Why did you write this book?

I’m encountering more and more people over the last few years, particularly post-COVID, who have the perception that the categories we use in psychiatry have a kind of fixed, objective, and quite rigid reality. Twenty years ago, when I started as a GP, I might have seen somebody who said, “I feel anxious all the time,” whereas now I’m more likely to meet somebody who’ll say, “Well, I have generalized anxiety disorder.” That’s a shift in the way that society talks about mental illness. At the same time, a lot of people are questioning these categories’ usefulness, so there’s a paradox—a sort of polarization.

I wanted to write a book which explains, from my perspective, A, how the way we think about mental illness has always been shifting and evolving. How we think about mental illness changes with culture, time, and geography. And B, if we can adopt a more flexible and humble approach to our current understanding, that actually offers more hope to patients. Because believing “I have generalized anxiety disorder,” rather than “I feel anxious,” can sometimes be helpful, but it can also box you in and become self-fulfilled. I’m seeing that same shift across the whole spectrum of mental illness and suffering, and the book is a call to question that and reassess where we’re at in the mid-2020s—and a plea for a little bit more kindness and flexibility.

What would that look like in practice?

For example, if somebody comes to me saying, “Well, I have generalized anxiety disorder, so I can’t do this stuff,” part of my work is to help that patient adopt a more hopeful perspective: that there are strategies that they can learn, that there are medications that can help, and that our mind is shaped by many different influences. There may be explanations for their anxiety that have to do with the brain and neurotransmitters and so on. But in most people, there are also more influential factors that have to do with their early childhood experiences and their current social setup, the precarity of their relationships or their economic situation, the quality of their sleep, or the substandard nature of their housing. There are all sorts of other factors that are having a bearing on their anxiety that I would seek to help them explore, rather than them just blanketly saying, “I have generalized anxiety disorder—can you give me the pill for that?” I’m trying to encourage my patient to say, “Yeah, there are pills that can help. But there are all these other factors that we need to think about. And do I really find that label helpful?” For some people, once you start to dig into it, they don’t.

We can extend that way of thinking to people who’ve had a psychotic episode. Between 10% and 20% of people who have a psychotic episode will never have another. For substantial numbers of people, their psychotic episode is actually a product of all sorts of stressors that are on them at that time. If you can find a way to modify their stressors, put them in a more supported state, and understand what place that episode has in the story of their life, you can then make a story that makes sense of that episode as the product of a uniquely difficult moment in their life. That can help people get over that episode and also, I hope, make it more likely that they don’t have subsequent episodes. Or, if they do, then they’re able to return fully to their normal functioning in between.

You write, “For the last forty years much Western psychiatry has behaved… as if our thinking is a simple matter of chemical levels in the brain. The truth is far more complicated.” For example, a 2023 study you cite challenged the serotonin theory of depression. [1] Why do you think that the chemical imbalance narrative has persisted?

There’s a number of reasons. That hypothesis came through at a time when our lab technology was starting to be able to measure neurotransmitters, and it offered a good story. If you become depressed, you feel as if you’re lacking something—as if you’re lacking some kind of fuel or energy. That lack translates very easily, in our metaphor-making minds, to the idea that there must be some kind of lack between our brain cells.

At the same time that this technology was becoming widespread, there was the promotion of a drug which seemed to help: Prozac. There’s no doubt that SSRIs do make a difference. Again and again, they’re shown to be better than placebo. The effect is probably a lot smaller than a lot of the drug companies would tend to promote in their materials, but they do help, and I continue to prescribe them. But what that study you’re referring to was saying was that, even if these drugs help, they don’t help by boosting serotonin levels. We can’t find evidence that substantiates that theory.

The first half of the 20th century was governed by Freudian ideas. Psychiatry in much of the West was dominated by those kinds of psychoanalytic ideas. Then, during the ’50s and ’60s, as we started to develop tricyclic antidepressants and experiment with other kinds of antidepressants—the first were anti-tuberculosis drugs—the idea grew that there might be a chemical solution, which fit very well into our technologically and pharmaceutically focused medical culture. Then, from the late ’90s, there was a huge explosion of the idea that, actually, a lot of it was genetic.

Now, even the idea that neurotransmitters are strictly excitatory or inhibitory is starting to be questioned. Essentially, the whole picture is vastly more complicated than the neurotransmitter hypothesis from the ’90s suggested. I don’t take that as a great failure of the hypothesis; it was an attempt to make sense of something very complicated, and the drugs that spoke to that metaphor are useful and are still among some of the most widely prescribed in the world. But the fact that we no longer think that low mood is purely because of low serotonin is a really positive step forward. It encourages us to embrace more fully the biopsychosocial approach to mental illness. The field of psychology and psychiatry is not known for consensus, but one thing everybody agrees on is that it’s not just biology, it’s not just psychology, and it’s not just sociology—it’s all these influences that have an effect on our mental health.

Are there other common assumptions about mental illness that you think deserve closer scrutiny?

Every age uses the metaphor of its highest technology to make sense of the mind. In the 19th century, the mind was famously described as an enchanted loom; the mind was thought to be weaving our experience, moment by moment. We’ve now got these very pervasive metaphors of wiring, which I find quite unhelpful because the brain is nothing like a circuit board. It would be like a circuit board made of jelly that can fix itself. So I think the wiring metaphor, although it has its uses, has gone too far because it’s too deterministic. It’s not organic enough.

Half a century ago, Stanford psychologist David Rosenhan wrote, “A psychiatric label has a life and an influence of its own.” To what extent can psychiatric labels help, and to what extent can they hinder?

There’s a lot of controversy about the Rosenhan experiment. [2] He’s been accused of being a charlatan and fabricating quite a lot of his data. But I think the value of his reflections still stands. I’ve definitely seen in my clinical practice that people will be treated differently because of a label that has been put in their notes, even though that label might have changed several times. I’ve had patients who’ve had four or five different labels in the course of their career, while they’ve had actually pretty much the same kinds of experiences and distress throughout all of those.

What I find really helpful in my conversations with patients is the fact that we don’t always have to give a label. If someone is really keen for one, then I’m happy to explore that with them and tell them, “These are the psychiatric categories that are on offer in the current edition of the DSM. Some people find them really useful, but with every new edition of the manual, they change, so they’re not describing something discrete, fixed, or in the natural order of things. They’re a way of describing and approaching distress, so let’s talk about how much they would be helpful for you.”

Now, in the U.S., I understand that labels can be essential because of insurance-based medical payments. In a U.K. context, a label may not be as useful because our psychiatric services are organized differently. I gently explore with each patient how much for them it’s going to be transformative. If it’s going to help ease their suffering and get them the treatments that they want, then I embrace it and help them get the one that fits best. But if it’s not going to be transformative in terms of how they can access care, then I tend to try to avoid giving a label because that can allow a level of optimism and dynamism about their state of mind. It more genuinely reflects the possibility of change and adaptation, rather than risking somebody changing the way they think of themselves.

As human beings, we’ve got such a huge tendency to put shame on one another. What labels seem to do in our current moment is absolve people of that shame in a really helpful way. I’ve had patients say to me, for example, that until they got their diagnosis of ADHD, they felt so ashamed of not being able to focus properly at work, and what that label did was offer a kind of absolution from that shame because it said, “There is this category of being that is separate from you and which seems to be affecting you, but it’s not your fault.” That can be wonderfully liberating. In those kinds of situations, I’m often keen to embrace the label if it’s going to help the patient cast off their shame. But I’m also questioning: Why have we got that shame? Isn’t it a pity that people often feel that they need to embrace a medical diagnostic label in order to rid themselves of that shame?

What strengths do primary care physicians bring to mental healthcare compared to someone more specialized?

One great advantage of somebody in my kind of role is that I’m embedded in the community. I often know the whole family, and I’m seeing people for all kinds of other problems which have a bearing on their mental health. I’ve become more aware of the connections between families and individuals; a specialist only sees the one individual with a particularly distressing problem—for longer appointments, granted, but removed from that context.

There’s a wonderful GP writer in the U.K. called Iona Heath, who has written a lot about the fact that it’s in the primary care consulting room where suffering is either given a label and understood within a medical model, or not. Some people see primary care physicians as essentially holding a line, or acting as some kind of gatekeeper, between the huge mass of human experiences that are out there and which ones become medicalized. A lot of people will come and see me about something fairly banal—almost to try me out, to try and figure out whether I’m going to be kind, compassionate, friendly, or approachable. Once they’ve tried me with a symptom that they’re not too fussed about, then they’ll risk sharing the one that they’re really worried about.

As a primary care physician, I feel I have a very privileged role: You’re not part of the family, but you’re not part of the establishment—you’re somewhere between the two. I’m often the first port of call for people hoping to make sense of their experience.

One line from your book that struck me: You write that today’s DSM categories will one day “seem as overconfident as the old phrenology charts.” How literal or hyperbolic do you mean that comparison to be?

Phrenology was debunked about 130 years ago. By the late 19th century, it was already starting to lose its traction because good thinkers were realizing it was a load of rubbish. If I could fast forward to 2176 and ask the doctors of that time what they’ll make of the DSM-5, I don’t think they would see it as phrenology, but they would certainly see it as utterly obsolete and unhelpful to them because it’s a cultural document of the West in the early 2000s. We can’t imagine what Western culture is going to look like in 2176. I’d argue that it’s quite likely that it will be very different from our current culture, that our neuroscience and genetics will have progressed in huge leaps and bounds, and that the organization of our society—while it may not have progressed—will have changed utterly. The DSM-5 will be of purely historical interest. When I was born in the ’70s, they were using the DSM-II, which is now considered very much a historical document—and that’s within my lifetime. I’m hopeful that the DSM-6, if and when it ever appears, is going to be an improvement on the DSM-5.

What inspired the book’s title?

From my chair in the clinic, I don’t see people’s minds as brittle and fragile. I see people as immensely resourceful, resilient, adaptive, and dynamic. People are incredible; they always amaze me with their ability to get over even the most extraordinary difficulties, suffering, and traumas. In my seat, I see the mind as far more unfragile than a lot of the rhetoric in our culture suggests.

The Unfragile Mind: Making Sense of Mental Health
Gavin Francis
Publisher: The Experiment, New York. 2026. 256 pages.

[1] Moncrieff, J., Cooper, R. E., Stockmann, T., Amendola, S., Hengartner, M. P., & Horowitz, M. A. (2023). The serotonin theory of depression: A systematic umbrella review of the evidence. Molecular Psychiatry, 28, 3243–3256. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01661-0

[2] In the 1970s, Rosenhan and eight pseudo-patients feigned auditory hallucinations to gain admission to a dozen psychiatric hospitals across the U.S. Once inside, Francis writes, they “declared themselves free of the hallucinated noises, but found it very difficult to be believed, and be discharged” (p. 47).

Web image created from book cover by Medhum.

DAVID HSU: Tell me a little bit about this half-marathon business. What’s going on with that?

TONY MIKSANEK: I’ve been running for a number of years, which I truly enjoy, and I’ve done ten full marathons, one ultra marathon, and God knows how many half-marathons. But as I get older, I’m leaning more toward the half-marathon as the longest distance I like running.

DH: So how did this one go? Was it good?

TM: Yeah. This one was in Florida. The weather was beautiful. There were about 20,000 people, and it was at Disney World. So you run through the Cinderella Castle, you’ve got all the characters high-fiving you on the course. It’s great. I think I originally got into running as a sort of release from medical practice, where you can be outside, mindful of your surroundings and your breathing and your foot striking the pavement. Since then, it’s become just short of an obsession. A good one, a good obsession. But I’ve often thought about the similarities between running and medicine. The greatest similarity is that both endeavors require a pair of comfortable shoes because you’re on your feet all day practicing medicine. There’s also a rhythm to running, which is a very individual, personalized thing. And, of course, there’s a rhythm to our practice. The flow of taking care of patients and our style in interacting with them. In running, you have to build up a core. We call it a core of mileage that your body gets acclimated to. In practice I think that core is sort of like developing trust in the physician-patient relationship. You have to work on that. You know that saying, “trust is hard to earn but easy to lose?”

DH: Let’s talk a little bit about medical humanities. You mentioned that running was something that you did to put your head in a different space from your regular work. I assume that medical humanities would also be something that gives you a diversion from your regular work. Is that accurate?

TM: Most of my career was spent as a small town, rural area, solo family practitioner in a former coal mining town with a population of right around 8,000 people. So medical humanities, for me, for most of my life, has always been an individual thing. I read and tried to be involved in whatever peripheral way I could with medical humanities. And I did and still do derive a lot of satisfaction, enjoyment and learning from reading great literature. We can debate what the adjective “great” means when it applies to literature, but I feel there’s so much to gain from literature. When a patient comes into our office, they usually want to tell us a story. Sometimes they’re reluctant, but usually they want to tell us a story. And my belief is that most people, to be healed, need to tell that story. But equally important is they need somebody who is invested in listening to that story, that confirms their importance. and the validity of their illness or what they’re going through. And I think literature is a really great tool to help us learn how to listen intently to patients, more fully understand their stories of life and illness, and to enhance our empathy.

So again, my entry into medical humanities is probably unlike most of the people on our MedHum group. It’s mostly been kind of a solo route for a long time. Currently I’m an associate editor and a book editor for the Journal of Medical Humanities. I don’t know how far back you go with your practice, but once upon a time, the American Family Physician Journal, the AFP, had a regular column called “Diary from a Week in Practice.” And there were four contributors. I was one of them. I guess I was the token rural small-town doctor, because there was somebody from an urban practice and somebody from an academic practice. I forget what the fourth one was. And so we would take turns writing a column that was basically a chronicle of a week of practice like “what were the highlights, what were the lowlights.” I think that was important for me, because at the time, that was probably my version of reflective writing, even though it was produced in a form that would be published. You know, being a doctor is tough, albeit a wonderful, often joyful, profession. Running gave me an opportunity, I think, to kind of put myself in a place where I can sustain joy and the dedication that was required, especially being a small-town doctor where your patients are your neighbors. You run into them at church or the grocery store. The land is the connecting fabric for a small-town doctor. I mean, your kids’ friends are almost always your patients. So it’s a very vivid, organic, dynamic relationship.

DH: How big was your practice? How many patients did you have?

TM: I practiced in our town for a little over 30 years, as a solo family physician, 24/7, unless it was time for vacation or a meeting. And then, you know, I had an agreement with a couple other physicians for coverage if we were gone, but it was a very full practice. The only thing I didn’t do as a family physician was OB.

I loved to make house calls. I used to make them in my Jeep Cherokee. And I’ll never forget the first house call I made. I brought my nurse with me because I was new to town, and I didn’t really know where the address was. And we pulled up in front of this very, very small, weathered house. And I remember as they opened the door to let us in, the floor was dirt. It was a dirt floor. And having been born and raised in Chicago and then later some of the suburbs, I was dumbfounded. That was really my experience — people that were really struggling to make a living. But the dirt floor was, I mean, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it was clean. And the home was well-kept. There were a lot of eye-opening experiences being in a small town.

DH: What’s the name of the town?

TM: Benton. Illinois. Wonderful town. Great people.

DH: How did you stumble across the humanities and arts connection to medicine? Was this something that you were aware of as a student or at some point as you started working you started to realize that novels had something to do with your job? How did you make that connection working solo?

TM: I’ve always been an avid reader, as I think most physicians are. And actually, I got a head start because our medical school, the medical school I attended and where I am now a volunteer faculty in the Department of Medical Humanities, was one of the first medical schools in the country to actually have an independent medical humanities department. So as a student, I was already interested in medical humanities. I guess as a prelude to that, as an undergraduate student at the University of Chicago, we had what they called a core curriculum when that was not a popular thing. Every student, no matter what your major was, had to have competence in basically all the major disciplines. So, if you were going to be a biochemistry major, you still had to take the History of Western Civilization, Art Appreciation, etc.

