History, Medicine, and Science: Nonfiction and Fiction discussion

Just wondering how many members are reading this book this month?

I have been wanting to find the time to participate in this book club, which is right up my alley of interests, but am researching now and inundated with reading material. I actually blurbed this book, so I won't have to read it again, but will try to chime in once things get going!

Karen wrote: "I have been wanting to find the time to participate in this book club, which is right up my alley of interests, but am researching now and inundated with reading material. I actually blurbed this ..."

Just wanted everyone to know that Karen is an author of historical fiction. You can check out her blog here: http://www.karenessexblog.com

Karen,
Maybe our group can read one of your novels sometime in the future. It'd be great to have you as a guest host!

I am going to start this on my vacation starting Sunday. I can't wait.

Has anyone else read The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai?

It's been a couple of years since I've read it, but I found it to be fascinating, as well as heartbreaking.
(John Tayman is a terrific writer.)

Thanks Yvonne, I will put that one on my TBR list as well. I haven't really looked into the history of Molokai but am very interested in the subject.

Yvonne wrote: "Maybe our group can read one of your novels sometime in the future. It'd be great to have you as a guest host!"

Yvonne, that would be really fun for me. The book that is the most relevant to this group is DRACULA IN LOVE, which takes place in the late Victorian era and explores the early days of psychiatric medicine, specifically, the strange treatments designed to cure female "hysteria" and of course, a lot of theories on blood!

Yvonne wrote: "Has anyone else read The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai?

It's been a couple of years since I've read it, but I found it to be fascinating, as well as heartb..."

yvonne-no not yet but i will get this book in the future--i have read about leprosy in other books and strange as it may seem was one of my favorite diseases to read about when i was very young- i have mentioned The American's Doctors Odyssey by Victor Heiser written in 1936.he wrote about the many diseases of early 20th century.

Karen wrote: "Yvonne, that would be really fun for me. The book that is the most relevant to this group is DRACULA IN LOVE, which takes place in the late Victorian era and explores the early days of psychiatric medicine, specifically, the strange treatments designed to cure female "hysteria" and of course, a lot of theories on blood!"

Great suggestion, Karen -- I just added it to our "book nomination" thread.

Bunnie wrote: "i have mentioned The American's Doctors Odyssey by Victor Heiser written in 1936.he wrote about the many diseases of early 20th century."

Bunnie,
I'll add this one to our "book nomination" thread, too.

Yvonne wrote: "Karen wrote: "Yvonne, that would be really fun for me. The book that is the most relevant to this group is DRACULA IN LOVE, which takes place in the late Victorian era and explores the early days o..."

Thanks for adding to the list, Yvonne. I'd love to share my psychiatric research with the group sometime...not to mention the "juicy" history of blood-drinking!

Yvonne wrote: "Bunnie wrote: "i have mentioned The American's Doctors Odyssey by Victor Heiser written in 1936.he wrote about the many diseases of early 20th century."

Bunnie,
I'll add this one to our "book nomi..."

yvonne--i loved this book--read it when i was in junior high so i'ts old. and now i am old. still very interesting though

I'm already enjoying the book. Particularly intrigued by the blend of locations, medicine, history, politics, and culture/culture clashes. Living in the real world truly is "cross-curricular."

I am 3/4 the way done. I am enjoying the book as well, but now it got me into wanting to read all about the colony. Here I go with a new obsession. LOL
I already have The Colony on my next read list, does anyone else have any other suggestion?

I visited the Kalaupapa peninsula in 1979; rode the mules down the pali. We were given a van tour by one of the residents. She had been exiled not long after her high school graduation in the 40's. Her nose was disfigured and she was missing parts of some of her fingers. When her disease was arrested, she had been out to visit family but had felt much more comfortable staying in the community. At that time, she said that she was among the youngest in the group.

Brennert's descriptions of the area felt very accurate to me.

I thought several times when reading the book about the reaction to AIDS in the US as we learned about the "gay disease". I had an acquaintance that refused to go into the swimming pool at a hotel where we were staying, because there were some gay couples there.

itpdx wrote: "I thought several times when reading the book about the reaction to AIDS in the US as we learned about the "gay disease". I had an acquaintance that refused to go into the swimming pool at a hotel..."

There are parallels.If you want a good read about the history and politics of the AIDs epidemic then I highly recommend And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic

Yes, And the Band Played On is great and haunting!

At the time that Rachel was exiled to Kalaupapa, it appears that leprosy was not only incurable but for the Hawaiians, very contagious. Doesn't some form of quarantine seem justifiable?

Before the arrival of Father Damien, I wonder what that colony was like?

phylwil--i refer you to messsage 9-- Leprosy is not as easy to contract as you might think.continual exposure over time will result in the contraction of the disease. there were no reliable treatments for it in the early 20th century now we do have treatments--it says in this chapter that leprosy is exclusively a human disease and that is not true-in the Sacramento Bee April 28,2011 an article states that the Armadillo can carry the disease. get the book and read it!it was printed in 1936 so you have to look for it.victums were isolated from others after diagnosis with Leprosy!!read chapter 14

Bunnie--I knew leprosy was not terribly contagious but thought that might be different for native Hawaiians (there's a mention of that in the book). I also knew that armadillos carry the disease and apparently transmit it to humans, but only if you have a lot of contact.

