u201d (46) where \u201cphysicians contributed to the ideological and material infrastructure of the leprosy regime, while benefiting from privileged access to inmates.\u201d (46) In\u00a0Medical Bondage\u00a0readers learned that enslaved women bodies were utilized by physicians for self promotion, similar to how physicians utilized Hawaiian\u2019s bodies for benefits in their profession. The notion of who benefits from medical discoveries versus who suffered from medical discoveries was revealed in Imada\u2019s reading, where Hawaiian\u2019s suffered through harsh quarantine and the exploitation of Hawaiian\u2019s bodies\u2019. Along with the suffering Hawaiian\u2019s faced, Hawaiians sacred culture was at times harmed throughout physicians studies. For example, Dr. Arning raided Hawaiian burial caves that are sacred to Hawaiians cultural beliefs. The disruption of Hawaiian culture seemed to have accompanied physicians actions throughout their studies, expanding on the notion of who is harmed in the process of medical innovation. Even though Hawaiian culture at times was disrupted by these notions and practices, Imada noted that Hawaiians preserved their culture and personal identity through dressing in lei\u2019s and nice clothing. Imada stated that Hawaiians who dressed nicely for their leprosy photograph session \u201crepresented a chance for patients to maintain their personhood apart from the signification of bodily distress.\u201d (111) The lei, a sacred symbol of Hawaiian culture, was also worn by Hawaiian patients in photographs, which represented both preservation of Hawaiian culture and family bonds. Imada revealed that, \u201cfamily and friends may have brought the lei to that station, or they may have woven lei from flowers cultivated on the hospital grounds,\u201d (113) demonstrating how Hawaiian families maintained their bond and kinship throughout these harsh times.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Imada unveiled how photographs that portrayed non white leprosy patients in \u201cvulnerable positions\u201d (86) were different from white leprosy patients who posed in a manner that \u201cwere imaged according to representational codes that accorded anonymity, privacy, and gendered discretion.\u201d (87) I thought this was an important revelation in Imada\u2019s argument of how Hawaiian people were exploited by photographs and how these photographs linked diseases to race and gender and connected Hawaiians to the disease of leprosy. This revelation also reveals the privilege that white people possessed in attaining the right to privacy and modesty while posing for photographs (Figure 28, page 88) and being excluded from the publication of leprosy photographs. Expanding on this idea of race and medicine being interconnected, Imada discussed how similar the narratives of enslaved women and Hawaiian women being \u201cfertile and\u00a0strong\u201d (136) were revealing how physicians of the time connected race, gender, and disease in order to explain diseases, while preserving gender and racial social norms of the time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The theme of the use of photography and how this affected leprosy patients and the narrative of leprosy is consistent throughout Imada\u2019s work. I thought chapter 4 was a super interesting read that provided readers with a personal perspective of leprosy patients in Hawaii. The placement of patients in photographs caught my attention, specifically when Imada described a photo at Niagara Falls where patient Kenso Seki stepped \u201cinto a spot in which thousands of other middle-class travelers have been photographed,\u201d (200) and became \u201cEvery tourist, not a disabled patient.\u201d (200) Seki evolved from a leprosy patient who was once a subject of photographs that labeled leprosy patients as different and someone to be afraid of to a normal human being being represented in a photograph. Seki\u2019s picture reveals how patients placed themselves as human beings on the same level as everyone else. These photographs also show the importance of kinship and how establishing relationships with one another (sometimes pets) helped gain a level of confidence and a sense of belonging in a world that unfairly enclosed them from their lives and the world around them.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Finally, the epilogue detailed Imada\u2019s visit to Kalaupapa. I have never read an epilogue that was so moving and thoughtful. A group of students visited Kalaupapa for the first time where many memories were produced. These memories did not consist of labeling who were once leprosy patients, but of bonding with the people of Kalaupapa. Imada noted that the students \u201cphotographs instead focus on the landscape, their group, and a communal activities: kanikapila (informal musical performances); an endangered monk seal sunning itself on a sandy beach; playing the \u2018ukelele at night; performing hula at the cottage; hurling themselves into cannonballs off the Kalaupapa pier; Dr. Brady driving the bus; and meditating at gravesites,\u201d (222) showing how their time at Kalaupapa consisted of creating bonds with one another, as leprosy patients of Kalaupapa did during their time of incarceration. The memories that Imada shared displayed the resilience that leprosy patients had during a time where they and their loved ones were stripped of living their lives as human beings.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Post 2<\/p>\n