I’ve always been involved with literature. Once upon a time, JAMA and the New England Journal had book review sections, and I did book reviews for those two journals. The sad thing is, they haven’t had a book review section for a number of years now. There’s no interest, I presume? I don’t know. They just kind of vanished in the night. So, during my early years of clinical practice, I was writing reviews mostly for JAMA. They would send me all kinds of books, some of which were very peripherally connected with medicine. And so I think maybe when they had a book that looked interesting, they would say, “well, we’ll just send it to Tony.” Which was great. But that was in the days even before internet. I remember I would be sitting at my kitchen table with a typewriter typing these reviews to mail to JAMA or New England Journal. And it was kind of wild. But life was so much simpler then, too, on the other hand. Anyway, I would say that medical school, a love of literature, getting involved in book reviewing from early in my career was kind of the springboard for me, into medical humanities.

DH: Can you give us a few medical humanities book titles that we can spotlight for the audience?

TM: One book that I really was impressed by was Do No Harm. There’s an aphorism in medicine, “do no harm.” That’s the title. And it was written by a neurosurgeon in England by the name of Henry Marsh. It’s a beautiful book because like the very best memoirs, he presented his vulnerability as an individual and as a physician, a surgeon, so beautifully. You couldn’t help but be moved by his sincerity. In fact, he had a line, I’m paraphrasing it, but the line was something like, “I am a vessel for my patients to pour their misery into.” And you know, on the one hand you can say, “well, that sounds a little pontificating, a little arrogant,” but on the other hand, it’s like, “isn’t that part of the job description?” So that would be one: Do No Harm. Another by a physician author is Cutting for Stone.

DH: By Abraham Verghese.

TM: He’s out at Stanford and he’s written a lot. The Tennis Player, and others, but Cutting for Stone is one of these lengthy novels that you’re reading and you’re like, “this author’s all in.” He’s not saved any good stuff for another book. It’s just all there. So that’s another one I would recommend to people.

I’m also a very big fan of Richard Selzer because first of all, most are short stories or short essays you can read in a single sitting. I’ve met him a number of times and he admits that he lies, because these are not true stories necessarily, and they may have had their genesis in some kernel of truth. So there is a lot of exaggeration and hyperbole but there’s still something that he’s able to successfully impart to the reader about a doctor’s vulnerability. When I trained, we were told to suppress our emotions and have clinical detachment. You can’t survive if you get too involved with your patients. And of course there is truth to that. It can get to the point where you lose yourself in someone else’s situation and it’s not healthy for you or them. But I think we’re in a renaissance of saying, “Okay, maybe you can’t be too empathetic, but it’s okay to be vulnerable.” We’re not superheroes. I still struggle with that.

I had a lot of older folks in my practice who were huggers. Early on, I was always like taking a step backwards as they were lunging toward hugging me. But then my nurse, in her wisdom, said, “You know, they need to hug you.” That’s how they’re acknowledging your value to them and what you mean to them. I’ve done a lot of thinking about vulnerability and physicians. What is the optimum amount of being vulnerable? In the old days, if we had a very difficult situation, we would just go in our office, close the door, and have a cry. I mean, we would weep. We would never think of demonstrating our sorrow in front of a patient or something. And I think that comes from the training back then. But as you know, there’s no template for being a good physician. And it’s kind of a learning experience for all of us.

DH: It has something to do with how to be a good human being.

TM: Yes, exactly. And I think the whole point of medical humanities, as I alluded to earlier, is about that soul, that spirit of medicine, which is not just about how we practice medicine and interact with other people, but also with being self-aware of who we are, what we can offer, what our strengths and our weaknesses are, and trying to embrace both. Understanding that there are things we don’t do as well as we’d like, things we could do better. But again, it goes to that understanding of our vulnerability and accentuating our strengths and trying to minimize our weaknesses, while understanding that all human beings are some unequal combination of both.

DH: Switching gears a little, as a retired family physician, what’s your view of medicine today? Is it pessimistic? Is it optimistic? Do you think we’re moving in the right direction or are things worse than they were back when you were going through it?

TM: I think medicine is a completely different enterprise now than it used to be. I remember the joy of holding a paper chart and writing my notes with a pen on paper. I think my notes were adequate or good, but they had just the right amount of information that was necessary. There was nothing superfluous when you had to write your own note because you had a certain amount of time that you wanted to get the note done in. And I understand the utility of the electronic health record and its portability. But I think there’s something about looking a person in the eyes, giving them 100% attention, and even though back in the day I used to scribble down some notes so I wouldn’t forget certain things, 90% to 95% was just one-on-one. And then after the visit, I would write the note in the chart, or later I had the ability to dictate a note, which was great. So I think the electronic health record, on balance, has been a detriment to the practice of medicine.

Also, the amount of time you spend with a patient has become very restricted. For example, I was very cognizant of people waiting in the waiting room. Back at my peak, I was seeing 30 to 35 people a day in the office. In addition, I admitted and cared for all my patients requiring hospitalization. The local hospital that we have, 50 beds, still does not have a hospitalist. And so you had to make rounds. You took care of people in the ICU. You saw your patients in the ER. It was a full-service experience for patients and the physician. It was hard. There’s no question. But there was something very gratifying about being able to do all those things right and being a small-town doctor. People just called you at home. We had one rule in the house, and the rule was that as a family — we had three children — we would all have dinner together and that one hour was just for us. What happened with the kids during the day at school and their activities and how work for my wife went. And I just remember laughing and laughing, but we carved out that time. But otherwise, it was all hands on deck all the time. SoI think medicine is different. Whether it’s better or worse, I don’t know.

I really do feel sad that we’ve become such a technological profession. You hear students saying, “Well, what’s the point of trying to listen to a murmur? We’ll just get an echocardiogram.” Back in the day, you relied on your clinical acumen and you formulated your differential diagnosis. And then you thought, “well, what is the most likely diagnosis?” And then you would do testing to support that diagnosis or refute it and move on. And now I feel it’s like people immediately get tested.

We used to have to listen to people. You probably have the same experience. I think all medical students do. You have some wise professor that says 90%, 80%, 85% of the time, the patient will tell you exactly what’s wrong. You just have to listen to them. You may have to nudge them a little bit to give you more information. But now I don’t know that we’re giving people enough time to tell us what is really wrong with them before we kind of take the leap to do these tests. And I think, unfortunately, patients are getting so comfortable with the notion of getting tests that that is all they want. I’ve had patients that say, “Well, can we do a CAT scan? Can we do this or that?” Of course we can do it, but tests come with risks. False positives, incidentalomas, radiation exposure in some cases and so on. So on balance I’m going to say, although it was not Nirvana or Eden back in the day, and we had our own issues and problems, it seemed closer to the aim of healing.

DH: Well said. What would you like to see MedHum do in the coming months and years?

TM: I think what I would like to see is just MedHum continue on its trajectory and grow to become a go-to resource for people interested in medical humanities or just people that are curious about medicine in general. I would like to see the website continue to grow and become a valued resource where people, if they’re interested in the depiction of medicine in the humanities and in the culture of medicine, they can read articles, they can listen to podcasts. There’s a lot of interesting material on the website already. I think as we grow and expand and include more contributors, the possibilities are limitless for what it can become.

DH: That was great. I had a good time. We should do this again.

TM: Me too. We’ll look forward to talking again.

Posts Written by Dr. Tony Miksanek

Biblioscopy

Summer 2026 Biblioscopy 

08.03.26 379

Book ReviewVideo

Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh 

06.16.26 521

Biblioscopy

Biblioscopy: A Glimpse of New and Upcoming Books 

03.02.26 1494

Book ReviewFocus

The End of Days by Bernard MacLaverty 

11.03.25 765

Load More

Load More

DAVID HSU: Why do you think medical humanities is important in today’s world?

STEVEN FIELD: I think it’s important because it’s a way of getting back to the heart and soul of clinical medicine, or at least, I hope it is. I was in practice for 35 years, and I think that medicine has moved towards a different concept than the concept that I grew up in professionally. I like the idea of well-rounded physicians. I think people should know things other than just medicine. Reading novels gives you an appreciation for the way that people interact, not necessarily just in medical illness, but also outside of illness, which then you can extrapolate back [from].

But I admit I’m biased. I was a liberal arts major in college. I started in English, and my degree is in history. What was your area?

I did a double major in biology and history. Most of my classes were 20th Century American history.

My senior essay was on Puritan and colonial town planning theorems in New England and the middle Atlantic states, nothing I’ve used ever since. And my junior essay was on witchcraft.

Witchcraft is a little bit closer to medicine.

True. I actually was looking at the sociopolitical ramifications of witchcraft in Tudor-Stuart England and France under Richelieu. So, while it wasn’t wars and treaties history, more social/cultural history, it was history nonetheless.

I come from that liberal arts background, so I have a leaning towards medical humanities. I think it’s really helpful to ground people who are in the field, and I think it’s an often incredibly helpful way to relate to patients on so many levels. You might not be amazed, but many people would be, to know how many times the doctor-patient relationship is either forged or strengthened over a shared interest, literary or otherwise. I don’t mean sharing at the same time, but something that somebody else has read, or a movie, or a play you’ve seen. The reason I think medical humanities has assumed more importance is because the period of time that doctors have to spend with patients in the encounter has gotten smaller and smaller. There’s this thing that in some offices a new patient visit should take 20 minutes and follow-ups should take seven minutes. I retired from practice in 2011, and I would never be able to function under this system now, because I’m a schmoozer, you know? I like to talk to patients.

And you’re a gastroenterologist, is that right?

I am a gastroenterologist, although I had a large proportion of my practice in general internal medicine. Along the way, I also got a certificate in psychodynamic psychotherapy, which I found very useful, not only in the practice of medicine — mind and body are linked, of course — but in two other places as well. I had a small psychotherapy practice, in addition to my medical practice, so it clearly helped there. And I work in clinical ethics now, and understanding family dynamics is really helpful when you are dealing with patients and families in conflict. I think that psychiatry especially — not so much psychopharmacology, but psychotherapy — is kind of the closest to medical humanities, in some ways.

That’s interesting. I read your bio and it talked about dynamic psychotherapy, but I didn’t know what that meant. I didn’t realize it refers to inter-family dynamics.

Psychodynamic refers to treatment basically anchored in Freudian theory. So it’s not cognitive behavioral therapy. It’s the old standard, you know? You talk about childhood, ego, super ego, all that stuff.

So you see that medical appointments are getting shorter and shorter, and there’s more and more use of technology, and like you’ve mentioned, the humanities could be a bit of a buffer against that. It would help us navigate that world. Can you be a bit more specific on how you see that relationship unfolding?

Just to be clear, it’s not really a buffer against technology per se, but rather, against the depersonalization of medicine that can result from increased technology and decreased time. I’ll tell you the truth. It’s tough for me to answer that question, because I’ve never functioned in this 20-minute visit environment, right? When I was last in practice, a new patient got an hour and a follow-up got a half an hour. That’s much harder to do today. So there was time to talk to them and sort of develop the relationship – the medical side as well as the interpersonal side.

I think that it’s a good question. I think medical humanities could have two different functions. It hopefully heightens physician sensitivity to the human condition, to what patients are feeling and going through. In addition, I believe that for many physicians it acts as a counterweight to the immersion in medicine and illness, and as a source of personal fulfillment. Of course, that second sense may not be true for everyone; people find fulfillment in life in many different ways.

Let’s talk a bit more about the tie-in with psychiatry because I’m really curious about this. You reviewed the book The Third Reich of Dreams. How do dreams and the subconscious relate to medicine?

Freudian theory has gotten a bit of a bad name over the years, and psychiatry has moved very much to psychopharmacology. But psychiatrists classically loved to analyze dreams, because a dream brings in not only what the immediate concerns are, but also all the things that you draw on in your background. So it’s a very interesting way to approach things. For some people. Others don’t dream, or they dream, but they don’t remember them.

And it’s not only dreams. I noticed many times in patient interactions in my medical practice, that people re-enact things from their childhood or early adulthood. Their mother didn’t love them, so they choose somebody who reminds them of their mother, because they think they’re going to fix it this time. That’s almost a cliche. But that sort of stuff happens a lot, and I think that’s really interesting.

I had sort of a subspecialty in inflammatory bowel disease, so a lot of Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis patients. And I had one young woman, not so young actually, who had very severe Crohn’s, and she wasn’t getting that much better. And I talked to her about putting her in the hospital and putting her on TPN (total parenteral nutrition) because she was losing so much weight, and she didn’t want to do that. And she said “I don’t want to go to the hospital. I’ll try, Dr Field. I’ll really try, because I’m telling you, I really don’t want to gain any more weight.” And then she said “I mean, I don’t want to lose any more weight.” And I just said, ”Well, that’s an interesting slip, right? What do you think that’s about?” And she paused, then she burst into tears. And then I got the whole story about her difficult relationship with her mother, and how her mother was always making nasty comments about her weight. This was all coming out; there was a whole huge story behind it. And there’s stories behind lots of people’s stuff, and I’m not saying her Crohn’s was due to that, not at all, but there are lots of patients who have this kind of thing in their background. You know, life story and narrative, and so that’s what I think Medical Humanities is about, the human narrative behind the patient and their illness. I think having some knowledge and experience, some background, that isn’t just medical but also is humanities-oriented can sometimes give you common ground with patients, or even just make you curious about them. All it took was saying, “that’s an interesting slip. What do you think about that?” And it was a whole other side of this patient. Medicine is about people, and people are not just their disease. They’re people with a disease. Sometimes you have to have that sort of global look. And I think the interaction with the humanities is helpful in that regard.

What’s your Gestalt sense of the relationship between our mental well-being and physical illness?

I have always felt that the two things influence each other, and it’s not necessarily a sharp line between them. I would certainly not go so far as to say that my patient’s experience with her mother caused her Crohn’s disease, but I think psychological states can certainly exacerbate symptoms. I mean, the gut, specifically, has its own extensive immune system. It has its own nervous system, responsive to inputs from the central nervous system, and the enteric nervous and immune systems are interrelated. And much of that has been well worked out, there’s this whole field of neurogastroenterology that deals with this.

So I think that’s recognized, clearly, that one’s psychological state can influence illness and sometimes worsen symptomatology. Many times I’ve seen “intractable” symptoms abate when a patient retires from a stressful job, for example. So I think stress has a very significant role in the production of symptomatology and perhaps in the pathophysiology, actually, in certain cases.

How about today? In 2025, it seems like the world of medicine is facing a lot of stress. There’s a lot of vaccine skepticism. People are antagonistic towards public health. COVID certainly didn’t help things. How do you see medical humanities being part of that landscape?

Well, I imagine that landscape is prominent in the United States in large part related to political developments.

I guess I’m influenced by my subscriptions to the New York Times, but Canada is the same. I mean, I feel like before COVID there were a few people that were skeptical of vaccines, but now everyone seems entitled to have an opinion about it and voice it readily. I’ve worked with mostly Chinese patients. I hear this from them all the time, but they’re generally a little bit more “toe the line” regarding what their government says they should do. But I think now people are more emboldened with some of these ideas.

One thing about the United States is that, as opposed to most of the northern European countries and Canada, the US has a very strong libertarian streak. Individuals. “Don’t tell me what to do.” We rebelled against England, settled the frontier, dispossessing everybody who was there in the process. So there’s this real idea of the right to be left alone. So the question is: does that feed the problem?

The reason I have a little question with the role of the humanities is when you look at people who are involved in medical humanities — and this may only be my impression — I think they tend to sort of cluster closer to the left. And more of them are the people who will take vaccines and things like that. But I don’t know that. I wish there were a larger role for medical humanities in smoothing over these political differences and polarization. I think it would be nice if there were. For example, people talk about book clubs and reading groups. I’m a big believer in them, and they’re very popular, but most of the time, book clubs are self-assorting entities, right? Go with people in your club. The people in your reading group are often people who probably feel somewhat the way you do. It would be great to have reading groups with multiple viewpoints represented, as long as their discussions don’t devolve into chaos. These days, that’s a real risk. A big problem in America is that we’re becoming more and more polarized.