I'll look for the book you mentioned--bet I find it!

I can't remember where I read about the early days of the colony, but at first there was no landing for boats and sometimes the exiles had to make it to shore through the surf on their own. Their supplies were sometimes just pushed overboard into the surf also. And sometimes the strongest would gather and hoard the supplies. No buildings or materials had been supplied so the exiles had to construct what they could from the lava rocks.

phylwil--ok i never heard that Hawaiians were any different from the rest of humanity--i had better get the book and read it--forgot the name of the book and author--if you could give it to me please.

Itpdx--thanks for the information. Amazing how heartless people can be.

Bunnie--my only information about Hawaiians' susceptibility is within the book we're reading, so I guess I don't know if they really were any more vulnerable. One can't take references within a novel as fact, especially if they were meant to show the assumptions made at that time in history rather than fact.

I'm confused about "the book" you are referring to. I thought you meant The American's Doctors Odyssey by Victor Heiser, which is mentioned in this thread and credited to you! Is that the one we are talking about?

phylwil--i gave the book An American Doctors Odyssey bu Victor Heiser as the book i read as a youngster --it discusses Leprosy as it was known in the early 20th century--i think the book you are reading now is another --something about Molakai--i haven't gotten the book yet--is it a novel and not a factual account of the disease?

Bunnie, it is a novel. The author claims that many of the characters are based on actual inhabitants of the colony, and has a discussion of those inhabitants at the end of the book. I can't say it really teaches much about leprosy, but rather gives some idea of the experience of living with the disease and more specifically at the Molokai colony.

phylwil--ok thanks for the info--i must get the book

Phylwil wrote: "...I can't say it really teaches much about leprosy, but rather gives some idea ofof the experience of living with the disease and more specifically at the Molokai colony..."

Coming from the literary side of things, what I find intriguing here is not just the information about leprosy, though as a non-science person, I did learn much about the condition and its early "treatment," but also the way physical issues are "more than the science" of understanding and treating illness. It reminds me of relatively recent conversations re: whether alcoholism is a disease or a habit or whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice. In both cases, the social and historical responses are affected by the language used to describe them. It leads me to wonder to what extent science has some sort of ethical responsibility for society's "perception" and/or "misperception" and the subsequent reactions of the much less well informed general population.
If I were teaching this in a literature class, I'd emphasize (1) what we learn about the condition and it's treatment from the book, (2) how it might stimulate consideration and conversation about its more universal parallel to other conditions that we may still be unclear on and may be reacting to and treating in ways that cause those with such conditions grief beyond "just" the symptoms themselves and (3) the need for us to constantly wonder if we actually "know enough" to pass such laws as those associated with racial segregation, gay marriage and other issues where scientific knowledge and societal reactions to scientific issues meet. Perhaps we could toss in the current "anti-science" movements such as those regarding global warming affecting our coming election.

jerome--so what are you saying?

Jerome
I like your analysis.
But I think that science takes time and that is why society's perceptions can be so difficult to change. I think AIDS is a good example. The public became aware that gay men were dying of diseases that they should have been able to fight off. And basically they became aware because doctors started recognizing the problem and attempted to warn the gay community. It then took time for science to discover the cause and transmission routes. Many people's attitudes towards homosexuality were already there before AIDS and that fed a negative reaction that no amount of science can change among some people.

itpdx--of course science takes time because of religious beliefs that tell people it is a sin to question-researchers had to sometimes work in secret because of the danger of being killed by certain religious groups-if thinking men had been stopped science would never have seen the daylight-AIDS is just another example of a condition that was recognized and treatment was sought -it took time--yes as all solutions take time-they didn't ATTEMPT to warn-they WARNED the GAY community about the disease-because of the teachings of the bible many people refuse--even to their own children--any kindness or help for this condition-in fact can you believe parents that refuse to visit their child in the hospital who is on the verge of death? and GAY men can't fight off this diseaase without medical help.

With all due respect, the arguments about AIDS are not comparable to the history of leprosy. Certainly, there are parallels to the treatment victims recieved. However, the diagnosis, treatment research and spread of AIDs were strongly influenced by a multitude of religious, gender, political and social issues that may bear similiarities but are very different. I agree with Jerome's analysis. And I would whole heartedly recommend And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic for a better understanding of the issues related to AIDS.

I agree that the history of leprosy and AIDS are not comparable. I was trying to answer the question of whether "science had an ethical responsibility for society's 'perception' and/or 'misperception' and the subsequent reactions of the much less well informed general population." And I think that science can't be blamed for what happens before we gain the knowledge to determine a reasonable course of action. Should science be blamed for lepers becoming pariahs? Should science be blamed for some people thinking that AIDS was God's punishment for gays? No. I agree that science has a responsibility for trying to understand the diseases, to find ways to alleviate, prevent and hopefully cure them and to educate the general public with what they have found.