\u00a0 In Imada\u2019s narrative the goal is largely to rehumanize the Hansen\u2019s Disease patients that were forced into medical incarceration on Molokai. She seeks to illuminate the ways in which the state forced social death upon these people, and counter that with the ways that they continued life in their forced exile. At the heart of her narrative are photographs. The photographs occupy two separate planes, the carceral photographs, those taken at the patients intake, resemble mug-shots, and the patients are often photographed nude, reducing their humanity. The other plane, are photographs taken in the settlement that counter this loss of humanity, and social death, because they exemplify the ways in which the incarcerated created a new life and family for themselves, despite their exile.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Imada explains in her introduction her choices regarding the use of language, names, and photographs. She explains that she uses the Hawaiian terms as much as possible, and uses the English terms only where they are the norm. In choosing which term to use throughout the book to refer to those exiled she explains that she chooses \u201cincarcerated persons\u201d because it \u201cimparts personhood that is retained during incarceration.\u201d (Imada, xii) \u00a0When it comes to individual names, Imada intentionally uses the given Hawaiian names of the incarcerated people that she discusses, she explains, \u201cNames were chosen with great care and consultation, for they were Hawaiians\u2019 most personal and \u2018precious\u2019 possession, shaping a child\u2019s character and influencing health and happiness.\u201d (Imada, 16)<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Photographs are a more complicated issue. There was, naturally, debate about whether to reproduce photos at all. However, it would be quite difficult to present a monograph about the collection of carceral photos without including them, description simply doesn\u2019t have the same impact. Therefore, it was determined that photos needed to be included, and from her research it did not appear that that reproduction would offend the families of the subjects, nor patients still living. Then the question became, how to ethically reproduce the photos without reinforcing the very dehumanization that Imada seeks to reverse. For this narrative she chooses to reproduce photos, but she makes the choice to crop nude photos so that they are not revealing.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While I understand the desire to not reproduce the photos in full, and to create a sense of modesty for the humans that occupied the photos, I do not fully agree with this decision. As historians, we deal with difficult truths, and to educate those that read our work, it is our responsibility to impart the horrors of our past as well as represent the humanity of its victims. If one reads a study of the Holocaust, they generally do not crop the pictures of the horrors of the concentration camps, because while the Nazis dehumanized their victims, recognition of that terror is a reminder of their evils. It acts as a deterrent, a visceral image of the evil that we are capable of. In the case of Imada\u2019s narrative, I found that the cropped images did not have the same impact, in the case of Figure 16 on page 86, a photo of Makanui Kanehe, where she was photographed nude with her arms crossed over her breasts, Imada cropped the photo so that only the image above her breasts was visible. The photo looks like a portrait, rather than a mug shot or medical photo. While the incarcerated woman is respected with modesty, the narrative of her vulnerability and dehumanization loses impact. I am a firm believer in the fact that the study of history should make us uncomfortable, it should not shy away from the difficult truths, but should put them in front of our faces where they can\u2019t be denied and swept under the rug. In diminishing the trauma that these incarcerated people faced, even though not intentionally, it also reduces their accomplishments in overcoming it. As far as voyeuristic interest or reinforcing the epistemic violence, I do not feel that the republishing of these photographs would encourage either of those things when coupled with the narrative. Once again, I return to the example of the Holocaust. Republishing photos of starving Jewish prisoners does not encourage us to reenact those horrors, nor do most people derive voyeuristic pleasure from the nude images of Jews held in camps, or experimented upon. Rather the opposite effect is usually the case. There is nothing more humanizing than seeing the profound suffering of another human being, and feeling empathy for their plight. In addition, once the initial shock of the images passes, the realization that it was caused by other humans often sparks anger and a desire to make sure it does not happen again.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That is not to say that all of the photos included in the archive should be reproduced and put on display, nor that none of the photos should be cropped, but by not actually showing the manner in which these photos were dehumanizing, the narrative loses some of its impact.<\/p>\n
Post 3<\/p>\n
Imada\u2019s focus on the medical incarceration of people with leprosy in Hawaii illuminates the mistreatment of the sick, who were dehumanized instead of being treated with care as is expected of humane medical practice. These individuals were forced into medical exile, being separated from society. However, Imada also depicts these people\u2019s strength through their efforts to make a life for themselves despite the circumstances. Nonetheless, this account shows the inhumane nature of medicine in America\u2019s history. Instead of handling the condition with compassion, the nation chose an escapist ideology that undermined the sick parties\u2019 well-being. Nonetheless, focusing on one disability eliminates the opportunity to compare how the country handled other conditions with this incident. The \u201ccollective weight\u201d seems to illustrate how each photo represented the realities of different parties that bear significantly more meaning when put together. In addition, they show the overall well-being and experiences of these parties, which is vital for representing their cumulative realities.<\/p>\n
Imada chose to use language that could depict the lives of the people in Hawaii as realistically as possible while insisting on portraying them as humans. For instance, she mentions how they were exploited and mistreated despite their condition (Imada 43). The photographs provided even more weight since they depicted these parties\u2019 realities. Therefore, it is necessary to show these pictures, which are owned by the researcher, to describe the suffering these individuals experienced and ensure that the severity of the problem is lost on the reader. Besides, it is vital to show these pictures to ensure that historians and everyone who reads about the incident understand its weight and the importance of avoiding such events in the future.<\/p>\n
