Medical Humanities Blog

Call for Papers: National Library of Medicine Graduate Seminars

The History of Medicine Division of the National Library of Medicine (HMD, NLM) is looking for two US-based graduate students to present their work in its seminar series in August 2010.

Seminars can be on any subject in the histories of health, medicine and the biomedical sciences.  Speakers should plan to talk for up to 45 minutes, with an additional 30 minutes for questions.   Please send a title, short abstract (200 words max), short CV, and contact details to David Cantor at the address below (email attachment preferred).

There is no deadline, but a review of proposals will begin in May 2010, and an announcement of winners will appear on the HMD's seminar webpage:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/happening/seminars/index.html

For further information on the National Library of Medicine's rich historical resources see: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/index.html

(h/t H-SCI-MED-TECH listserv)

Call for Submissions: Atrium

Atrium, which is one of the very best open-access ethics & medical humanities journals out there, has issued a call for submissions for Issue 8 (Summer 2010).  Here is the Call:

ATRIUM Call for Proposals (Theme: "Happy")
Deadline for proposals: February 1, 2010
Article deadline for accepted proposals: March 15, 2010

The theme for Issue 8 (Summer 2010) is "Happy." ATRIUM encourages potential authors to think creatively about broad interpretations of theme. For example: Does the concept of happiness have any relevance to medicine? How is pleasure a factor in medicine, illness, bioethics, or medical humanities? What's the role of emotion, affect, or the presentation of self? How should we define "patient satisfaction"? Are our students happy? Does it matter? What do you love about your work, where's the joy in medicine today? If you're not happy, what needs to change?

Proposals must be submitted by February 1, 2010. Proposals will be evaluated by February 15 and full articles for accepted proposals will be due by March 15, 2010.

________________

(h/t Lit&Med_ASBH listserv)

The latest issue (no. 7) of Atrium, featuring a particularly heart-wrenching contribution by David Morris, is available for download here.

On the Body In Medical Culture

There is a nice review up on H-Net of a new anthology entitled The Body in Medical Culture.  Here is an excerpt:

Within The Body in Medical Culture, Elizabeth Klaver and her contributors engage with themes related to how concepts and constructions of the body ultimately shape people’s experiences of agency and objectification within medical culture. It is argued throughout that the medicalized body is central to the work of doctors, nurses, medical examiners, and other professionals as an object of scrutiny, and that these groups mediate broader cultural understandings of pathology, illness, and physical transformation during their interaction with the body. Metaphors and models of the body are frequently used to understand medical phenomena, research, and diagnosis. Klaver carefully situates her collection at a mid-point between culture and medicine, adopting a constructivist realism approach, which suggests that an external reality exists outside of cultural representation. In other words, she recognizes a place for the body’s materiality as distinct from the medicalized body.

The review is recommended, and though I have not yet read the book, I daresay that is worth reading as well.

(h/t H-DISABILITY listserv)

On "Cholera Forcing"

In the November 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Christopher Hamlin (History, Univ. of Notre Dame) has authored a stunningly good article entitled "Cholera Forcing": The Myth of the Good Epidemic and the Coming of Good Water.  Hamlin is one of the preeminent historians of public health in the English-speaking world, and his work is nothing short of an inspiration for me.  Here is the Abstract:

It has been frequently claimed that cholera epidemics, both in the 19th century and today, were and can be the key stimulus for procurement of safe water and sanitation, an idea that I call "cholera forcing." "Technology forcing" refers to imposition of exogenous factors that suddenly make possible achievements that had not seemed so; cholera has been seen in this light. I argue that this view oversimplifies and underrepresents the importance of industrialization in securing water supplies. Careful study of the financial, political, and administrative foundations of such changes will be more fruitful.

Even by the absurdly high expectations I have for his work, this article is a tour de force.  Combining penetrating historical insight of public health history and ethics with an unbelievably acute assessment of the mechanics of past and present public health policy and policymaking, the article is a paragon for understanding the significance of the humanities in context of public health and public health policy.  (For more on this subject, see generally this outstanding article by Alison Bashford and Carolyn Strange, and this project headed up by Simon Szreter).

In any case, I cannot recommend both this article and Hamlin's body of work highly enough.

On Prevention & Social Policy

Longtime readers of MH Blog are likely familiar with my vexation regarding the typical features of the debate over prevention in context of health.  Namely, the kind of prevention that interests me -- and, I believe, that is most firmly rooted in a compelling evidence base -- is generally not the kind of prevention that is wrangled over in the current "discourse" over health care reform.  The kind of prevention that interests me relates to social policy, and involves creating or remediating existing conditions in ways thatwe have reason to believe will facilitate health over the lifespan.  These kinds of social policies suggest intensive investment of resources extremely early in the lifespan, and therefore operate on a paradigm that is entirely different from the preventive services that occupy virtually all of the political discussion on the topic.

Thus, I am pleased to recommend a short article on the topic by Erika Blacksher* (The Hastings Center) entitled Health Reform: What's Prevention Got to Do With It? Succinct and eloquent, Dr. Blacksher adduces similar points.  Here is an excerpt:

A recent poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans from across the political spectrum think prevention should be given priority in health reform. Given its intuitive appeal, that result is not surprising. Who could be against the idea of investing in keeping people healthy? But as it turns out, prevention has its detractors. The debate turns on questions about its exact meaning, whether it is cost-effective, and the complexity of the enterprise.

Like most Americans, I am a fan of prevention. My view of what prevention is, however, may not be widely shared. Prevention to my mind means assuring that all persons are able to live in safe, clean houses and neighborhoods; eat healthy foods; socialize with family and friends; get exercise; rest and manage stress.

Highly recommended.

*Disclosure: Dr. Blacksher is a colleague of mine, and we have tentative plans to collaborate in the near future.