Oh my! I'm afraid that for an English teacher, I was not terribly articulate in my original posting that has triggered the intriguing subsequent discussion.
A clarification: The only parallel I intended to suggest between Leprosy and AIDS, racial segregation, and gay marriage, was that in each case historically, an uniformed populace has caused significant grief to those in each of the example groups. As a teacher of literature, it is important that students learn to see the "unlearned lessons" that history provides us with so that they may be better able to avoid repeating the damage that an ill-informed populous can cause to those in the group being victimized by the ill-informed.
I also did not mean to suggest that I "blame" science for lepers becoming pariahs. If anything, science has made quite a valiant effort in the areas of professional ethics AND in the areas of attempting to inform the public particularly the youth.
What troubles me is that we seem to be in the midst of a national anti-science/anti-intellectual movement where the seriously uninformed are adamantly proud of their ignorance, while at the same time they are becoming quite loud about professing and promoting their misconceptions. The parallel I suggest is metaphorical. Ignorance leads many to fear and fear leads many to an "angry mob mentality." And, angry or fearful non-thinkers throughout history have been to blame for much pain to perfectly innocent people.
Science is not to blame for the existence of the "uninformed and fearful." But, when the actively anti-factual mob is large enough science funding gets slashed, education funding gets cut, xenophobia and epistemophobia flourish and many suffer.
My concern is not the technical/medical distinction between leprosy and AIDs, but perhaps the similarities between the treatment of "pariahs" and "scapegoats."

Based on the way I've been treated by certain "people of medical science" in the past week, I'm not sure I'd even trust them with a small responsibility, much less a large one like educating the idiots who think AIDS is a "gay person's disease."
And I can't believe anyone who works in health care, ANY type of patient care, would walk around with that attitude.
I don't give a hoot what people think about the issue itself but, if they think it long enough, they're going to transmit their feelings to the patient. You can't walk around with an attitude like THAT and expect that the patients with the disease, who are more susceptible to what you think of them in the first place, aren't going to intuit it.
The part of health care I work in, which is Emergency Medicine, they tell us outright to avoid making a single judgment of the patients we have to treat, and I'm talking about people who have REAL problems; drug dealers, domestic abusers, child abusers and the like. The last time I checked, being gay didn't hurt someone the way being a child abuser, drug dealer or sexual predator does.
Such people that even I find it difficult to lay aside judgments of them when I'm treating them. But I find a way to treat them without letting them know it, most of the time anyway. Fortunately for me, people like that are also so full of liking themselves that they never even notice if other people DON'T like their actions.
I do what one of our Captains said: "Treat the patient and keep your focus on treatment."
But I don't even understand why, after all the patients we see, anyone can find something wrong with one who does practically nothing to hurt society the way child abusers and sexual predators do. But, then, maybe that's what I get for living in New York City. Maybe I really DID develop too much tolerance, as I was accused of at the beginning of this year.

Forgive me if this is a digression, but the previous comment reminds me of the situation I often found myself in when dealing with delicate topics in a high school classroom. I found that opinions about AIDs (and homosexuality in general) fell on both sides of the question and that there were kids of religious backgrounds who fell on both sides of the question as well as kids of "more scientific inclinations" who fell on both sides of the question. I felt my obligation was not to impose my personal ethical beliefs on other people's children, but rather to simply encourage that students understand that informed opinions include understanding both pros and cons of any controversy "from both sides" of the argument. I generally found it to be effective when I would simply say something like, "It IS IMPORTANT to have an ethical code for one's behavior so I won't take a public stance on my position. However, in general I've come to believe that humanity has more to fear from people who hate each other than from people who love each other."

jerome wrote: "Forgive me if this is a digression, but the previous comment reminds me of the situation I often found myself in when dealing with delicate topics in a high school classroom. I found that opinions ..."

Jerome; while your experience and intepretations are that of a literary teacher, mine are of a health care practitioner (Nurse practitioner). I did not find you incorrect, nor do I disagree with your stance. My response also speaks to scapegoating and victimizing. My fear, however, as I am sure you understand, is that parallels to AIDS and other illness not be blamed on any one area of ignorance or group of ignorance. The way scapegoating occurs is often the result of a multitude of ignorant (politicians, religious, undereducated, cultural and time of incident). There still remains a great deal of ignorance related to many illnesses, vaccines and treatment courses. These misunderstandings or interpretations are then used to form public opinion in any way that is suitable to the individual advocating that position. Continue to teach your students critical thinking because it is surely one of the biggest deficits today. It is not any one person's responsibility to teach. It is a shared responsibility but we desperately need more skilled critical thinking.

Oops, forgot to add that the purpose of the site is to encourage thoughtful conversation about our reading.

Wow, Jerome, you certainly did jumpstart the discussion on this book!

One crucial difference between the treatment of an individual with leprosy and the treatment of an individual with AIDS is that no one (as far as I know) arrests and incarcerates a person with AIDS. Perhaps we've made a LITTLE progress in reactions to disease.