The responses to leprosy in Hawaii were based on social stigma and historical accounts of the disease. Thus, fear and uncertainty pushed society towards a drastic and inhumane solution to the problem. Medical incarceration in Hawaii was based on racism, one of the most prominent institutions upon which colonialism was founded. \u00a0According to Imada (43-45), Europeans were seen as better life forms while Hawaiians were lesser, allowing society to accept the mistreatment and experimentation of the latter. Imanda notes that health agents and settlers in Hawaii mounted a bulwark against leprosy because of the uncertainty it offered and the fact that they did not see any problem with isolating the Hawaiian people to protect the European settlers, who were seen as a superior species.<\/p>\n
This history stands out in its emphasis on creating a medical camp in which specific people can be mistreated and experimented on for the well-being of a community of privileged Europeans. There have been many instances of race being a motivator for such unfair medical practice. However, this one does so on a much grander scale. Race is the center of this event, as it does in many others across history. Imanda uses disability to portray the grim lives of these isolated communities. This depiction also adds weight to her account of how these parties were exploited and treated inhumanely. Imanda does a good job of ensuring that she does not fail to portray the individuality and humanity of people affected by disability. She uses names, faces, and these people\u2019s social lives, showing their identity as persons and a community. As a result, her depiction aligns with what Nielson mentions. She assesses these people\u2019s disabilities, diseases, and lives but ensures they retain their humanity in her text.<\/p>\n
Amanda approaches the question of if, when, whether, and how to tell stories of people experiencing medical trauma by depicting the experience while preserving the identity and humanity of affected people. Focusing on individual experiences only can make one lose focus on the problem. On the other hand, losing the individual will remove the humanness of the circumstances and identity of the people affected<\/p>\n
Post 4<\/p>\n
This week\u2019s reading,\u00a0An Archive of Skin, and Archive of Kin\u00a0by Adria L. Imada took us on a deep dive into the stories of those diagnosed with leprosy and the loved ones that chose to accompany them in exile at a medical incarceration settlement. While Imada\u2019s primary focus is on the photography archive of the afflicted, I was surprised that she chose to include so much information about the kinship system that developed between those who had been involuntarily exiled and those who were there voluntarily. When picturing \u201cleper colonies\u201d in my head up to this point I had always envisioned a group of sick people living together with no connections to the outside, not even medical professionals. It was interesting to gain more information related to the reality of those in exile and the lives they created while making the best of what they were given.<\/p>\n
In reading about the \u201cArchive of Skin\u201d, there were two things that really stood out to me. The first was the lengths to which the \u201cauthorities\u201d in charge of the settlement went to continue stigmatizing and dehumanizing the people living in the settlement. In particular, the work of Eduard Arning seemed to go a long way in distributing and perpetuating cultural stereotypes about the prevalence of leprosy among Hawaiians. The attitude that Hawaiians were an inferior life form susceptible to diseases and afflictions that did not affect those of European descent allowed Arning to view patients without sympathy or empathy, but rather just as subjects to be scrutinized and \u201cmade use of\u201d while they were dying (Imada 43-45). This resulted in the impersonal staging of photographs that we see throughout the first half of the book. Even more horrifying, though, this dehumanization led Arning to experiment on human bodies, often resulting in suffering on behalf of the patient. The story of \u201cKeanu\u201d detailed on pages 49-51 induced feelings like those I experienced while reading Owens\u2019 work last week. These stories of marginalized populations being dehumanized to the level of being used for experimentation are always hard to hear but are so important to continue sharing. The loss of these voices would change our entire interpretation of history, possibly resulting in a loss of the ethical standards used today.<\/p>\n
The second thing that stood out to me were the connections made to early Criminology theory. While getting my Sociology degrees my primary areas of study were Criminology and Victimology, so I am quite familiar with the arguments of Cesare Lombroso and his work:\u00a0Criminal Man, According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso.\u00a0I was quite surprised when Imada brought up his work (pages 78-79), as I have always heard of Lombroso in reference to his studies of photographs of people incarcerated in penal colonies resulting in his development of the theory of Atavistic Form, which makes connections between skull shapes and primitive human species. Imada applies Lombroso\u2019s arguments surrounding social Darwinism in a way that I haven\u2019t seen before, combining the perceived common physical characteristics of indigenous peoples. Lombroso does not specifically address disease in his findings (beyond those afflicted with epilepsy), but Imada makes this connection and argues that these early biological theories of criminal behavior contributed to the ease of sending those who were perceived to meet certain criteria into exile in the name of safety for the general population. With Lombroso leading the way, it became easy to treat those under medical incarceration as actual criminals based on the rationale that physical appearance was an indicator of future criminal behavior. It also provided encouragement for using societal menaces (like Keanu) for medical experimentation. I must say that it was uplifting to read about the “Archive of Kin” in the second half of the book, where we learned that in spite of all of these negatives the people living in the settlement were able to develop their own society and relationships that were fulfilling.<\/p>\n