The trick is to bridge that divide somehow.

A big problem is that in so many cases, there is no trust. When everyone has their own facts, it’s the end of the idea of an absolute truth. Each side has its own truth. You have your facts; I have my facts.

I guess, as a historian, we are taught gradually that truth is kind of like that, right? One thing I remember learning in university is this idea that facts can be a subjective experience for people.

That’s true. The subjective interpretation will vary and can color the way history is written. And history is written by the victors, right? But facts are facts.

Given that that’s the landscape, what would you like to see MedHum evolve into over time?

Well, It was set up originally as a Medical Humanities Resource. That is, it originally came out of the Literature, Arts and Medicine database, right? So I still like to look at it as a resource. But I’d also like it to be a place where people go for well-written and insightful writing, commenting on aspects of the interface of health, wellness, current events, and literature and the arts. I think it should exist, as the mission statement indicates, at the nexus of medicine and the wider society, and comment on the interactions there. MedHum is brand new, so you have to see how it develops. I’d like it to be a source of good writing, good insightful and perhaps incisive commentary.

I was going to ask you about what you thought about the relationship of technology in medicine. A lot of the time when people talk about humanities and the liberal arts education — like history and English majors — one thing they don’t spend a lot of time on is cutting edge technology. A lot of these studies go back to things that occurred decades ago. But medical humanities is a little bit different, because it wrestles with these things that are happening right now. There’s a certain degree of urgency. And in medicine, new things are coming out every couple of years. As soon as AI comes out, we adopt it for some medical purpose. So we’re constantly trying to push that boundary. Where do you see that going as a person with a humanities background?

One of the things about all the technology is it’s very important to ask the questions about what you’re going to do with the technology. Where it’s going to go, how we can protect things like privacy and vulnerable people. I mean, bioethics has a lot to say about technology like AI and big data and privacy. It also has a huge amount to say about other technologies, like reproductive technologies, transplantation, and the like. But I think you’re talking about two different things. The time-honored majors in university, English and history, the number of people who are electing to major in these is dropping, while the number of people majoring in the STEM fields is rising. So that’s a process that’s happening, and it’s going to continue to happen, just because that’s where things are going. I think that a role for medical humanities in that mix is that of humanizing the processes which technology facilitates and also asking important questions about technology. In terms of AI, since you brought it up, what does it mean to be human? As the machines get better and better, and given that we often use cognition as an indicator of life — ‘sentient beings” — where then is the line? When you can get psychotherapy from a chat bot what does it actually say about interpersonal interaction, what does it actually mean to interact as a human being? Where does this logically end up? No one knows. So I think thinking and writing from a humanities point of view about technology brings a new perspective to the subject. It may be the best way to contextualize our progress and at the same time create guardrails where needed. Because they will be needed.

And there’s just been so much in the news about the use of AI to write fiction. To write college essays. When a chatbot is creating, can it be said to have an imagination? To employ metaphor, or allegory, or irony? And ultimately, how will technology limit our adeptness with basic human interaction? There’s lots of dystopian fiction written about this kind of thing.

If AI continues to evolve and people start to use it as doctors, where do you see a medical encounter in the future? What does it turn into? What does it look like?

There are studies that show that AI is comparable to or better than most radiologists looking for breast lesions. And there’s lots and lots of ways that AI can help in medicine, including increasing diagnostic accuracy across a number of areas, screening potential drug candidates, personalizing treatment plans, and the like. Interestingly, there is a suggestion that the use of AI-assisted technology may lead to a subtle loss of the physician’s native ability to evaluate, what is referred to as “de-skilling.” An interesting and sobering thought. Overall, though, I think AI can be a huge help in medicine, with its potential only beginning to be appreciated. But I would hope that AI would never replace doctors, because AI can’t empathize, can’t engage in a meaningful relationship with a patient, even if it can create the words. I, for one, would always know that it was a machine interacting with me, and that would color my response.

For diagnostic purposes, it will weigh the relative possibilities, but some of that diagnostic process — especially in terms of general medicine — is intuition. There are some areas where AI is less helpful. AI can screen data and suggest diagnoses and investigations, but sometimes patients would come in, and the doctor will think “something just doesn’t smell right here. There’s something not hanging together about this” or “this is somebody who doesn’t normally complain, and now they’re complaining, and that’s different. What’s going on here now?” AI may, may evolve to be able to catch up to that too, because my understanding is that it’s just becoming better and better. But it’s certainly a useful adjunct. I know in our medical school curriculum there’s a whole session on how to engage with AI and how to use it. And I think that’s good. It’s a tool, and it’s really helpful.

One more change of gears. How did you go from the liberal arts background into medical school? Was there a transition, or was that something you always wanted to do? Or was the liberal arts a bit of a detour? How did that evolve?

I always wanted to be a doctor, but I also always knew that I wasn’t going to spend four years at a college that was very strong in liberal arts and spend it doing biology or some other concentration in the sciences. There were just too many other things that I liked. I had a bunch of AP credits coming out of high school, so I didn’t have to take many science courses — and I didn’t — but I took enough, and the rest of the time it was English, history and other humanities courses. I thought that was important before I went to medical school. And I generally think that it’s important.

Where did you get that idea as a 17 or 18-year-old?

Probably simply from the fact that I was too interested in so many things. I was fascinated by medicine, but I always read a lot, and I was much more attracted to humanities in college, knowing that I was going to go to medical school afterwards. I knew I’d be spending the rest of my professional life in medicine, so I wanted to explore non-medical areas in college.

When you went into medicine, did you think that you were leaving the humanities part behind, or did you always think the two would stay entwined?

I always thought the two would stay entwined. At one point I actually thought of doing psychiatry — as I said earlier, that always seemed to me to be the specialty most intertwined with the humanities — but I decided not to. But no, I didn’t leave the humanities behind.

One thing I’ve always appreciated about the United States is their undergraduate education is much more permissive of people pursuing other things and then going to medical school later. In other countries, like in Canada, undergraduate learning is very much more pre-defined. If you want to become a doctor, you have to do life science, and life science leads into medicine. It’s technically not written anywhere, but everyone does it this way, and I think you miss out on a lot of stuff that you could learn that might help you later, but in a more abstract way.

I think a four-year general undergraduate curriculum can certainly broaden your horizons. Medical school was four years of really hard work; College was the last time, at least for the next four years, that I could do something else in depth with the other side of my brain.

Or even if we just say those four years exist for themselves. It’s a great four years. It doesn’t matter if it affects you later, necessarily. We could die tomorrow. You enjoyed your college years. Let’s circle back. Why is medical humanities important in today’s world?

I feel like medical humanities is important because I just think it makes us broader and deeper and hopefully more empathic human beings. And that’s always a good thing, and I think patients benefit from that. I hear a lot of complaints from family and friends about medical care these days (because let’s face it, I’m at the age where my contemporaries all talk about their medical care) and often their biggest complaint is that the doctor’s visit was very short or they felt rushed. Unfortunately, a number of people are unhappy with the nature of doctor-patient interactions these days. But I don’t know that the humanities alone are going to make that better. So much of it is driven by insurance companies, reimbursements, and documentation needs — all things that are beyond our control.

Thank you very much for your time.

Web photo by Medhum.

Posts Written by Dr. Steven Field

Book Review

We Want So Much to Be Ourselves by Stephen O’Connor 

07.21.26 582

Book ReviewFocus

The Expendable Man by Dorothy B. Hughes 

03.17.26 646

Book ReviewFocusLitmed

The Great Influenza by John Barry 

11.03.25 1263

Book ReviewLitmed

The Winter Soldier by Daniel Mason

09.18.25 1538

Load More

Load More

DAVID HSU: What do you think is the importance of medical humanities to you at this point? 

JACKIE DUFFIN: I think it is a very satisfying way of filling in the gaps that are generated by traditional medical training and medical experience. It invites reflection, and it invites growth, and it especially encourages criticism. And those things were certainly not there in my training. Therefore, it is comforting and inspiring, both of those things for me.  

When you say it that way, there’s a certain subversive quality to medical humanities. Am I catching your answer right?  

Yes, I guess that is exactly right. Subversiveness goes with the territory of what we do as historians as well. Everyone thinks that history is about the past, but the questions that we ask of the past are generated by the present and also the inherited wisdom that we have. And there has to be curiosity and a willingness to admit that the trajectory might not have been as straightforward as is sometimes pretended.  

How do you respond to the saying that basically history is written by the victors? 

That statement is also a reminder that what might be out there as the master narrative isn’t exactly the truth or isn’t exactly the whole story. And the losers will have their own story. And sometimes that’s worth exploring. Of course, my view of medical humanities is very much affected by the fact that I am a historian. And more than any other aspect of medical humanities … that’s what interests me the most. In fact, I don’t mind admitting that the medical humanities boom that we’ve witnessed in the last decade and a half or so has been a wonderful vehicle for enhancing the presence of history in medical schools​,​ and our visibility. I’m happy to hitch my wagon to it, but I don’t claim any expertise in all the other disciplines that participate.  

One of the things I think is useful for history with respect to ​present and ​future doctors is how history is a mirror image of the clinical process and the scientific process. And that’s something that I raise​d​ with my students all the time when I was teaching, that you begin with a question. As medical practitioners, you ​also ​have a question​;​ ​i​t is the chief complaint of the patient. What is wrong with me? Why do I feel this way? And as a doctor, you consult the patient, you explore the history, you do the physical examination, and then you touch base with the clinical wisdom that’s available to you through ​the medical ​literature. And you come up with a diagnosis, which ​​determines the direction of action. As a historian, you have the question​:​ where did this come from? Or why do we do this? Or what happened then? And with your question, you interrogate the past, looking at all of what has already been published, which is the equivalent of the medical literature, but also looking at things that have been ignored, like the stories of the losers, for example. And you come up with an interpretation. And that is a direct parallel with the ​process of ​diagnosis. You can push this even further to make an analogy with a scientific experiment where you have the hypothesis, the method, et cetera, and you come up with a conclusion. I think that demonstrating history as a discipline to healthcare professionals opens up their imaginations to seeing the practice of what they do is something that’s malleable, that’s anchored in time, that’s affected by culture and society. So, my role in the medical school was to do that. It was a privileged position. But I had no idea how successful I ever was. I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of my faculty colleagues and maybe a large number of the students just thought I was there for comic relief and entertaining stories to be told in the meantime. That’s okay. I accept that if that gave me permission to weasel my way into the curriculum or introduce new ideas. 

Tell me a little bit about this medical humanities boom over the last 15 years. What’s going on?  

As you know, medical schools are evaluated. They’re accredited by committees. And things come along that are the flavor of the month. ​P​rior to the medical humanities boom, there was an ethics boom. Many medical schools didn’t have ethics, but they looked around and they thought, oh, we better get ethics because everyone has ethics. If they got ethics, it made them look ethical. That happened in the 90s. I saw that as a real problem for people teaching history of medicine. I got along great with our ethicist at Queen’s. It wasn’t her fault, but she was my biggest enemy. Because if the school had to devote some time to what they called ​“​soft science,​”​ they would rather have the ethicist than the historian because the ethicist got them brownie points on the accreditation. ​​ 

​​T​here was a time when the American Association for the History of Medicine was meeting in Chicago in May 2014. And we happened to be meeting at the same time as the Academy for Professionalism in Healthcare. So the brass of the American Association asked to have a meeting with their leaders to find out how they managed to convince all the medical schools they needed ethics and in particular succeeded in having questions about ethics education in the exit surveys. They did not really understand our problem. I think ethics had the media going for it and the power of a number of ​high-profile​ malpractice cases that had come along. ​It​ became obvious that patients wanted to make sure their doctors were legal and ethical, and ​t​he schools wanted to give the students tools to address these concepts. It became almost urgent. 

In fact, I did some Medline searches on this at the time. The number of articles addressing history of medicine basically tanked. And the number of articles addressing medical ethics soared. There was always an interest in medical ethics. It goes way back. Hippocrates even talks about this. And then there was codification in the 18th century. But what ​arose ​in the late 20th century was this concern that it should be transferred to the students as some kind of rubric that would help them in their future to ​educate them and help them ​behave ​ethically. ​And then that sort of plateaued and along came medical humanities. 

Accreditation saw ​​this as very good for student life. They saw it as very good for student education. If you could enhance the possibility of getting a positive accreditation of your medical school, then you would acknowledge that you should have something called medical humanities. But under that umbrella, there could be just about anything. And that’s the problem with it as a discipline. It doesn’t really have a single method. It embraces so many other sorts of​ fields​. That’s the beauty of it, but it’s also the confusion of it when it tries to make its way in a curriculum that is as rigid as a medical school structure. 

In Canada we now have a society for ​Medical Humanities, the Canadian Association for Health Humanities​. I’ve attended some of the meetings but the disappointing thing about it from my perspective is there’s almost never anything about history. 

I’m curious. If history is not emphasized as part of medical humanities what is? 

Presumably it’s ethics again and reactions to technology. I think ethics underpins a lot of it​,​ but medical ethics is a very distinct discipline​,​ as is history. We’re not the same thing. We respect each other but we’re very different. So medical humanities usually include, at the Canadian meetings at least, a lot of literature, of readings, both fiction and nonfiction. It includes the arts, music, poetry, visual imagery, trauma, drama, dance, etc. And often the papers in the meetings that I’ve attended are​ almost all​ about individual case studies​: ​e.g, “We tried this at our medical school​;​ and then we did an after​-​survey about whether it worked or not. Of course, our students loved it because it was fascinating​,​ and it wasn’t memorizing the elements in the periodic table. It was something that took them out of themselves.” Often medical students have other hobbies before they get to medical school, which are sadly neglected because there’s no time for anything else. And these activities provide an outlet for them to recover their previous selves and their identity.  

I think another agenda of ​Medical Humanities ​is to raise awareness of the differences between peoples — the difference between your patients, for example, and yourself, and to be prepared to tolerate it. So that’s a subliminal message of many of these things, causing you to see the world and other people in a different and more tolerant way. That’s basically what goes on in the medical humanities conferences. People get very excited about these opportunities, a drama presentation, a collect​ive​ reading, something that they might have done together, or artwork that medical students do based on their clinical learning and then having a show about it. That kind of thing gets reported. And then … it sort of sinks into an oblivion until the next meeting comes ​​​​along.  

So it sounds like the way you’re describing it, there’s a little bit of the study of history of medicine versus medical humanities. The two are not fully in sync in your mind.  

No, they’re not fully in sync in my mind, but I accept and welcome history being seen as part of ​ ​medical humanities. I think it’s an opportunity for us as historians to maintain our place and our credibility in medical schools.  

The presence of history in medical education has gone up and down over the centuries. There have been full-fledged chairs in History of Medicine. In a distant past, they went away​ and​ they came back. What is expected of it has probably also changed through time. But now, since it seems medical humanities is an easier way​ ​to open the door to medical schools, history can be part of it. I don’t know. It would be really interesting to find out if ethicists feel the same way as I do about it. I find that some medical humanities programs are peopled by or run by doctors who are so well-intentioned​–​ very, very well-intentioned​–​ but they really don’t have any expertise in anything but medicine. The best of them, obviously, are experienced clinicians who’ve had a lot of encounters and are thoughtful and reflective about those encounters. But there’s no method. It’s not a single discipline. It’s a quilt with a whole bunch of different patches in it.  

What do you think about medical humanities and maybe more specifically the history of medicine as a vehicle for the broader mass of people out there?  