Post 5<\/p>\n
Imada’s book,\u00a0An Archive of Skin, an Archive of Kin,\u00a0puts forth a fundamental concern that all of us should be weary of, that is, the loss of civil liberities, and weather it’s morally right for extreme goverment intervention, i.e., forced seperation and confinement of citizens, as it pertains to a declared a major “health emergency.” In essence, Imada’s book is as much about how we contextualize people as being “dangerously” disable, those who have been deemed, for instance, as possessing the potential of horribly infecting the “normal,” and in this case, with the dreaded, disfiguring disease of leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), and the raw power of the government to curtail it.\u00a0 Imada’s book not only does that effectively through her archival trove of photographs thorughout the text, but cautions a bit scary storyline if we really think about it, of the immense and unbridled power of\u00a0 bureaucratic insitutions, especially with our own health decisions, in our lives.<\/p>\n
She narrates the suspension of civil liberties, the loss of agency, of the “free people” of Hawai’i who had been designated by, from what I took as an being somewhat Orwellian, health committees to decide, almost in a Roman emperor’s decision of a “thumbs up or down,” as to who could continue their lives unabated and those who would be removed from home, from their friends, from their children and spouces…forever. To be given the latter judgment meant, in short, a death sentense, as Imada suggests. Removed from one of the other islands in the Hawaiian archipelago to a leper colony on Moloka’i, Imada refers to this “treatment facility” as a carceral comunity. These patients\/inmates, ostensibly under the banner of treatment, were actually, involuntarily, put there as containment by the government. Racial undertones come to mind in this arrangment. As the majority of patients\/inmates were Hawaiian, with the few exception of whites who were sent to the facility, their accomodations were separate, and the whites somewhat better. However, Hawaiians had seen racial injustices before, as their Kingdom had been overthrowed by the United States, being, as Imada remarked, “Illegally annexed.” (71) In another example of the racial inequalities suffered by Hawaiians were the\u00a0 white ethnographers\/doctors who took the pictures that Imada used in the book. Hawaiian women were photographically captured in various shades of nudity, while white women patients\/inmates were more modestly framed. The pictures of the Hawaiians were eroticized, appealing to a perverse gawking by not only medical personnel but curious on-lookers who had a salacious appetite for the disable that leprosy had caused, e.g., acrotomophillia. Imada points out that historian\u00a0 Andrew Zimmerman referred this as the “skin trade.” (46)<\/p>\n
One bright spot, even though going to Moloka’i was a “death sentense,”\u00a0 as Imada points out, was the wonderful self-sacrificing care given to the sick by indiviudals\u00a0 known as the Kokua (123)\u00a0 Building relationships of a sense of family with other lepers, these transplated Hawaiians tried to normalize a social sturcure that bridged the gap that having left their former lives created…this was the second part, and perhaps the more important of Imada’s book title, An Archive of Kin was created. She detailed the importance of these social networks in the daily lives of the sick, and the tragic temporality, since many of the sick would only live a very few years. In the latter chapters of her book, she attempts to share this sense of social isolation, as being a type of\u00a0 social “otherness,”that the patients\/inmates experienced, as even time itself was reconfigured,\u00a0 resulting in “crip time” (161), framing her point through an intellectually interesting framework, “queer theory” (175).\u00a0<\/p>\n
Book 3<\/p>\n
David Oshinsky, Bellevue: Three Centuries of Medicine and Mayhem at America\u2019s Most Storied Hospital (New York: Doubleday, 2016). <\/p>\n
Post 1<\/p>\n
Bellevue\u00a0provided a great analysis of the evolution of medicine, disease, physicians, and hospitals, specifically at Bellevue in New York City. Oshinsky details the start of Bellevue hospital, while mentioning the evolution of the amazing achievements in medicine, while noting some mistakes physicians made such as utilizing \u201cbarbaric\u201d methods of treatment, using racist ideologies to measure who gets diseases, and more. Oshinsky highlighted the major accomplishments by physicians throughout his book, with one that was interesting to read about, which was the discovery of anesthesia. Oshinsky described the scene of a dentist who directed his patient to \u201cbreathe in the vapors.\u201d (79), where the patient did not scream and \u201cclaimed to have felt nothing beyond a bit of roughness in his neck.\u201d (79) After reading the beginning of physicians and patients neglecting the barbaric treatment methods, I thought this was a major accomplishment in the history of medicine, especially after reading the agony of physicians who wanted to save lives and literally threw up before performing surgeries. I also found the evolution of medical school fascinating to read about, especially because my boyfriend is in medical school right now and the evolution seems drastic. One aspect of the evolution of medical school that is drastic is the prerequisites to get into medical school, which at first were \u201cno more than a three-year apprenticeship with a \u201crespectable practitioner of medicine,\u201d which was rarely enforced.\u201d (81) Presently, medical school is known to accept only about 40% of applicants, where the applicants need an absurd amount of volunteer work, lab work, courses, test scores, letter of recommendations, etc. Oshinsky reveals this evolution of medical schools over the years, especially when strict laws were implemented on who could practice medicine in the United States.