I’ve written ​11 ​books and the most recent one to get published is this one. [She holds up a copy of ​Covid-19: A History​]. What I was doing was getting it down for everyone. It’s a history for everyone. It’s not aimed at medical students or doctors or anybody in particular. It’s aimed at Canadians basically, but it talks about the whole pandemic from a global perspective. What I want to do is remind people of the personal stories that go with the pandemic, about the dilemmas of decision-making and policy choices, about the scientific endeavors that are so easy to mock or make fun of. And ​clearly,​ I’m revealing my colors. I believe in vaccines. I believed in the public health measures. I point out in this book about the value of quarantine. When you don’t know what the pathogen is and you haven’t got a clue what the incubation time is because it’s a previously unknown pathogen, quarantine is not a stupid thing to do​,​ because you are waiting to find out how dangerous it ​might ​be and put some parameters around it. I think​–​ and again, I’m speaking only from a history perspective, not medical humanities in general​–​ I think it was important to unpack what was behind those decisions that many people got so angry about. And yet they were lifesaving decisions in many cases. Sometimes perhaps it was over the top, but it was because we didn’t know what we were confronting. 

During that book writing, I served as a volunteer contact tracer at the Kingston ​[Ontario] ​Public Health Unit. I had to phone up citizens all over our area and get them to quarantine because they’d been in contact with someone who had COVID. That was very eye-opening for me because I realized at what level you had to pitch why it was a good thing to do. And at the outset, when we didn’t know what the parameters were, we were telling people who’d been exposed to COVID to stay home for 14 days. Kingston was the only health unit to use volunteer contact tracers, but we worked really hard and Kingston had the best ​​outcomes of COVID cases in the country for a brief time. It didn’t last forever, but it was like a flagrant, on-the-spot demonstration of something that has been known for years, since at least 14^th-century plague.  

What do you make of that now that we’re in 2025 and people are so over this stuff now​,​ that​ ​there’s this feeling I get that people are saying we will never go into quarantine again? 

That’s why I wrote the book. Actually, I was invited to write it, and I had to think about whether I wanted to or not. One of the reasons I decided to write about it was that my thesis advisor, Mirko Grmek, wrote a history of AIDS right at the beginning of the pandemic. And I thought, well, I can’t write a history of COVID because it isn’t over and it may never be over. We may always have COVID. And then I remembered that Grmek had written that history of AIDS at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. He set down where it came from. He studied the historical possibilities. He had the science too. I realized he was at the end of his life, and I’m at the end of my life. And I thought, OK, maybe this is what I need to do​,​ to accept the task of writing it as it is, right now. Now ​I’m very depressed​ by these negative attitudes. But I do hope that when the next pandemic comes-​-​and there will be another pandemic​,​ with a new pathogen that we haven’t seen before​,​ and there will be conspiracy theories about where it came from​–​ I hope that the public health agencies will remember that quarantine from 14^th-century plague worked really well​,​ and that’s what we need to do again if we don’t want to overwhelm our finite resources in hospitals and health care units to look after people. The more you implement those measures, the fewer people die. It makes a huge difference​,​ and you can actually see it. So the story is there. Whether or not it will be believed, whether or not the argument can convince the naysayers, I have no idea. All I did was set it down and hope.  

You have a historian hat, which is the critical, sometimes subversive side and then you also have the medical doctor establishment side, the scientific side. It gives you a unique lens to look at the COVID pandemic and the consequences that came afterwards.  

It’s been the story of my life. I worked in cancer care at the end of my career at Queen’s and patients would tell me really interesting things​.​ I loved talking to them and hearing what they thought about what was going on. And some of them held what I would think of as wacky ideas or they’d utter doctor​-​blaming ideas. Then the doctor in me would feel very defensive about their accusations of the mistakes or the neglect of my colleagues, even colleagues I’d never met. But when it comes to the history of medicine, I feel terribly responsible for the bad things that doctors may have done, even if it was not deliberate, but out of ignorance, because they didn’t know what was going to be discovered next​;​ or ​due to ​misplaced enthusiasm for something that turned out not to be as great as everybody thought it would be. And I’ve seen that with respect to certain drugs in my career. I’m old enough to remember thalidomide babies​;​ I was a child when that happened. But the impact of it was enormous​: ​what pills could do to us and how they might harm us. There’s a new biography out that I ​reviewed for ​Medhum of Francis Kelsey, the Canadian​-​born American health official who spared the United States from the damages of thalidomide. An amazing and courageous decision because there was great pressure on her to approve the drug and she didn’t. So we had the tragedy in Canada and they didn’t in the United States​,​ which was fascinating for me to learn at this stage of my life, because I remember being so horrified and ​thinking, ​how could doctors let us down? 

There are also other procedures that were once considered important to do that we have done away with, not because they shouldn’t ever have been used, but because something so much better came along. The most striking example of that that I remember are pneumoencephalograms. Pre-CT scans, if you thought there might be a space​-​occupying lesion in the brain, you put the patient under a sort of an anesthetic. You took out a modicum of CSF and injected the same volume of air. And then you strapped them to a chair and you ​​rotated them around, taking x-rays while the bubble of air moved all around the brain to see if there was a space​-​occupying lesion. It was brutal, painful, but it was the only way to find out if there was a space​-​occupying lesion in there. And of course, you could tell only if it was bulging on the surface of the brain. It took days for patients to recover with headache and vomiting. Every medical student in my class of​ ​1974 was required to go and witness one of these so that we would not order it frivolously. And in that same year, CAT scans were introduced and nobody would ever do a pneumoencephalogram again. Ever, ever, ever. But does that mean that all the doctors who were involved in ordering pneumoencephalograms or taking the x-rays were evildoers? I don’t think so. They were trying to help. They were trying to make a diagnosis. But it was excruciating.  

If you could fix medical education and its relationship to history, what would you want done?  

I’ve written about this for a long time. I was so lucky at Queen’s; I really was. They let me get away with a lot. From my hire in 1988 until I retired, I thought the best way to bring history into medical education was to infiltrate it. The historian has to be very tolerant and very flexible. But what you do is you introduce the history of whatever it is they’re studying at any given time. History of anatomy in anatomy if they’re doing the anatomy course. History of physiology in physiology. History of pathology (essentially is the history of disease) in pathology. The timing really is everything because it’s synergistic with what they’re learning at the same time.  

With that method, you are preceded by a guy in a white coat, and you’re followed by a guy in a white coat. It gives you credibility vicariously by the people who are around you. But it makes it seem relevant in a way that otherwise it ​wouldn’t be​. If you make ​it ​an optional, elective course, the students automatically know that it’s not important. So, I refused to teach electives when I got hired at Queens, which meant that I had to meet every department head to beg for time to do a history session. There were 25 departments at the time, and only three said yes. They were​–​ anatomy, pathology, and obstetrics; I’m forever grateful.  

Early on, faculty members of those departments would come to my inaugural class on the history of their discipline. I think they were slightly checking out how “nice” I would be to their field: the history of obstetrics, for example. But they approved the approach. The most willing departments were those units in the medical school with a lot of curriculum hours​,​ ​s​o they were able to feel generous. ​“​We will give her an hour.​”​ 

But one department head said to me, “I can’t do that. History, I love history. You’d be invited to give an ​after-dinner​ speech at our annual meeting. That would be really good. But we only have 80 hours in the curriculum. And if I gave you one of those hours, they might miss something important and kill somebody.”  

I said, “Oh, thank you​,​” ​a​nd I ​went​ back to my office feeling rejected. Only later did I think of the right reply, “If you don’t give me one of your 80 hours to make them skeptical about everything else you’re going to teach them in the other 79 hours, then they really might kill somebody.” That was the answer I should have said.  

It’s about the time constraint; you can’t offer an entire course. Medical students are not going to be historians. They’re going to be doctors. So what you want to do is sensitize them to the fact that what they see as knowledge now is something that has evolved through time, through human endeavor, something that is destined to change in the future. So history is a reminder of life-long learning. And if you time it right, then it is relevant and interesting. Not all students are going to like it, but they don’t all like pharmacology either. 

And the other thing that the medical school let me do, bless their hearts, is to grant my wish for one question on every exam.  

I remember this actually.  

It was a question of credibility; a way of forcing the medical school to commit to the idea that history was important.  

All right. To wrap up, we’ll get back to Medhum. what would you like to see us do in the months and years to come? 

I’m really a special interest voter on this because I was for 25 years involved with the Literature Arts and Medicine Database. And I contributed hundreds of annotations to that database​. ​I hope MedHum is a place where people who want to use literature–mostly literature is what I think of, but there​ are ​other things there, ​for example ​film​ reviews​–in a way that will deepen their understanding of a situation, or for enhancing education, or for whatever purpose, because that’s how the database was used, that it will be there, accessible to people who want those things.  

​​​​So for me, I get to go there when I feel like it. I get to browse. I get to pick around. I already knew some of the people and from our meetings, I’ve gotten to know new ones. I think you, people of your vintage​,​ should be deciding its purpose, in terms of determining the direction and the flavor of this entity, which hopefully will have a big reach and get to the people who need to see i​​t​. You​ ​​have a better sense. You’re closer to the users. I’m not trying to be gloomy about it. I just know that it’s entirely possible that it needs to go someplace that I can’t even imagine. 

Dr. Jacalyn Duffin was the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen’s University from 1988 to 2017. She was also a practising hematologist. In 2020, she was awarded the Order of Canada. 

More importantly, she’s one of my favorite people in the world. Medical school wouldn’t have been the same without her gentle encouragement and unending enthusiasm. Dr. Duffin, thanks for everything. 

Web image by Medhum.org

Posts Written by Dr. Jacalyn Duffin

Book ReviewLitmed

The Conjure-Man Dies: A Mystery Tale of Dark Harlem by Rudolph Fisher  

04.22.26 471

Book ReviewVideo

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr 

04.21.26 664

Book ReviewFocusVideo

Everything is Tuberculosis: The History and Persistence of Our Deadliest Infection by John Green

04.13.26 685

FocusReflection

Craftivism is Activism

03.23.26 655

Load More

Load More

Lucy
Felice, first of all, can you talk a little about your background, what you were doing professionally just before and during the time you did the Database?

Felice
I was on the faculty at NYU School of Medicine. I was trained with a PhD in physiology, was hired as a physiologist, and I taught medical students physiology, but most of my life. I’ve had this dual interest in literature and in biology. And in fact, that’s from high school on, and when I started college, I had to make a decision about whether to major in English or in biology. And I decided to major in biology because I thought, well, I can do literature on my own any day, and I’ll never be able to make it a profession. Whereas, you know, I can’t do science on my own, I have to be trained. And so that was the path I took, which was a science path, but I never lost my interest in reading and thinking about literary things. And let’s see, at one point I decided to start a discussion group with the medical students and any faculty who were interested. It was a small group, and it changed from year to year, but we met once a month, and I would, initially, pick out readings. They were short readings because students don’t have much time to read non-medical stuff– poetry, short stories, essays, and that continued for several years. At the same time, and really, I have to say that without my husband’s help and interest in what I was doing none of this would have happened because he of course, was interested in the use of technology, computers in medical education, but he was also interested in what I was doing with my literary stuff. So he set up a database for me on my own computer.

Lucy
And this was in the early 1990s.

Felice 
Yes, 1993 or thereabouts; he set up a computer program for me so that I could keep track of the readings that I was doing with the students, because I didn’t want to repeat anything with the same group, essentially. And I also was kind of following the work of Joanne Trautman Banks, who was a pioneer. She really was the one who started the field. I have to give her full credit. In 1978 she published a book of annotations of literature that had to do with medicine. I don’t really remember how I found it, but it was very helpful in my own work with the students. I decided, basically, to copy what she did, with some modifications of my own, in my own database that my husband Marty Nachbar helped me to set up. So to begin with, that’s what we did. Marty’s idea was that I should recruit other people in the field who were doing this kind of teaching with their students, and who might be interested in submitting annotations to this database. And secondly, that we should make it online, so that anybody out there who has access to the internet could stumble on this thing and maybe get interested. And the idea, his idea, was that it might expand the whole field, which was, at that time, just literature and medicine.

Lucy 
I had the privilege of knowing your husband and saw how he was really ahead of his field.

Felice 
He was a visionary. Definitely not just with that, but with all kinds of stuff that had to do with tech. You know, computers in medical education.

Lucy 
He was a big help to me when I had a grant from the NIH to do a project. He really zeroed in on its strengths, its weaknesses, and helped me in a very generous way. Just to backtrack a little bit, how did you choose the work that you shared with the students? What were you looking for when you selected certain work?

Felice 
I really had a pretty broad range of what I chose, and how I looked for it. Of course, if it was something to do with doctor or resident or medical student experience with patients– that was what I was looking for. But then there was patient experience, also from the patient’s perspective, how they were interacting, and what their feelings were about their illness or disabilities. And then as I started getting interested in this, I decided I really needed more training, and I decided to get a master’s degree, not in literature, but in something that was called at that point, humanities and social thought– that was the track at NYU in one of their master’s programs. And through that, I got really interested in the social thought part and societal issues that directly or indirectly affected medical practice, patient experience, and so forth. So that really also was important for me to get that degree, because when I started recruiting other faculty from other institutions, they [thought] I was an imposter. I was coming into that field without any background other than my interest in it. And they did not think highly of my intrusion into their field, and I don’t blame them. But you know, when they got to know me and what I was doing, they sort of became more accepting. But the thing that really clinched it was when I started this degree program, because then they felt okay, she’s serious. She’s going to get some professional training that makes it more legitimate to be associated with her. But of course, it was a really great thing for me, because it did give me a lot more background for what I was doing and what I would like to have been doing.

Lucy
You were very successful in recruiting a national board of editors.

Felice
Yes–the contributors were from all different places. They were very interested in making this a national internet-based project, because they were interested in furthering the field, and they saw the potential if it was on the internet, But initially I also had two NYU medical students who helped me choose material and write annotations. And then the site, especially once it became web based, was heavily used by so many and got so many hits–about a million a year. 

Lucy
It’s clear that the users went beyond medical students and physicians. What do you think attracted the wider audience?

Felice 
Well, I would occasionally get some notes, you know– I think there was a mechanism– I don’t remember exactly, where a user could contact me or somebody who was paying attention at NYU. What I found really interesting was there were patients who were using it. I don’t know what percentage of the users were patients, but there were patients who found stuff that was helpful to what they were going through. And so that was interesting to me, and I thought it was important, you know, it wasn’t my original intent to reach out to patients. It was really more of an education-based thing, but there it was. And why not?

Lucy 
We’re all patients at some point in our lives.

Felice 
Yes, right. That’s exactly true– issues about death and dying, not necessarily for the individual person, user, but family of theirs, friends who were in serious medical situations–all of that, it makes, made sense. So the audience became very broad.

Lucy 
And also you expanded the format.

Felice 
Well, first of all, when we started in 1993 there wasn’t a worldwide web. It didn’t exist. There was an internet. But the program that allowed people to access the internet was called Gopher, G, O, P, H, E, R. It was much more primitive but that’s what we started with, we put the annotations on this gopher program. Marty’s associate, Roy Smith, was instrumental in helping to set up the gopher program. Roy maintained his interest in our project as it moved forward. Then maybe a year or two later, I don’t know what the time lag was, but when the World Wide Web became available to anybody, I recognized that that would be really important, because it allowed you to make links with hypertext. You could make links between annotations; if you were referring from one thing to another; you could make links to art if you were annotating an art piece. You could make links –that was so key. So the web was just great. That was the way to go. And we were just lucky that it was there pretty early on.

Lucy
You recognized its potential.

Felice
And that wasn’t just Marty, actually. That was me.

Lucy 
And you chose the format of annotation versus a longer review. Was your goal to divide it into summary and commentary, specifically so that people understood what the work was about, but also how it connected to medicine and health? 

Felice 
I was going back to the format, or a slight modification of the book that Joanne Banks published in 1978. I think she used key words and a short paragraph about what the work was about. I think I expanded it to make both a summary and a commentary, because I thought that would be more helpful to people. I was modeling this thing after what she had done in 1978 and then again, she published another version, an updated version, I think, in 1982. In fact she and I had a phone conversation about our respective projects. 

Lucy 
One of the strengths of the web site was open access. You didn’t have to subscribe. That was important to you, I would imagine,

Felice 
Marty was very insistent on that. There were people who said, Oh, you should be charging something or whatever. And he said, No, if you want to make people aware of this field, you just make it completely accessible,

Lucy 
And it stayed that way, and the new site is open access. That leads me to ask, what do you think the role of health humanities is now? 