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The evolution of how the medical community viewed disease transmission over the years also caught my eye. While reading Bellevue, I noticed that although Germ Theory hadn\u2019t been introduced yet, early physicians started to catch onto sanitation and germs. For example, while Puerperal fever circulated and killed mothers, a physician noticed that \u201cthe obstetricians, unlike the midwives, regularly conducted cadaver dissections in the hospital\u2019s dead house, and few of them bothered to wash their hands before entering the maternity wards to deliver babies.\u201d (136) Oshinsky noted that the issue of this physician’s findings was that he provided no evidence or scientific theory to support his findings, which could have led to an earlier discovery of Germ Theory. The Miasma Theory initially was the sole theory of how people contracted diseases, but this changed when the Germ theory became popularized. The backlash that the Germ Theory obtained reminds me of the backlash that mask wearing or air filtration for COVID-19 has received within the medical community. Oshinsky displayed this backlash on Germ Theory when William Welch taught courses on pathology, which was met with some negative backlash from other physicians in Bellevue. Some physicians mock the mask and air filtration theories for COVID-19, but I noticed that many who debunk these theories do not attempt the theories in a correct manner such as wearing bandanas or headbands as masks and not N-95\u2019s. The physicians at Bellevue were said to have not taken advantage of sanitation methods, thus not giving Germ Theory a chance to be implemented in a correct manner.\u00a0<\/p>\n
An interesting aspect of Oshinsky\u2019s work was how events corresponded with one another. For example, the start of sanitary concerns came after the Civil War and the Draft Riots, where elite men \u201ccould feel the class antagonisms bubbling up from below.\u201d (106) These instances throughout Oshinsky\u2019s book revealed the interconnectedness of medicine and disease with social, cultural, class, and gender aspects of history. One of the readings last week spoke about this interconnectedness and how the study of medical history requires historians to focus on every perspective in order to see how events intertwine with one another. I could see this while studying the history of medical innovations and Bellevue in Oshinsky\u2019s work. The post Civil War seemed to be an expansive time for the medical community, where there were many medical advancements happening. Some in particular are how ambulances emerged, medical photography increasingly became utilized, increase of hospitals, the usage of female nurses, and many more.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While reading Oshinsky\u2019s work,\u00a0Bellevue, I noticed how some of the aspects of the New York Hospital\u2019s rules represented diseases that were socially constructed, as we learned in last week’s readings. Oshinsky noted that Bellevue and the New York Hospital were different hospitals in which Bellevue was open to the public, where the New York Hospital patients were open to the \u201cworthy.\u201d Oshinsky displayed how the New York Hospital accepted patients with venereal disease, but \u201cmen could be admitted, but women\u2014i.e., prostitutes\u2014 could not.\u201d (50) suggesting how women were viewed differently in having venereal diseases, while men were not ignored and shunned. Another case can be seen where a minister at the New York Hospital \u201cdescribed the Irish he met as \u201chardened infidels\u201d and \u201cDespisers of the Bible.\u201d\u201d (51), exhibiting racist ideology of the Irish that piled onto the notion that immigrants were the only people that were getting Cholera and Yellow Fever due to being \u201cunhygienic.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Additionally, I was fascinated by the lobotomy information provided by Oshinsky briefly in chapter 15. The story of Rosemary Kennedy\u2019s experience with a lobotomy reminded me of this brief moment of information in Oshinsky\u2019s work. Rosemary Kennedy\u2019s father scheduled a lobotomy for her when she was only 23 years old due to mental illness, which resulted in her being unable to speak and disabled. I wonder if patients like Rosemary who were young adults had a say in if they would have liked to have this surgery or were there no rules like that during the 1940s? Has anyone else heard of the story of Rosemary Kennedy? What are your thoughts on this type of situation?<\/p>\n
Finally, Bellevue presented a heartwarming story on how the hospital and physicians over the years evolved with diseases such as AIDS, ebola, mental illnesses, alcohol poisoning, and so much more. Oshinsky utilized stories of patients and physicians to personalize this evolution of Bellevue from the early 1800s all the way to 2014. One instance Oshinsky used that touched my heart specifically was an AIDS nurse stating, \u201c\u201dBut when you\u2019re caring for someone who knows he\u2019s going to die, you know he needs you. . . . All that\u2019s left are two human beings.\u201d\u201d (272) This story from a Bellevue nurse incorporates the argument that Oshinsky made throughout the book on how Bellevue \u201cstands, for all its troubles, as a vital safety net, a place of caring and a place of last resort.\u201d (10)<\/p>\n
Post 2<\/p>\n
Bellevue\u00a0provided a great analysis of the evolution of medicine, disease, physicians, and hospitals, specifically at Bellevue in New York City. Oshinsky details the start of Bellevue hospital, while mentioning the evolution of the amazing achievements in medicine, while noting some mistakes physicians made such as utilizing \u201cbarbaric\u201d methods of treatment, using racist ideologies to measure who gets diseases, and more. Oshinsky highlighted the major accomplishments by physicians throughout his book, with one that was interesting to read about, which was the discovery of anesthesia. Oshinsky described the scene of a dentist who directed his patient to \u201cbreathe in the vapors.\u201d (79), where the patient did not scream and \u201cclaimed to have felt nothing beyond a bit of roughness in his neck.\u201d (79) After reading the beginning of physicians and patients neglecting the barbaric treatment methods, I thought this was a major accomplishment in the history of medicine, especially after reading the agony of physicians who wanted to save lives and literally threw up before performing surgeries. I also found the evolution of medical school fascinating to read about, especially because my boyfriend is in medical school right now and the evolution seems drastic. One aspect of the evolution of medical school that is drastic is the prerequisites to get into medical school, which at first were \u201cno more than a three-year apprenticeship with a \u201crespectable practitioner of medicine,\u201d which was rarely enforced.\u201d (81) Presently, medical school is known to accept only about 40% of applicants, where the applicants need an absurd amount of volunteer work, lab work, courses, test scores, letter of recommendations, etc. Oshinsky reveals this evolution of medical schools over the years, especially when strict laws were implemented on who could practice medicine in the United States.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The evolution of how the medical community viewed disease transmission over the years also caught my eye. While reading Bellevue, I noticed that although Germ Theory hadn\u2019t been introduced yet, early physicians started to catch onto sanitation and germs. For example, while Puerperal fever circulated and killed mothers, a physician noticed that \u201cthe obstetricians, unlike the midwives, regularly conducted cadaver dissections in the hospital\u2019s dead house, and few of them bothered to wash their hands before entering the maternity wards to deliver babies.\u201d (136) Oshinsky noted that the issue of this physician’s findings was that he provided no evidence or scientific theory to support his findings, which could have led to an earlier discovery of Germ Theory. The Miasma Theory initially was the sole theory of how people contracted diseases, but this changed when the Germ theory became popularized. The backlash that the Germ Theory obtained reminds me of the backlash that mask wearing or air filtration for COVID-19 has received within the medical community. Oshinsky displayed this backlash on Germ Theory when William Welch taught courses on pathology, which was met with some negative backlash from other physicians in Bellevue. Some physicians mock the mask and air filtration theories for COVID-19, but I noticed that many who debunk these theories do not attempt the theories in a correct manner such as wearing bandanas or headbands as masks and not N-95\u2019s. The physicians at Bellevue were said to have not taken advantage of sanitation methods, thus not giving Germ Theory a chance to be implemented in a correct manner.\u00a0<\/p>\n
An interesting aspect of Oshinsky\u2019s work was how events corresponded with one another. For example, the start of sanitary concerns came after the Civil War and the Draft Riots, where elite men \u201ccould feel the class antagonisms bubbling up from below.\u201d (106) These instances throughout Oshinsky\u2019s book revealed the interconnectedness of medicine and disease with social, cultural, class, and gender aspects of history. One of the readings last week spoke about this interconnectedness and how the study of medical history requires historians to focus on every perspective in order to see how events intertwine with one another. I could see this while studying the history of medical innovations and Bellevue in Oshinsky\u2019s work. The post Civil War seemed to be an expansive time for the medical community, where there were many medical advancements happening. Some in particular are how ambulances emerged, medical photography increasingly became utilized, increase of hospitals, the usage of female nurses, and many more.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While reading Oshinsky\u2019s work,\u00a0Bellevue, I noticed how some of the aspects of the New York Hospital\u2019s rules represented diseases that were socially constructed, as we learned in last week’s readings. Oshinsky noted that Bellevue and the New York Hospital were different hospitals in which Bellevue was open to the public, where the New York Hospital patients were open to the \u201cworthy.\u201d Oshinsky displayed how the New York Hospital accepted patients with venereal disease, but \u201cmen could be admitted, but women\u2014i.e., prostitutes\u2014 could not.\u201d (50) suggesting how women were viewed differently in having venereal diseases, while men were not ignored and shunned. Another case can be seen where a minister at the New York Hospital \u201cdescribed the Irish he met as \u201chardened infidels\u201d and \u201cDespisers of the Bible.\u201d\u201d (51), exhibiting racist ideology of the Irish that piled onto the notion that immigrants were the only people that were getting Cholera and Yellow Fever due to being \u201cunhygienic.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Additionally, I was fascinated by the lobotomy information provided by Oshinsky briefly in chapter 15. The story of Rosemary Kennedy\u2019s experience with a lobotomy reminded me of this brief moment of information in Oshinsky\u2019s work. Rosemary Kennedy\u2019s father scheduled a lobotomy for her when she was only 23 years old due to mental illness, which resulted in her being unable to speak and disabled. I wonder if patients like Rosemary who were young adults had a say in if they would have liked to have this surgery or were there no rules like that during the 1940s? Has anyone else heard of the story of Rosemary Kennedy? What are your thoughts on this type of situation?<\/p>\n