Felice 
You know, with all this artificial intelligence stuff, –I was reading about, or I saw online, a woman who, instead of having people as friends, she has some kind of an AI setup. And she’s not the only one, apparently, who’s, you know, relying instead of on human contact –on these bots. To me, it’s mind boggling. So I think there is definitely still importance to making this kind of work accessible and promoting it. And I also think it still should be part of medical education, health education, and it should be accessible to anybody who wants it.

Lucy 
Moving on to our new project. It’s based on the database but one of the differences, in my view, is that we’re including reviews that are a little more in depth than the annotations. How do you feel about what’s going on with the new site and how it’s evolved? And you can be honest. I mean, please.

Felice 
I think it is different from the database, and that’s good. It’s fine. You have your own vision of what you’d like to accomplish, and I think it’s working well, you’ve recruited people who’ve written some interesting things, not annotations, but more like essays. And you’ve expanded it so you have included art. I don’t know what else you’re planning to do, but I think it’s a good site, it’s valuable. It’s nice to have something up there that’s medical humanities related. And I really admire what you’ve done. 

Lucy 
Thank you. I think one difference is, you pioneered using links in the old database, and we’re using links much more now that it’s possible to do so. So if we review a book, then the author is interviewed by someone, we might link to the YouTube video. That’s been interesting to do and adds to what we can offer. It’s hard to know who’s using the site. We’re still in the very early stages, but I think it has a fairly broad appeal beyond just practitioners whether they’re doctors, nurses, or trainees, and I’m trying to have the public be interested in the work that we choose.

Felice 
I think you have your vision of the website, and that’s what you’ve voiced here, but it’s not my view of medical humanities.

In fact, I found this online at George Washington University, on their medical humanities site, and they quote me, but they don’t acknowledge that it was me, where I wrote: “Medical Humanities is an interdisciplinary field that includes the humanities, social sciences and the arts and their application to medical education and practice,” and then whatever education materials people develop that are designed “to help students develop and nurture skills of observation, analysis, empathy and self-reflection, skills that are essential for humane medical care.” [Quotes are from the GW website and were at the original NYU medical humanities site.] Especially the first part that I read, I mean that it is a broad, interdisciplinary scholarly field. That is how I have always, or at least for many years, maybe not in the very beginning, looked at it. So that’s a little different from what you are trying to do. And I’m not criticizing you in any way. I mean, I’m just recognizing that there is a difference in what you want to do with your site and what we did with ours.

Lucy 
One of the things that the database could do was show different cultures and describe experiences that the students themselves might not have directly. MedHum is a bridge into other cultures, and that’s what I mean when I say it is a lens on the human experience. That by reading literature, by reading about other societies, and what people who live in those societies go through, which you know only too well, it broadens your ability, hopefully, to empathize and to understand the differences among people.

Thank you, Felice for speaking with me today and for your editorial guidance throughout the years. It’s been an extremely fruitful collaboration.

Web image by Medhum.org

Posts Written by Dr. Felice Aull

Art Review

Three Paintings by Edvard Munch

07.23.26 19

Art ReviewVideo

The Waiting Room by George Tooker

06.12.26 427

Book ReviewVideo

Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy

05.25.26 530

Art ReviewVideo

The Broken Column by Frida Kahlo 

04.15.26 600

Load More

Load More

DAVID HSU: What are you up to these days? What are you working on?

JACK COULEHAN: In terms of creativity, I’m working on a new collection of poems that I’m editing now. I’m also the book review editor of The Pharos magazine, and that takes up an unexpectedly large amount of time.

DAVID HSU: Do you practice medicine at all anymore?

JACK COULEHAN: No, actually, I retired about 12 years ago now, but I do still teach medical students as a volunteer. It’s a class that I began back when I started at Stony Brook in 1991. It’s called Medicine in Society, and it’s a first-year seminar course that deals with human, social, and interpersonal issues in medicine. We use a lot of literature and film in that and so I’m still a group leader. We also have a master’s degree program in medical humanities, and I teach a course in that. So I still keep my hand a little bit in teaching.

DAVID HSU: Given that you’re doing all this work in the humanities, what do you think about the relationship between medicine and the humanities?

JACK COULEHAN: You know, that’s a surprisingly difficult question for me, because I’ve always had this kind of love/hate relationship with the term medical humanities, because I think it doesn’t quite capture the problem or the issues that we’re trying to address and what we do. In a lot of my work, I tend to cite a piece that Rafael Campo wrote in JAMA in 2005, entitled “The Medical Humanities, For Lack of a Better Term.”  What I’ve really always thought is that what we’re trying to do is to teach students and ourselves, really, to become more reflective and more thoughtful…[Campo] used the terms reconnection, renewal, and meaning. . I think we’re not necessarily encouraged in our profession to become aware of our own needs, to become reflective, thoughtful, to become focused on the personhood of patients and so on. And so I think, through discussion, through examples in literature, film, etc., we can really try to address these issues. I guess the term medical humanities is fine as a placeholder, but I wish there was a better term for it. But, aside from reflecting on the name itself, those are the things I think we’re trying to address in medical humanities. 

When I started in this business, pretty long ago, I was thinking about [medical humanities] mostly in terms of becoming a better doctor by improving one’s empathic skills and reflecting on the patient as a person. But as time has gone on, I’ve become more aware that I think it’s really something that makes you a better person and also more able to cope with the stresses and the challenges of modern medicine. So, I think it works both ways.

DAVID HSU: What are your criticisms of the way medicine is practiced now, since people aren’t doing all this [reconnection, renewal, and meaning]?

JACK COULEHAN:  First of all, I think medicine has to be understood in our current overall culture of increasing subspecialization and focusing on narrower and narrower fields [of practice], using more and more technological instruments, tools, and machines. Also, medicine is more and more controlled by larger interests that are not necessarily oriented towards the primary values of medicine.  There are virtually no constraints on the use of technology, the focus is entirely on disease, on narrow perspectives on disease.  

What I’m saying is that all this detracts from the ability necessary to see the patient in terms other than as an object that has a disease or a person who has a specific problem that needs to be addressed.

Just to give my personal examples, when you get to be 81 years old, as I am, you have a lot of opportunities to experience being a patient. I saw a cardiologist a couple of weeks ago who is an older cardiologist, and he was what I would call an ideal physician. He does interventional cardiology, he’s a professor, well-published, and yet his approach, I would consider to be very therapeutic–very positive, trusting and good eye contact. He wasn’t looking at the computer. He was just a genuine person, genuinely interested. I’ve also gone to a urologist who was just the reverse. Equally specialized in the same medical system, but one who was all about the particular issue, the particular organ, and the particular thing that’s happening to that organ.

It’s possible, you know, when you start talking about the kind of values and the kind of stresses that modern physicians are under, the first response you get is that, “Oh, yeah, that’s great. That’s what we should do.”  But you know, we only have 15 minutes [and] we have to deal with the EMR, etc. But that belies the fact that there are physicians out there who are very good at actual doctoring and others who aren’t, and I think that’s because, well, let’s say, look at those two things on a spectrum…I would say that there is the opportunity, even in today’s world, to help students keep their belief, which most of them have, I think, when they begin, that doctoring is really interested in persons. And I think we could increase the percentage of physicians who feel that way and practice that way.

DAVID HSU: I’m curious because you mentioned that you’re 81. You’ve been around the medical system for decades. How has the system changed from when you first started in it until now? Is it getting worse, or has it always been like this?

JACK COULEHAN: Well, that’s tough. I definitely think it’s worse, but I also think it’s romanticism, you know, to look back and say, “Oh the good old days.” 

I graduated from medical school in 1969 and graduated from my residency and fellowship in 1975. Those were the days when I was learning to take a history. Taking a history–that’s another phrase that I dislike. But we had a little black book, that had 100 or 140 questions to ask in it. There was no concept of medical interviewing, nor the  teaching of it. I had the feeling that a lot of the values of good doctoring were kind of implicit and not necessarily taught in those days.

And so we’ve gone through a whole phase of learning that the medical interview is a therapeutic tool, and now I think we pay a lot of lip service [to it], but I don’t know that we necessarily carry it from its place in the curriculum to its place in the clinic or the hospital.

But there’s no question that it’s gotten worse [although] the technological advances are just so incredible. I remember at some point, as a student, you have this idea that the CT scan will give the answer, or the lab result will give the answer. The patient’s story is secondary. And I remember some instructors saying, no, no, wait a minute, you should know 80% of the time what the answer is before you even request the test. The test is not meant to be, the be-all, end-all of everything, but, definitely, that is the case now. Even within practice, every advancement that happens in technology kind of nudges us closer to thinking of the computer as a solution for everything.

Let’s say, one patient comes in with chest pain or nausea. I think the tendency now is to focus on those symptoms, to think of what disease might cause them, and to do various tests, rather than sitting down with the patient and trying to understand what their situation is.

DAVID HSU: You mentioned this earlier, and I wanted to follow up on this little comment you made about how the practice of humanities and writing has a self-care component to it, and that as you’ve practiced it more, it’s helped you handle stress and different challenges. Can you elaborate a bit about this?

JACK COULEHAN: As a high school, college, and even a medical student, I had this inexplicable urge to write poetry, which I did. It’s pretty juvenile. But anyhow, I did it. Then of course, I gave it up because I was a doctor. I was practicing, I was doing research, etc. And in my mid-40s, I was reaching, I think, what you might call burnout. That might be a little too dramatic, but I felt that there was something missing in my life, in my career, and I happened to have a patient who was a professor of poetry at the University of Pittsburgh, where I was teaching at the time. And one thing led to another, and she encouraged me to start writing again. And I did, and I found very quickly that by writing about…my experiences in medicine, I was able to…work through them and understand my reactions better, and so I think that poetry is a reflective practice that in a sense provides occasion for you to grapple with experiences, issues that have been troubling you, or that on the other hand have been very happy. It can work both ways.

Getting back to medical humanities, I think what we’re trying to do in medical humanities is to stimulate that kind of process in young physicians or young clinicians, whether it’s through poetry, through writing journals, through just meeting in small groups…that kind of thing…and to use not only personal experiences, but literature, poetry, film, etc. as stimuli for that.

DAVID HSU: Let’s wrap up with what you would like to see medhum.org do? How would you like to see it grow in the months and years to come? What type of topics or articles do you want us to tackle? 

JACK COULEHAN: I like the concept of being provocative. I’d like to encourage people to come in through material that’s kind of leading edge. I’d like to see people have conversations, comments and so on.

DAVID HSU: Thank you, Jack for participating in “Meet the MedHum Editors.”   It’s been a pleasure to speak with you.

Written by Jack Coulehan on Medhum.org (View All)

Alphonse Daudet and Intractable Pain

26.05.2026 623

Children Who Remember Former Lives 

6.04.2026 9719

The Anatomist by Frederico Andahazi

17.02.2026 664

Rethinking Medications by Jerry Avorn

20.01.2026 800

The Word Is an Instrument of Healing 

16.12.2025 859

Stuck By Heidi J. Larson 

3.11.2025 784

This is an edited transcript of the zoom interview.  

JD: Hello, everyone. I’m Jacalyn Duffin at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. I’m a retired hematologist and historian. Kingston is situated on the traditional lands of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabeg peoples. And today I’m chatting with my friend and colleague, Darrel Manitowabi, who is a professor at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University. 

Darrel, tell us about yourself and your job. 

DM: Greetings, everyone. I would say in Anishinaabamowen [indigenous language]. Thank you all for listening to this. My name is Darrel Manitowabi. I am Three Fires Anishinaabe from Manitoulin Island. More specifically, Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory, which is on the eastern end of Manitoulin Island and Georgian Bay. 

I currently live in Whitefish River First Nation, which is just across from the island on the mainland in the traditional territory of the Robinson-Huron Treaty. And I am currently the Jason A. Hannah Chair in the History of Indigenous Traditional Medicine and Indigenous Health in the Human Sciences Division at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University. The acronym for short is NOSM [pron: naw-zim]. And that’s who I am. 

JD: Thank you. I’d like to mention also that it’s a very beautiful, sunny, but extremely cold winter day here in Kingston. We’re at minus 16 degrees centigrade. How about you? 

DM: We are about minus 20 Centigrade, I believe the last I checked, I’m in Whitefish River First Nation as I shared and so, it’s rather cold here, and it’s the coldest time of the year thus far. 

JD: Yes, for us too. And for the Americans listening, that’s about zero degrees Fahrenheit. Can you tell us a bit about your job. You started in 2020. That was right in the middle of the pandemic, basically. And you are the inaugural professor in that chair. Can you tell us about what you were supposed to do at NOSM? 

DM: As you stated, I joined in the time of COVID, which is a less than ideal time, especially when you’re starting a new job. There’s intermittent openings, which is very difficult for someone who needs to access a library. 

One of the more recent collaborations I had just by way of example is with Dr. Geoff Hudson, who is a historian of medicine at the medical school, we have a chapter in the book, An Accidental History of Canada [McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2024). And we wrote about Manitoulin Island accidents from settler and indigenous perspectives. And it was the most difficult chapter I’ve ever had to write because I couldn’t access anything. Everything was closed. And when it was open, it was only for a narrow window. It almost felt as though you needed to expedite your process, right? And that’s how I would describe that initial experience just by way of example.  

A lot of my work involves working with elders and traditional healers. My approach to this Chair is quite a bit different than it has been in the past. I’ll just give you another example of that. When I first started this chair, I went to the indigenous community to help inform the kind of work I would do. Typically, an academic embraces autonomy and academic freedom and all those sorts of things and goes about doing things that are in part conditioned by the academy and the expectations of that. I reversed that and I took an approach wherein I am conditioned and in sync with community. And one of the things that community determined to be important is to build capacity in understanding traditional healing and its place within contemporary society and that involves coming together. So, since 2020, I’ve been consulting with elders, traditional healers, and we’ve been determining a pathway forward. And it’s a continuous preparatory aspect of the work that I’m doing, I’ve been focused mostly on that.  

I consider my approach to be a kind of a two eyed seeing, which is this perspective of blending Western knowledge with indigenous knowledge. But the way that I’ve operationalized it is I’m blending university logic and expectations with community logic and expectations. And I try to do enough of the university stuff to satisfy those eyes and I also concentrate the balance of my time with community. So it’s a juggling act. It’s a balancing act, recognizing that there’s an incompatibility in essence with how community sees knowledge production and would like to see it done and how the university does. The university is a hierarchical individualized process whereas in community it’s more of a collective process. We do things together. We are a collective group of authors and collaborators rather than a hierarchical individual leading a group. I’m not leading anyone when I’m in community. I’m working alongside. That’s what I’m doing there. And Indigenous Medicine Stories –what we’re going to talk about here– is the essence of what that means. It’s a kind of bridging of those two worlds. It’s like bridging those two ways of experiencing and practicing knowledge. 

JD: Well, right away you’ve kind of explained to me the origin of Indigenous Medicine Stories they seem to be an extrapolation of what you envisaged your job to be. Did you have the idea before you went for that job or was it something that came to you while you were inventing what you should be at NOSM? 

DM: I’ll come back to COVID. COVID explains a lot. During COVID, we needed to modify our curriculum to reflect remote learning. And given the work that we were doing, we do a lot of experiential stuff, having elders come into the classroom. 

At the medical school in year one, there was even an indigenous placement that that became a bit of a challenge. We ended up doing things like everyone else in front of a computer screen. And that’s a challenge with learning. It’s exhausting. I remember those long days of just staring at my computer screen doing presentations and not having that human connection. And a few of the students had raised a question that we should consider alternative ways of experiencing this learning. 

And one or more (I can’t remember if it was one or two or more than that) mentioned podcasts. And I thought, that’s an interesting idea. And at the same time, I was thinking about a project that involved collections of life histories of elders and healers akin to a book by David Newhouse and Don McCaskill, that was, In the Words of Elders Aboriginal Cultures in Transition [U Toronto Press, 1999). They essentially traveled across Canada and they collected life stories of elders from across Canada. And it’s literally their life story. It’s their narrative that forms the basis of each chapter. And also this other project that took place, the Indian Film Project that was at the University of Regina, the Canadian Plains Research Center. And what they did is they traveled across …or someone traveled across Canada. It wasn’t always the same person. And they sat down with people of significance of indigenous ancestry who might have been an elder or a leader or a healer, and they just asked questions, and they collected a transcript of what their experience was like. And it almost seemed as though it was a bit of a random process that you weren’t quite sure what the purpose of that interview was, but it produced a lot of important information and an important historical record. Many of those individuals are no longer with us now. It’s become an important archive. And so when I was thinking about those three things all at once, the concept of a podcast came about and I thought I could have guests speak about their experiences in their own words. And I could generate an archival record by way of the voice, but also by way of the transcript.  

I was having a conversation with Anne Avery at the Associated Medical Services, and she had mentioned that they had done a podcast. We continued talking and came to the conclusion, why not collaborate? Why not work together on this? That’s how it all came about. But it was it was the intersection of all of those things that were happening that led to this. 

As I thought about it further, and I’ll just expand upon this, one of the things that I consider to be an interesting aspect of the podcast and of the approach that I take is having the guests speak about themselves in their own words, which also reflects back to what I mentioned before in the sense that I try to speak as little as possible and I try to highlight the voice of the person, have the person talk about their life in their own words, on their own terms. And I’m merely a conduit to that or a bridge to opening the door of understanding. 

It also reflects the fact that academia traditionally and in the research that I’ve done, I do a lot of oral history research where I speak with elders. And one of the frustrations I’ve always had is that they have so much important ideas to share. But I must edit things down to one or two sentences or perhaps if I’m lucky, five sentences. And I thought, there needs to be a mechanism or a medium by which that comes to an end. That was also an aspect of it. But it’s also that relationship. I don’t see this as being the authority over. I see this as a visit, a way to learn and to engage. And I also specifically approach it by way of highlighting the life history. Quite often elders, academics, and others are called upon to do something specific to their job, whether if you’re an elder, you’re doing a teaching, or if you’re a researcher, you’re discussing your research. Rarely do we ever have a chance to understand where are you coming from? Who are you? Where did you grow up? Who were your teachers? What was that like? And so it’s really about them telling their story. It became a way for me to to navigate or balance or weave in this interface of the university and the community in a creative way that allows for that outcome. And one of the significant aspects as well is the educational component. And it links to my chair, the AMS chair. One of the features of it is to help –And you might have your own perspective on this, Jackie, because you’ve had a longstanding chair–is to [help] find ways of inserting these kinds of perspectives in medical school curriculum by way of encouraging research with students or advancing curriculum in a particular kind of way. Doing scholarly activities and creative work such as this helps to demonstrate to biomedically inclined future physicians that there is a humanistic aspect to healing and medicine and also an historical aspect. Those are all coming together and are all influencing how things came to be. So that’s a little bit of an insight into the origin. 

JD: Well, for those who haven’t been to look at Indigenous Medicine Stories–and we will certainly explain at MedHum how to find them–they are a wonderful cluster of podcasts. They’re not short. They run up to an hour or so. And right now there’s about 22 of them there You’ve already answered some of my questions about not only where it came from, but how it can be used. I’m interested in if it is difficult to get people to talk. I know you have a PhD in anthropology, and I believe you used oral history to get there when you were writing your thesis. But is it difficult to encourage people to talk, especially if they’re being recorded? 

And one quick question. Tell us about that beautiful image you have behind you, which is the title page of Indigenous Medicine Stories. 

DM: let me get to the title page, the artwork first, then I’ll jump into that. I needed a logo and at the time I was searching for ideas and one of one of the initial concepts I had was to take a picture of medicines. And so I did that but there’s a young community member where I live here, Whitefish River First Nation, a young aspiring artist by the name of Nevada Anwahtin. Nevada had a collection of paintings, and I just was interested in seeing if she had something that kind of really connected. And once I saw this, I knew right away that it was the perfect piece of art that would serve as a logo. And it also represents the future because it’s from a young Indigenous artist who’s a female. 

And also, it reflects ceremony. The image is of us, of what we understand to be a sweat lodge. There’s different words for that word. But anyways, it’s a sweat lodge and there’s a vision that is coming out, this is my interpretation. Nevada will have her own inspiration and interpretation. But this is what I saw when I looked at it. It’s engaging with the spiritual essence of ceremony and it’s in beautiful colors. So I thought, this is the art work that I needed. That’s how that decision was made. And to answer your next question about Is it difficult? I would say in part what I’m trying to do is to capture different stories and experiences. I’m looking for different standpoints, right? you might be a practitioner, or you might be balancing for instance, a social work perspective to helping and including indigenous knowledge and indigenous helping in that. 

You might be a researcher, for instance. You might be from a different locale or a cultural experience or group. Those are all kind of factoring in. And it’s also about convenience. , I’m doing this alongside my everyday work. If I happen to be in a part of the province where I know somebody lives, I’ll try to make that connection. One of the essential aspects of this is to have that face to face. And so it’s a blend. The ideal for me is to do an in-person recording if that’s possible. But I’ve also done them remotely, remote recordings through Riverside, by way of example, if I know it’s going to be Riverside, I make it essential that I meet with them in person beforehand. 

The more challenging part is to build that relationship because there needs to be some work invested into that. I’m not saying a whole lot, but there needs to be some kind of connection because as human beings, we interact face to face and communicate in those kinds of ways. So the initial first grouping was a bit of a balance between those who had somewhat known or had known of me. I had met them before and in some instances that might not have been the case, but it was mostly that scenario. They were comfortable with me.  

I also emphasized the spirit and intent, right? It’s about education and they …the guests on the podcast recognize the context in which things are, where indigenous peoples are not understood. There’s a lot of discrimination, a lot of conscious and unconscious bias in social interactions. There’s an exclusion of these ideas in the formal education. All Indigenous peoples are experts in these things. They know it. They know it from their inner essence and their being. They understand the potential that education can have in trying to address this. From my perspective, they see themselves as trying to change things, as am I. We both recognize that.  

I centralize education because with education, I’d like to humanize an understanding of traditional healers. I’ve been talking about indigenous issues for my entire teaching career. I’ve been mentoring. I’ve just passed 20 years of doing that now. And since the beginning, there’s this reaction towards anything indigenous. You could just say the word “indigenous,”–I’m going back 10, 15 years–and you can trigger a response by some people. You could trigger a physiological response just by mentioning “Native,” “First Nations,” “Inuit,” “Indigenous”, etc. I’ve always known that and I’ve experienced that in the classroom.  

When I speak about Indigenous healing, especially towards a group that has is trained in the sciences, for instance, there’s this instant reaction towards it with the assumption that it’s inherently unscientific, or it’s all made up. It has no place. It’s just this interesting cultural phenomenon or social phenomenon. If you look at it, if you use science to look at it, you could draw the conclusion that there is an essential inherent bias in understanding this because there’s assumptions based on that. Science is not supposed to be based on assumptions and bias.  

So, I thought that if people could hear the story of the person, hear their life experience, they could recognize that this is a human being that exists in this world, and they have experiences just like I do. And I have no right to assume that they’re inferior because of the socialization in which I come from in respect to indigenous knowledge and indigenous peoples. So that’s part of it. It’s about educating and even, I’ll just add, for indigenous peoples themselves. I see this as a new medium of communication. And it’s a consequence of the impact of a digital world in which we’re faced with. It’s really adapting to that. In times in the past, this knowledge would have been shared by way of storytelling that may have been on the land, it could have been around a table. I grew up at a time when there were very little TV channels. I like to say two-and-a-half channels because the third channel worked half the time. I spend most of the time outside in the community . In the community, I would just be around and in the process of just being around, I learned a lot. 

I learned a lot because I would be around stories, around people telling stories, around elders who would be telling stories, and I would just be part of the furniture in that sense. Those days are not here in the present. Maybe they’ll return in the future. So I see this as a new form of storytelling, a digital storytelling, right? And there’s some literature out there on it Jennifer Wemigwans has a book on it [A Digital Bundle: Protecting and Promoting Indigenous Culture Online, U Regina Press, 2018]. 

I see this as being part of that process, right? It serves a purpose for different audiences in a medium that is compatible with both of those sides, right? And I think that both sides are looking for something different. Those who are just curious about what this all means, for instance, from a non-Indigenous perspective. But from Indigenous perspective, there’s a built-in marketing because many of the people that I’ve spoken to are known. They’re known in the indigenous community, but they’re not known outside of it. That also relates back to your original question about inviting people. I know who these people are. We’re part of a community. 

We’re part of people who know somebody, right? We’re not so far removed in this area anyway. And I’m also focusing initially mostly on Northern Ontario, obviously because that’s where I work, but also because there’s a tendency to invest in creative works and knowledge production in places where capital is concentrated. And in the province of Ontario, it’s concentrated in southern Ontario. 

So you have this natural tendency, I suppose, within that framework to collect knowledge in those areas. In Northern Ontario, there’s little research in all aspects of research in itself . I think I have a responsibility to reflect and it also comes back to the social accountability mandate of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, which is to reflect the society in which it is located. And I tried to reflect the work that I do in the society in which I’m located. I’ve said quite a bit of things there. That’s kind of where things are at. 

I’m always recording and I don’t know how long this is going to go, but I’m going to take it as far as I can and continue this work because there’s a lot of important lives that are being lived out there that many of us have not learned about or heard about. 

JD: Right. Thank you for that wonderful answer. So I understand that, first of all, a lot of people in the community and second of all, all of your interviewees, as well as yourself, feel a responsibility to pass on knowledge. And this educational opportunity is a trigger for why they might accept to be recorded. I have two more questions. They’re “medicine” stories, in looking at some of them, I’m interested in hearing you tell us what you think “medicine” is or is about, because “medicine” is there to treat disease. We take medicine to get rid of disease. And “healing” is a very important word in your podcasts. What is the “medicine”? What is being healed? 

DM: I’m glad you asked that question. It brings to mind that I neglected to talk about something else. Traditional medicine or traditional healing is often stated as being holistic that’s maybe a common denominator in most of the definitions you come across or what people have to say. However, the stereotype is that it’s limited to plant medicines. It’s limited to this material consumption of something to relieve something, to have this particular outcome. And that’s a Western paradigm within healing in itself. 

 And I’ve heard this from healers that it’s more than that. Really that’s what I’m getting at. Really what they’re doing. This is also a form of indigenous pedagogy, which is a way of indigenous learning. And storytelling was that way of learning, of teaching and learning but there was also, obviously, observation that happened and you go about it and do what you need to do. But one element of it [medicine] is storytelling. 

I’ve read these historical accounts that indigenous peoples would tell stories all winter long. So this is the time of storytelling, a time of education. That’s the legacy. And often indigenous peoples will tell stories by way of an answer. This is what I try to teach in the classroom that when we have a placement at NOSM for students to go into an indigenous community for four weeks. I help them prepare for it, I tell them that you’re going to ask an elder a question. They’re going to tell you a story and in that story, they’re actually answering that question for you. And you may not know the answer to that question immediately, but it might come a time in the future when you recall that story and you make that connection. 

It’s a form of autonomous learning where the teacher or the elder or the storyteller tells the story and it’s up to the individual to the listener to “get it,” or not. And at some point in time they will. So, in essence, it’s a bit of an assessment like where are you at in terms of your knowledge and comprehension and understanding? I use that by way of an example because the stories that are being told are precisely about Indigenous healing and indigenous medicines in the sense that they’re a reflection upon the legacy of colonialism in Canada and the violence it is instilling on people of the past and the present and the impact that that has on people’s lives and how that translates into and manifests into these physiological outcomes that a biomedical lens can offer.  

But it also speaks to you from a biomedical standpoint; you could look at the impact of stress on health. You could look at childhood development. You could take all of these frameworks and apply them if you wish to do so. However, the way that it’s spoken about, it’s about It’s about trauma and healing and how that’s overcome. And often I will come across or and even know that that these seemingly abstract human experiences are actually medical or medicine for indigenous peoples. For instance, just learning more about teachings can offer healing for an individual who is yearning for that; maybe through the colonial process [it] was excluded. And it’s a void in their life. And they need it. They need that reason and purpose and identity and a sense of being and understanding. 

That relates to mental health and also physical health as well. They’re seeking an answer to their situation. And this is helpful for them. It’s also, I like to say, not the only solution, but it’s part of the answer, right? So obviously, meeting in person with someone is the best possible outcome. But it’s maybe a gateway towards that, ideally that it offers an opportunity for those to reach out to others. 

It’s also about them telling us about what they see it being. And again, it’s from different perspectives, right? You might have a researcher who’s chatting about what this means. It might be an indigenous-physician guest who talks about finding a way to include. It could be an elder. Knowledge is a form of wisdom, and some of that relates to a healing wisdom And it could be a practitioner or it could be a helper. It could even be about human relationships. You could translate some of this into a social determinants of health framework. 

So there’s various ways of interpreting, but it’s much like the story of the artwork that I shared that is the logo. It allows for the listener to draw the knowledge that they need or the teaching that they need, at that moment in time, at the level that they’re at, on their own terms. There’s nothing here is being imposed on anyone. When I’m asking the questions, I’m simultaneously processing what the listener may be thinking. And I deliberately do not reveal too much of the details, for instance, and I leave it up to the listener to figure that part out. There is in some part of responsibility but I’m not doing it for the person, and for instance, someone might be talking about the meaning of ceremony in their life. And I don’t go too deep. I just kind of touch upon the surface and it’s up to the listener to dig deeper if they need to. Right. This is what I’m talking about here in terms of this non-hierarchical way of learning this indigenous pedagogy, where there’s responsibility that is understood to exist with the person who seeks to learn. 

 And the teacher, or the one who’s telling the story, is not imposing things in part somewhat seemingly abstract, but is directly saying what needs to be said. And giving that option to the listener: this is what I’m telling you. If you don’t understand what I’m saying to you, it means you have more work to do. 

JD: Yes. 

DM: If you do understand what I’m saying to you, then you have a choice to take something from this if you would like. You don’t need to do so. And that is it. 

JD: That’s very intriguing because it is a different way of conceiving of medicine and also of healing. And I got the message early on in looking at the podcasts that the disease we’re healing is collective, held in our society, a historical legacy in a sense. The last question I want to ask you is about “stories” themselves as a form of knowledge. You’ve made it quite clear that it’s a way of answering and giving information among First Nations people. It’s a traditional way of understanding. But you’ve got me thinking, since I’ve been looking at your podcasts, that medicine does that too, in the sense that we take a history of every patient and we’re not supposed to impose too much, just as you suggest [in your work], but we curate those histories. And the other way that storytelling is a form of knowledge in medicine is the case of the “case histories,” which go back to antiquity. In the sense that we build a disease concept from multiple case histories of people who’ve had similar symptoms or similar experiences. And so for the last question, I want you to talk about storytelling as a form of knowledge. 

DM: Okay, … Let me situate that with Anishinaabe understanding of things. There are two forms of stories. They’re one form of storytelling is the tabatacamowin, which is stories of the past of events that have occurred. And there are sacred stories. And that is referred to as atiso’kanak. 

The difference between those two? Well, “sacred” speaks for itself, they’re mythic, sacred. One of those stories is alive and that’s atiso’kanak. And those are sacred stories. We don’t really engage upon sacred stories in Indigenous Medicine Stories, but we do focus on tabatacamowin, those stories of lives lived. I just wanted to kind of situate that. Those are two forms of storytelling.  