Finally, Bellevue presented a heartwarming story on how the hospital and physicians over the years evolved with diseases such as AIDS, ebola, mental illnesses, alcohol poisoning, and so much more. Oshinsky utilized stories of patients and physicians to personalize this evolution of Bellevue from the early 1800s all the way to 2014. One instance Oshinsky used that touched my heart specifically was an AIDS nurse stating, \u201c\u201dBut when you\u2019re caring for someone who knows he\u2019s going to die, you know he needs you. . . . All that\u2019s left are two human beings.\u201d\u201d (272) This story from a Bellevue nurse incorporates the argument that Oshinsky made throughout the book on how Bellevue \u201cstands, for all its troubles, as a vital safety net, a place of caring and a place of last resort.\u201d (10)<\/p>\n
Post 3<\/p>\n
\u201cBellevue: Three Centuries of Medicine and Mayhem at America\u2019s Most Storied Hospital\u201d is one of the most engaging books I have ever read. From the title and my lack of knowledge of Bellevue, I had expected to be bored and have to force myself to completely read it. I could not have been more mistaken. In fact, a great number of the scenarios were so fascinating that I shared them with my husband.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Oshinsky puts the theme of the book best in his statement\u2026\u201dBellevue closely mirrors an ever-changing New York.\u201d (pg. 3) Throughout the book, he presents story after story that interconnects to the social and political developments\u2013not only in New York City and America, but the world. From the early European settlers to the immigrants from further reaches, new challenges were faced\u2013most including epidemics or medical mysteries. What seemed obvious at the time was these could be attributed to race, class, gender, or status. There were several examples of this. Look at the theory of the cause of yellow fever of the time. When Valentine Seaman drew a map of the current cases, he claimed a large number of Irish Catholic immigrants were among the sick. (pg. 17) The common belief of the medical community was the filth and heavy alcohol consumption of the Irish was the main explanation for not only yellow fever but any illness without the known origin. Continuing to consider the Irish the culprit in the 1840\u2019s, along came typhus. Being actually caused from the bites of a body louse, unfortunately the Irish happened to bring them along on ships escaping the potato blight. (pg. 52-55). Even though the city had a quarantine site, the symptoms of typhus were not easily noticed. The Great Epidemic even killed 8 Bellevue employees.<\/p>\n
Of all the intriguing stories woven into Oshinsky\u2019s narrative, the evolution of the germ theory was by far the most absorbing to me. (Not intended as a pun!) In my ignorance, I must have been under the impression that doctors had always attempted to work in a germ-free environment. It amazed me how they didn\u2019t. In fact, at Bellevue even the doctors and students would help in the morgue (with who knows what diseases present) and go straight into surgery or the maternity wards\u2013all without even washing their hands! Yet they continued to question the causes of so many deadly bacterial infections. (pg. 137). I know I\u2019m seeing it all in hindsight, but it looks like these brilliant professionals would have put the clues together sooner. To make matters worse, when Lister did put it together after researching antiseptic surgery, his theories were resisted just because he was European. (pg.145-147)<\/p>\n
I was also captivated by the happenings on September 11, 2001. Knowing that Bellevue was located in New York City, I would naturally have assumed it would have housed many of the seriously injured. After learning of the attack on the Twin Towers, the staff at Bellevue expected patients to \u201cbe coming in droves\u201d and prepared accordingly. (pg. 295) When only a few patients actually showed up, many of the professionals themselves went to the scene, which was less than three miles away. At first this confused me. But it made sense. Catastrophes as massive as 9\/11 had mostly deaths involved. (pg. 296)<\/p>\n
After I finished reading, I looked up the biography of David Oshinsky. I found it surprising that he is the director of the Division of Medical Humanities at NYU School of Medicine and a professor in the Department of History at New York University. His complete history of Bellevue stands testament to the respect and reputation it has earned as one of the best hospitals in America. His research for the book included many first person sources such as interviews, along with oral history and archives, which made the book more reputable. I think anyone would enjoy this book!<\/p>\n
Post 4<\/p>\n
David Oshinsky\u2019s analysis in\u00a0Bellevue: Three Centuries of Medicine and Mayhem at America\u2019s Most Storied Hospital, showcases an incredible approach to understanding the social constructions of medicine and disease in America. With the illnesses he discussed ranging from yellow fever, typhus, tuberculosis, influenza, and AIDS to the wide variety of social contexts that he places these illnesses within \u2013 including economic instability, war, immigration, and Hurricane Sandy\u2013 Oshinsky\u2019s work not only provides a detailed story of Bellevue and the history of medicine in New York, but it also brings to light several examples of the social construction of disease and the impact this has on patients. Although this book is a micro-history of a single institution in New York, the implications of this study have broader applications to how both societies and cultural\/political events influence the perceptions of disease, medical practitioners, and medical practices.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In his discussion of the post Civil War shift in public views towards hospitals, Oshinsky argues that \u201ca shift in public perception can be as valuable as a lifesaving scientific advance\u201d (129). Throughout his analysis, Oshinsky showcases the social construction of medicine through morality and public consensus. The debates surrounding both human dissection (66-67) and the use of anesthesia (80) demonstrate the ways in which the scientific practices and applications of the medical field were deeply influenced by the public, morality, and religion. This emphasis on values reminded me of Englehardt Jr\u2019s article \u201cThe Disease of Masturbation\u201d from last week\u2019s readings where he argues that disease and medicine are often \u201cstructured by the values and expectations of the time\u201d (246). A theme throughout\u00a0Bellevue\u00a0was the relationship between epidemics and influxes of immigrant populations\u2013where in the case of tuberculosis\u2013leading to \u201cmany blaming the new immigrants and calling it by names like \u201ctailor\u2019s disease\u201d after newly arrived Jews working in the city\u2019s slum-ridden sweatshops\u201d (182). As Oshinsky points out, immigrant populations were often disproportionately burdened by diseases because of their living and working conditions. These populations were made vulnerable through social factors like poverty, malnutrition, and environmental conditions. The creation of Bellevue can be viewed as a byproduct of the social construction of disease. Those who are often disproportionately harmed by epidemics were also least likely to have the financial and social resources needed for medical care which is why Bellevue became a \u201cmedical haven for the poor\u201d (7).\u00a0<\/p>\n
The chapter in Oshinsky\u2019s book I found most eye-opening was Chapter 17 where he traces the story of AIDS in Bellevue from the first two cases in November of 1980 to the closing of the AIDS Unit in 2012. Throughout this chapter, I was brought back to his discussion of the worthy and unworthy poor earlier in the book. Oshinsky argues that in 19th century America, the \u201cworthy\u201d poor were children and widows who lacked the means to care for themselves while the \u201cunworthy\u201d were those who \u201ccreated unseemly obstacles to their own success\u201d including gamblers and prostitutes (48). Financial problems, safety concerns, and personal prejudice (262) all played a role in the inadequate care provided to those with AIDS. Since the majority of AIDS cases were treated in public hospitals of cities with \u201clarge homosexual and drug-abusing populations\u201d, the perception of AIDS from both the public and medical professionals became that of \u201cunworthy\u201d victims of illness further highlighting the prominence of social constructions of disease.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Post 5<\/p>\n
Bellevue Hospital, located in New York City, has a long and rich history dating back to the 18th century. This history can give us broader insight into the history of medicine and the United States. Bellevue was one of the first hospitals in the United States to care for the poor and sick, and it was also one of the first to offer medical training to students (Oshinsky, 35). Bellevue has played a significant role in medical breakthroughs and innovations, and its doctors and staff have treated some of the world’s most famous and influential people. By focusing on a place like Bellevue, we can learn about the important role that hospitals have played in developing medicine and the United States. Some issues Bellevue faced in the early ages included crime, homelessness, and poverty.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the early days of medicine, the disease was seen as a punishment from the gods or a sign of evil spirits. The only way to cure disease was through magic or prayer. Over time, however, physicians and other healers began to see disease as a natural phenomenon. This shift in thinking led to a focus on remedies that could cure disease rather than appease the gods or expel evil spirits (Oshinsky, 19). One of the major changes Oshinsky discusses is the move from treatments that masked the symptoms of the disease to treatments that cured the underlying cause. This shift was made possible by a greater understanding of the human body and how it worked. With this knowledge, physicians could develop treatments that target the root cause of diseases rather than just treating the symptoms. Another major shift Oshinsky discusses is the move from treatments based on superstition and magic to treatments based on science. This shift was made possible by developing the scientific method, which allowed physicians to test their treatments and see if they worked. This led to a more evidence-based approach to medicine, which is still used today.<\/p>\n
Some historians have suggested that the Civil War was the most devastating biological event in 19th-century American history. Many people died during the war. This had a significant impact on medicine and public health. During the war, there was a significant increase in the number of hospitals and medical personnel (Oshinsky, 37). However, the conditions in these hospitals were often very poor, and the death rate was high. Several disease outbreaks, such as typhoid fever and dysentery, also killed thousands of soldiers. After the war, there was a significant effort to improve the quality of hospitals and medical care. This led to the establishment of the American Medical Association and the development of new medical technologies, such as X-rays and vaccines.<\/p>\n
Oshinsky contrasts Bellevue with the AIDS Unit at San Francisco General Hospital in several ways. First, he notes that Bellevue was a much larger and more bureaucratic institution than San Francisco General. This led to a more impersonal and less humanized experience for patients at Bellevue. Second, Oshinsky notes that the staff at Bellevue were less likely to be openly gay than the staff at San Francisco General (Oshinsky, 240). This meant that Bellevue was less understanding and more judgmental of its AIDS patients. Finally, Oshinsky argues that the location of Bellevue in New York City meant that its patients were more likely to be poor and minority than the patients at San Francisco General. This led to Bellevue’s AIDS patients feeling they were being treated as second-class citizens.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Source and Methods Essay As you read these works, pay careful attention to the text as well as the citations. In an essay of no more than 1500 words, discuss the kinds of sources the authors drew on in their work. How are the authors\u2019 interpretations shaped by the types of sources used? How does […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}