 I think to engage with your answer, at the start I see commonality in humanity, and even commonality in intellectual paradigms. It’s almost as though we’ve been conditioned to be in opposition. In many ways, we’re still tribal peoples at our core and we’re the scientists and you can interpret this as being a “story,” but we’re going to call this a “case history” and we’re going to call it this. And it’s not going to be that, but as you’ve described, you’re, you’re talking about something that’s very similar. And some of this may be indigestible to some and incompatible, but at some point in time, maybe that might not be the case, but that’s how I approach this. I see commonality.  

I often talk about narrative medicine, you’ll be familiar with that, on how that’s kind of framed as this academic understanding of what you described: this way of telling our stories to the physician or even maybe to the patient sometimes. And I bring in storywork. And this is when I talk about this academically, like I’m doing now. Jo-ann Archibald, a Canadian academic from BC, indigenous Canadian academic, writes about “storywork” and a way of teaching [Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit, UBC Press, 2008]. But it really comes down to the inner essence of this history of indigenous learning in itself, right? And I just described that atiso’kanak.and tabatacamowin and how , stories have always been part of things, right? 

I like to tell this story about how I was doing this project with the First Nations Information Governance Center on Indigenous perspectives of poverty. And I was speaking to a Mi’kmaq and this is in the east of Canada, a Mi’kmaq, I’ll say, knowledge holder, academic. I asked him six questions and he told me six stories, and the stories were over two hours long! And it was after about maybe 90 minutes when he paused and he confessed. He goes, “You know, I don’t know if I’m answering your question and I don’t know if you’re understanding what I’m saying.” 

And I said, “I understand precisely what you’re saying. Keep on going.” When he came to the end in that research project, I just felt that at a loss because I could only capture maybe a minute or two of nearly two hours of very, very interesting stories that he was telling me that were just vibrant and alive. I could just feel and sense the detail of what he was talking about. Really, that’s what this is all about. It’s about demonstrating the utility of indigenous storytelling in educating because that’s what these are all about. And an elder or storyteller or, just an elder or, most will tell you a story anyway, right? They’ll just jump in the story and It’s just how it is, right? And it’s almost like this natural inclination of how to answer your question, because I think it makes it more interesting. When I hear stories about people’s lives and about experiences that they’ve had, it’s more interesting. I think you can remember it in much more detail.  

I’ll just give you another example. I was going down this body of water close to where I live, where I hadn’t gone to before when I was new to boating. And I was speaking to an experienced person in the community who knew the waters very well. And he was telling me by way of story about how to navigate those waters. And it was almost like generating a mental map in my mind through the anticipated experience that I would go through in order to really kind of paint a picture of a map of where to go. And he also did that with even hunting, where he would tell me, okay, you got to go here and then he would kind of generate this portrait of this place. And as I was going through those experiences I could hear the voice in my mind describing what I was seeing as I was doing it. It was kind of like an original kind of a GPS kind of experience.  

And I’ll just give you one more example of this. When I was early in my career, I was teaching indigenous studies at the University of Sudbury, which was formerly a federated University of Laurentian University in Sudbury Northeastern Ontario and I had invited an elder to come speak to the class and I thought they were learning all of these things. I was teaching a course on Indigenous tradition, culture, and spirituality. So I thought maybe I’ll invite an elder to the class. And the elder came in and I just gave a general idea, a general orientation to what the content was about. I didn’t impose what they should talk about, but I just offered that’s a useful direction to go. And over the course of an hour, the elder was telling stories about life and life stages and all of these things. And I found it fascinating. I was just captivated myself while sitting in the audience with the students. I just took a little pause and I looked around and I realized that some had no idea what was going on. 

They were expecting this structured lesson plan with learning outcomes and content that would correlate some way to those learning outcomes and then, if they were being evaluated, there would be some kind of assessment associated with that. And I just came to the realization that there is something different here and there’s something worthwhile to consider. After the next class, I had basically deconstructed things for students to explain that this is how things happen. I began to learn that this is something that I needed to explain because it’s just something that just happens in its natural form. 

Also, and as this relates to myself here, I didn’t immediately understand the meaning of all of what that elder had stated that day. I understood some or most of it. And it was probably about maybe five to seven years after the fact that I remembered that story and I still remember the story and this story, this is like 15 years ago, right? So this maybe speaks to the power of story in itself. It was five or seven years after that point in time that it was like a Eureka! moment that this is what that elder was telling me. I didn’t understand it at that time, but now I understand it. And I remember that story and I remember what they were trying to tell me and they were actually doing something that they thought was important for young people to know. 

At that time, I was young myself. Stories are very powerful. And I think it’s the ideal medium to transmit knowledge and to even translate knowledge in this essence and if the listener does not yet know what’s going on, then at some point in time, possibly they will. And they may return back to the story and find something new. 

And that’s the neat thing about learning. Sometimes you return back to a book you read 10 years ago and you find something new to learn and understand about it. So the same is the case with Indigenous medicine stories. 

JD: That’s wonderful. Darrel. Miigwech! Thank you so much. 

DM: Thank you for having me. And I look forward to sharing more Indigenous Medicine Stories with all of those who are interested in hearing them. 

Darrel Manitowabi is an associate professor in the Human Sciences Division at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM), Sudbury, Ontario. He is a citizen of the Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory, and he currently resides in the Whitefish River First Nation. He is an applied, medical and Indigenous anthropologist with research interests in Nishnaabe ethnohistory and Indigenous gambling, Indigenous social determinants of health, Indigenous healing, Indigenous-state relations and Indigenous self-determination. His research and publications examine how the historical legacy of, and contemporary expressions of colonialism impact the health and wellbeing of First Nations communities. Furthermore, his research examines how First Nations communities are active agents in decolonizing the Indigenous-state relationship through centring Indigenous perspectives in health, education, and governance.

Indigenous Medicine Stories Podcast

JC: Well, it’s great to see you, Alan, and thank you for agreeing to this interview. It’s been a long time since I saw you in person. I remember when we first met in 1992 at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine meeting in San Diego. It was at a poetry reading, and we were both presenting our work there.

I’d like to begin by quoting an article that I saw in the Amherst student magazine from 2008. You had just received an honorary doctorate of science there. It goes like this, “AB’s combination of his education, his love of art, his passion for medicine and his wonderful sense of humor have made him a great warrior in the fight against smoking. Dr SmokeBuster offers an alternate view in the seemingly strict discipline of medicine. He embodies the philosophy of the liberal arts, using a variety of disciplines to communicate his message. Most importantly, AB brings poetry and artistic splendor to the often overly calculated role of science.”

I think that really describes your ability to merge your love of the arts and humanities with humor and your passion for medicine, as well as your public health activism and your career-long campaign against cigarette smoking. So how do you look at that? How do you view those interdigitating components?

AB: First of all, this is so unbelievable. If you told me that when I was struggling to figure out what to do in life, that I’d be interviewed by Jack Coulehan, I’m just really appreciative that you would take the time to do this.

I had great fortune in my upbringing and growing up on the periphery of New York City.

It was really a marvelous time. I thought New York City was where moms took their kids to go to see plays and museums on weekends. I didn’t realize people actually live there. Where I was born, at Rockaway Beach Hospital in New York, you could see the ocean from the hospital. My father, Leon Blum, MD, was an intern there and then a member of the medical staff. He was a general practitioner for 37 years in the very town in which he’d been raised, Rockaway Beach. And that’s where Jonas Salk spent his summers. And Burrill Crohn was from there, of Crohn’s disease fame. So it has a rich heritage. I grew up in a low middle income community, nearby Far Rockaway, where my father, Leon Blum, MD, knew everybody.

My dad was very literary. He would do the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle, which I could never do. And I had great opportunities to experience culture. Of course, I thought museums were mostly about dinosaurs. I never realized that there were art museums. That was the awakening I got when I went to my first National Conference of Family Practice Residents meeting in Kansas City.

It was pretty boring. So I started walking around Alameda Plaza, and I came across this beautiful building that looked like a Greek temple, and it turned out to be the Nelson Gallery. And that was really my awakening in art.

JC: And you also had an early commitment to activism. It’s remarkable that even as a resident in the late 1970s at the University of Miami, you had already begun, kind of this dual career as a regular practicing physician and as a family practice resident, you organized a campaign against smoking and other unhealthy habits among adolescents. What was the origin of the idea for the Doctors Ought to Care movement?

AB: I think everything I’ve ever done is irony and humor, and even the title of my undergraduate thesis on Robert Frost was called “The Way of Understanding is Partly Mirth” (from a line of one of his poems). I don’t think I would have been able to get through being fired a couple of times, not getting into this or that school, not getting this or that job, missing the deadlines for exams that I had to take, and so forth had I not had a sense of humor.

I was about a 7-year-old watching Brooklyn Dodgers games on TV with my father in the afternoons when he would rest after his 9 am-to-noon and 1 pm-to-4 pm clinic before his after-dinner office hours in our house, where the living room became the waiting room. We loved the Dodgers, and one day he said, “Look at that Lucky Strike commercial. Why don’t you take out our tape recorder and record it, because one day nobody’s going to believe that they would associate sports and cigarettes.” And sure enough, it only got worse as the decades went by. Meanwhile, I had begun an interest in smoking because my father had had a heart attack in his 40s, when I was 5 years old. He started smoking Chesterfields as a medical student and continued through his service in the Army in World War II in New Guinea. It just stuck with me that when and if I ever got to medical school, I’d learn a lot more about that. I never did. Only about 30 minutes of education at Emory was devoted to smoking, and it was a part of a lecture on lung diseases by Dr Brigitte Nahmias. She juxtaposed ads for cigarettes next to pictures of her patients with occupational lung disease and some who smoked. I thought that was a good way to demonstrate the contrast between the macho men in the cigarette ads and the wrecks that she cared for. So with the help of a pathology professor at Emory, I decided to create my own slide presentation of all the smoking-related diseases. By the time I was in my residency, I began speaking in elementary, middle schools, and high schools to try to talk to kids about not taking up smoking and other killer lifestyles that were being promoted to them in the mass media.

At a meeting of the National Conference of Family Practice Residents in Kansas City in 1977, I tried to share this work with the other attendees but was initially rebuffed. I was finally given a room after the main proceedings ended. It was filled to overflowing. Over 50 people came, and one of them was Rick Richards from South Carolina, who told me “You know, I’m going to go back to Spartanburg and do the same thing you do, and I’ll see you next year.” Well, by that next year, we’d organized several chapters, and we were asked to give the main talk at the conference. So DOC, or Doctors Ought to Care, became known for not just lecturing on the dangers of smoking, but also for ridiculing, satirizing and parodying cigarette advertising and the way in which the tobacco companies were getting away with murder. We were the first and only physician organization to confront the tobacco industry itself, and not just angrily, but using humor and MAD Magazine-style satire such as the Barfboro Man and the Emphysema Slims tennis team. These were some of the things that we created when the American Cancer Society was saying, “Oh no, no, you can’t do that. You’re going to get sued.” Well, we were sued, and that only brought more attention to us. We did a t-shirt parody of Miller Lite Beer, whose original slogan was, “Miller Lite. We’re having a party.” Our slogan had a guy with his arm around a toilet saying, “Killer Lite. I’m grabbing a potty.” Miller Brewing, which was owned by Philip Morris at the time, sued us in state and federal court. We won the case, but it was no fun being involved in litigation with the world’s largest cigarette company.

JC: That makes me want to jump ahead to some of the exhibitions in the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society. I was reviewing the website last week and the whole thing is so impressive, but the humor and the irony in the titles and the text of some of your exhibitions is amazing.

So to get into that, let’s move to the beginning. I believe it was 1997 when you began the Institute for the Study of Tobacco and Society at the University of Alabama, let’s go back to Doctor Ought to Care.

Alan: DOC was started in 1977. I was in internal medicine after my graduation from Emory, and I loved my internship at McGill’s Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, but I kept on running into family practice residents at Montreal Jewish Hospital who seemed to be loving their experiences even more than I was. So when I was on vacation in Miami, I thought why not look up family medicine?

I walked into the Department of Family Medicine at Jackson Memorial Hospital of the University of Miami, and there was Irwin Redlener, who was actually a pediatrician. Irwin was filling in at the request of the chairman Lynn Carmichael. It turns out that this was the first family medicine residency in the United States. Lynn also helped found the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine and became the first editor of its journal Family Medicine. The residency had features found in few other training programs of that era such as sports medicine, podiatry, integrative medicine, pastoral care, an annual symposium on sexuality, extensive community outreach, a resident-run evening clinic, and a monthly book group to discuss The Person: His and Her Development Through the Life Cycle by Theodore Lidz. It was just amazing timing for me, and I never looked back.

Lynn tolerated me pretty well for my activism on tobacco after initially chastising me for trying to convince his secretary to stop smoking. He eventually admired what I was trying to do, which was to bring our knowledge about health into the community to try to make up for the health and socioeconomic disparities in the neighborhoods around the inner-city hospital.

Dr. Richards and I were soon joined by another family physician, Dr. Tom Houston, and through the National Conference of Family Medicine Residents we were able to disseminate our activist approach to tackling the killer habits. In the 1980s we wound up having close to 100 chapters of

DOC in medical schools and family medicine residency programs, some of which still exist. Our approach was to use humor and satire, as opposed to all the staid organizations like the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association, which still relied on pamphlets, posters, and unpaid public service ads on TV that usually aired at 3 in the morning. DOC was the first health group to purchase counter-advertising space on billboards, bus benches, TV, and radio. No one else had ever done that. We were also the first to involve teenagers in our work and to tap the highest level of creativity and commitment of every family physician we could find. In 1978, I co-hosted a conference with a junior high school student that was attended by 150 students from 30 schools in South Florida to train them to help raise the awareness of their peers about the targeting of young people by the purveyors of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.

Flash forward to 1997 when I was on the faculty at Baylor College of Medicine. I was invited to give the family medicine residency graduation address at Tuscaloosa. I shared my sketches and stories of patients and also gave a grand rounds on the physician’s role in ending the tobacco pandemic.

Afterwards, the chairman, Jerry McKnight, asked me if I wanted to stick around. I thought he meant going for a beer, but he wanted me to apply for a new endowed chair position in family medicine.

When I moved to Alabama two years later, I started the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society. DOC was still going, but I also wanted to do something different such as researching the history of smoking and efforts to counteract it.

I began to organize the vast amount of material that I had amassed over the years through what I called a daily biopsy of the smoking pandemic – the largest collection on the tobacco industry, cigarette marketing, and anti-smoking advocacy at any university. This was all pre-internet and pre-ebay. I had tens of thousands of items, and the University of Alabama was kind enough to provide some space. I thought of this as both a museum and an archive, and for the next 15 years I hired graduate students from the School of Library and Information Studies to start cataloguing the collection.

The main work product of the Center is exhibitions. We began with an exhibition at the annual convention of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists called “Cartoonists Take Up Smoking!” It took ten years to research and involved acquiring over 300 original artworks from the nation’s newspaper editorial cartoonists. The exhibition then went to the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington for a year and traveled to ten other venues. So we had a great opportunity to share our work, but then it dawned on me in 2015 to do online exhibitions to reach a much larger audience. We’ve now done nearly 40 exhibitions, and I’ve never looked back.

JC: And I think that that those online exhibitions, each of them, seems to be a massive enterprise with so much richness in the visual material, in your text, comments and so forth. It’s remarkable that you have been able to collect this much essentially social history and curate it in such innovative ways.

Alan: Well, here comes the trigger warning, because I do this mostly for me, partly because. I don’t think most people understand the smoking issue. I really don’t. I don’t think there’s much to cheer about, in spite of the progress that we’ve made in reducing adult smoking from over 40% in 1964 to less than 15% today. Just this year, an investigative report was released about how low-tar cigarettes are bigger than ever in China, because they’re still pushing the absurdly fraudulent notion that there can be a safer cigarette. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association bought into this for awhile back in the 1970s. It’s such a tragic history in this country that I cringe whenever I hear public health people saying that the reduction in cigarette smoking is the greatest public health triumph of the 20th century. Not at all. In my opinion, it’s just the opposite. 

We learned everything we needed to know about smoking by 1964 when the Surgeon General’s report came out. My dad taught me everything I think I needed to know when I was much younger than that. I wrote my first article on smoking when I was editor of my high school newspaper, The Woodmere Academy ECHO. And I think I’m the longest running individual on this issue, because I’ve been doing this with a passion for over 60 years – – fortunately, I haven’t had to earn my living from my anti-smoking work. And that’s where my trigger warning comes in, because it’s hard to imagine how thoroughly the field has been professionalized. You have to have a Master of Public Health or a Doctor of Public Health degree to get a job in it, as compared to the hundreds of grassroots activists from all walks of life across the country who led the way for decades in passing local clean indoor air laws. And guess what it’s called now: “Tobacco Control.” Of course, it’s not about controlling tobacco. It’s about curbing smoking and its promotion. This issue is something that medicine hadn’t addressed before, because unlike an infectious disease it’s a human behavior that’s taught to us by an industry that’s making an enormous profit. So I believe my contribution was to shift the focus away from lung cancer and smokers and instead onto Marlboro and the people in the tobacco industry who promote it. I think that was an exponential leap from where we were before then.

There were quite a few health care professionals who were opposed to smoking. Thoracic surgeons Alton Ochsner and Michael DeBakey were warning that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer beginning in the late-1930s. For their trouble, they were ridiculed by the medical profession. Organized medicine didn’t want anything to do with fighting smoking. (For one thing, their medical journals accepted lucrative cigarette advertising revenue until well into the 1950s; for another, two-thirds of physicians in the 1940s smoked.) So what I think we did in DOC was to shift the focus to monitoring the tactics of the tobacco industry. Our strategy gave permission for everybody else to point the finger at the industry as the source of the problem. But the federal government never devoted any funding to fight smoking, and there was relatively little effort. So leading the way was that band of people who hated going into restaurants or getting on airplanes and breathing tobacco smoke. It was that activist group of people– – not the public health people, not the physicians – – who started the nonsmokers’ rights movement. And then there was a guy like me who was looking at the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. But most of those working in this field today are focused on regulation and legislation, even in this non-legislative era. Then there are the full-time smoking cessation researchers, who are practically studying nicotine receptors on toenails rather than looking at the larger picture. They’ve medicalized and “pharmacologicalized” smoking cessation. As a result, physicians no longer take an extra minute or so to encourage their patients to stop smoking. They just prescribe a drug. And I don’t think that most people in tobacco control are looking at the fact that we could have done so much more in these 60 years. For example, the first time the government ever spent a penny on paid advertising to fight smoking was in 2012.

In 1998, the state attorneys general forged a $206 billion settlement with the tobacco industry which sounded great. But although most of that money was supposed to go to fight smoking, only 2% of that has been allocated by state legislatures for tobacco use prevention and cessation. It’s all about the money.

JC: It’s all about the money.

Alan: An internist colleague, Ed Anselm, made this marvelous comment, “The most addictive thing about tobacco is money.” And he wasn’t just talking about the tobacco industry, but also about the people who say they’re fighting smoking but are really just fighting over the grants to write policy papers telling legislators what to do about smoking.

It’s a dark field.

JC: It sounds, from what you’re saying, you know, the image I have is Socrates, as a gadfly in Athens talking about the gods and so forth, and his questions threatening the status quo. One thing has improved though, you haven’t been convicted. You haven’t had to take the hemlock.

Alan: No, I was arrested, though. I’ve been arrested a couple of times for demonstrating (but never charged), once with a city councilman in Houston when we went to the Astrodome to protest a Cinco de Mayo festival sponsored by RJ Reynolds’ Camel cigarettes. Let me just give you an example of the absurdities I’ve experienced: I was fired as editor of the New York State Journal of Medicine after three years, having produced the first theme issues on smoking at any medical journal, and which brought national attention to the Journal. As editor, I had to attend the monthly board meetings of the of the Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY), which published the Journal. To paraphrase the Borscht Belt comedian Henny Youngman, the average age of the board members was deceased. I was about 20 years younger than the next youngest person in the room, and all they were talking about were economic matters like the high cost of malpractice insurance. It was not at all about health and medicine and helping people, in my opinion. But I’m grateful to MSSNY for having had the opportunity to do these theme issues on tobacco problems. Following the second one, though, I was fired for having spent too much time on smoking.

JC: I think we can agree that that money talks, and we lived in the mid-20th century in a culture in which smoking was not only acceptable, but it was really highly touted. For example, most doctors smoked Camels, but on the other hand, don’t you feel that that your campaigning, and your creativity has contributed to cultural change, even though it’s been at a slow pace?

Alan: I did a teaching fellowship in family medicine at the University of Miami after graduating from the residency program. And what I learned was how to give a good presentation and how to write learning objectives. These skills may seem simple, but that’s deceptive. First, there is the cognitive objective (imparting information), which 99% of lecturers think is the entire lesson they are supposed to teach. Then there’s the behavioral objective, which can teach learners how to do a procedure or demonstrate a skill. But what they’re missing, I think, is the attitudinal objective. I came away from that fellowship understanding that every presentation, every paper, every research poster I would ever do would have the reader, viewer, or the listener going away saying, “Gee, I never thought about it like that before.” That’s an attitudinal objective. I wanted to change the way people looked at an issue.

It’s something that stays with me every time I advise a resident on giving a presentation. I also do this in my exhibitions on tobacco in the hope that the viewer can see the ironies and learn the lessons from decades of foot-dragging by organized medicine, the public health community, and academia – and their fear of confronting the tobacco industry – that can be applied to tackling other challenging health problems such as gun violence, obesity, emerging and re-emerging viral diseases, and digital media addiction. There are many ways we can look at the smoking issue. Our failure to address it for so many decades is a metaphor for how we’re dealing with the wired epidemic of kids having the attention span of a fig.

JC: In 1964 when the Surgeon General came out with his first report, I believe 45% of adults in the US smoked, and now it’s approximately 11%, and the images that you have in your in your exhibitions show how trendy and culturally appropriate smoking was at that time. Now, you have to admit that there is a significant cultural awareness that smoking isn’t the thing to do, and that at least if you do smoke, you have to go out to the back, and you can’t smoke here or there, and there’s a certain kind of negativity against it. I consider that a cultural change. And of course, all of the tobacco corporations have had the time over those 60 years or so, to adapt to these new conditions and to spread their tentacles elsewhere. But it seems to me, it does constitute a change.

Alan: Jack, we look at our time now as an age of disinformation and regression, and dare I say, the word “retribution,” because we have willful ignorance that I haven’t seen in my lifetime. I lined up at my school in Woodmere, Long Island, to get my polio vaccine as a five-year-old. I was in the original Polio Pioneer trials. We have people today who are saying they’re “doing their own research” as to why they won’t get a Covid vaccination that has saved millions of lives even though these vaccines were developed in record time, thanks to our knowledge of previous epidemics, especially SARS in the early 2000s. Most of the time developing the vaccine for Covid was taken up with the trial, not with the development of the vaccine.

I think the missing element today in countering this horror is humor, and that’s why I like to think that MAD Magazine was my leading medical journal for many decades. I actually got to meet the editors and the publishers of MAD because I wrote a letter to publisher Bill Gaines and editor Al Feldstein when I was editor of the New York State Journal of Medicine. I asked, “Why don’t you resurrect those great parodies of Marlboro and other cigarette brands?” And they invited me to have lunch with them in New York City? It was fun. And they then resumed doing those parodies.

I had a lot of other influences growing up. On the radio, Jean Shepherd (best known as the author and narrator of “A Christmas Story”) was kind of every adolescent’s hero. Every night, he would tell stories of his time growing up in Indiana, and I think that’s how I got a lot of my storytelling ability.

And reading newspapers. I would often buy all nine New York dailies on a Saturday just to see the different sportswriters’ take on the Dodger games and to see the sports cartoons by Willard Mullen in the World-Telegram & Sun. Some of these were resurrected in my exhibition, “Cartoonists Take Up Smoking!” .Also, I was a magician growing up doing birthday parties and school assemblies, inspired by my father who would do little tricks for his patients. I really loved that. Once I even got to open for pianist Peter Nero at the Rheingold Music Festival in Central Park. I wasn’t very good that night, but I still get to say I performed for 3000 people.

JC: Well, it’s clear that we take ourselves too seriously. We’ve lost the ability to look at ourselves and our culture with that kind of ironic distance. And in addition to that, when you were talking about the development of the Covid vaccine, the disinformation, to me, seems to be a malignant outgrowth of some of the technologies that we’ve developed and we’ve made accessible to the world, and the ability of people to spread disinformation with such great facility and power.

Alan: I think that we need to match the reality of the society that we’re living in with the strategies to counteract it, and I don’t think we’re doing that. We’re too ideologically split, and I don’t know where common sense has gone. I don’t think the media have risen to the occasion. Our newspapers are gone. I don’t do social media. But I just am horrified. I used to think I wasn’t very literate because I looked at all my fellow English majors, like you, Jack. They were omnivorous. I did pretty well, but I just never felt that I was that knowledgeable about poetry and literature. And I see now that I was pretty good compared to what people are spending their time doing today. There are no humanities to speak of in medical schools, except for the honors courses for the self- selected students who are already interested in humanities, and you and I have spoken about the fact that out of 22,000 entering medical students today only around 500 majored in a non-STEM field. It’s mind-boggling. It’s terrible.

JC: That brings up a point I’ve been meaning to take up in this interview, and that is, we’re both medical school professors. I’m emeritus. You’re still active. In my career, I have tried to imbue in students a love of humanities, the use of the arts and humanities to develop empathy, to develop reflectiveness and resilience. And of course, I’ve gotten a lot of feedback on that, or blowback, I guess I should say, because people say, well, that’s not going to work. It doesn’t matter. These guys are going out into a different medical world in which they are going to be subjected to stresses, to constraints and so forth. So even if they go into this with that kind of humanistic perspective, they won’t be able to effectuate it in their practice. And of course, having looked back on my career, it’s kind of difficult to hear that. I’m not sure that I believe it, but I wonder what your thoughts are on that matter.

Alan: Ann Walling has an excellent review article on ageism in the July 2024 issue of American Family Physician. She compiled a checklist of questions to ask an older person. She wrote it because she was struck by many of her older patients telling her how they did not feel respected by some of the younger physicians. But I noticed she didn’t include “How do you spend your time?” or “What was your occupation?” A person’s identity is paramount. I don’t think they consider their identity is being a patient.

I find that students are trained to be good mechanics about diseases, and that they can look up anything about diseases and how to treat them. But that doesn’t involve reading things that aren’t only related to the patient you’re addressing at that moment, and that doesn’t involve pleasure reading.

My point is that we no longer live, if we ever did, in the same neighborhood as our patients. We are in not just an ivory tower, but it’s got a moat around it, and they have to come to us. So I ask every resident, “How did the patient get here today?” And you know, after the first 20 or 30 eyerolls they realize it’s relevant. Or, “Who’s at home?” Many residents initially say, “That’s too personal.” This is family medicine that I’m talking about, and they’re saying to me that just asking who’s at home is too personal, or asking about the father when a newborn is brought in by the mother or grandmother or great-grandmother for a well-child visit is too personal.

You couldn’t get any further from my father’s education at Downstate in the 1930’s (when it was Long Island College of Medicine). He would walk two to three blocks to make house calls or even deliver babies. I may be romanticizing, but I think we’ve moved so far away from them, the patients, that now it’s all about us.

When I was a new faculty member at Baylor I didn’t know anything about Houston, so I started exploring the city. I began in January. By July, I proposed doing a community field trip for the incoming interns and new faculty. I chartered a school bus and took them to a Black radio station, an art museum, the city desk of one of the two daily newspapers, the county health department, the city council, the jail, and the criminal court. I did this for 12 years. I’d change the itinerary a little bit, and the only requirement was that they would write a reflective statement. When the residents were getting their exit interview from residency after three years, the community field trip – – that one day that they had as interns – – was one of the highest rated activities.

I think it’s so important to recognize with humility that we don’t know very much about our patients anymore. I’ll give you one quick example. I was attending in an ICU at Baylor and one of the residents was rattling off endless laboratory results. The patient was intubated, so we couldn’t talk to him. Finally, I just said, “Who is this patient? You’ve told me every laboratory result known to mankind, but you’ve never said a word about who he is.” Tomorrow morning, tell me who he is.” And I walked away, I was so angry.

And the next morning the resident excitedly said, “You wouldn’t believe who this guy is. He’s the architect who designed this hospital!” I mean, he was absolutely incredulous. And it wasn’t anything great that I’d said, other than to stop presenting people as numbers. Stop talking about people as “diabetics.” Just say, “the patient with diabetes.” It doesn’t take that much of a leap to talk about people with a disease, rather than who they are as a disease. And again, I’m not the first to suggest this, but it’s also astounding that we can’t dissuade residents from presenting people by race and gender. Warren Holleman, Marsha Holleman, and Bill Monroe wrote a terrific essay, a critique of how we present and discuss patients, in Literature and Medicine in 1992 called, “Is there a person in this case?”

JC: With regard to the bus trips and the field trips, in 1968 when I was a second year medical student at the University of Pittsburgh, we had a community and preventive medicine course in which weekly or biweekly we would go to nursing homes, to neighborhoods, like the so-called Hill District, which was the African American neighborhood in in Pittsburgh, and so on. What I’m trying to say here is that many of these ideas we’re coming up with and saying this would be something new, were practiced in the past, but have been lost. The other thing has to do with interviewing patients. I wrote an article in the early 1980s in the Annals of Internal Medicine called “Who is the Poor Historian?” And I pointed out that that when you’re interviewing a patient, which of you is the historian? Well, obviously, it’s the doctor who is collecting the data and who is trying to assemble and interpret it as a historian does. So again, this was 30 years ago.

Alan: This is so amazing. We should collect all these. One of my favorites is “well- developed, well-nourished and in no acute distress,” which should only ever be used to describe an infant in the neonatal ICU. Instead, imagine calling a woman “well-developed, well-nourished…” And you see this on every chart. This is what the dopey electronic medical records populate.

We are so beyond reclaiming the medical record. I did a grand rounds a few years ago about scribes. For the past decade, I’ve been privileged to have had an incredible experience with medical scribes. These are mostly pre-med students at the University of Alabama who have been one better than the next. One of them wasn’t even going to go into medicine but I urged her to apply, and she did. It’s a terrific way to help mold their thinking about medicine. I don’t like the idea of shadowing, which is passive, whereas being a medical scribe is a commitment, and it’s not easy. I’ve watched these students closely, and it has been a great joy. I confess that I initially opposed having a scribe, because I thought it was going to violate the patient-physician relationship and confidentiality. But it’s a wonderful experience that I wish we would be able to expand.

It’s absolutely astounding how we’ve become so absorbed in populating medical records with minutiae that very few people read. In auditing records of residents, I look past the templates. I want to read their narrative. I want to see that this was generated by a human being.

JC: My sense is that, as a result of my own experience, what we have done in teaching the human aspects of medicine and providing role models and images of what that could be, is that we have influenced a percentage of young medical students and residents who have been malleable in a way and made them better doctors. And that percentage, I don’t claim that it’s large, but I think it’s a real contribution.

We’ve talked a lot about the difficulties and the disparities and in a sense of atrocities, really, of modern medicine, but I’d like to leave this conversation with a positive note. So I guess I’d like to ask you, Alan, what kind of positive note can we end on from your experience?

Alan: You know, every day I must count my blessings. I give thanks for the opportunity to experience the moments that I get with patients, with residents, with colleagues. I’m

a critic, but I’m also probably the biggest fan of what we do in family medicine. When it was founded as a specialty in 1969, there was a kind of a nostalgia for, and resurrection of, the old general practitioner. So I’m really living at least in some way like my dad lived and appreciating these experiences with people. I don’t think medicine is anything other than that. I admire radiologists, especially those that want to see a picture of the patients that they’re reading the films on. I admire every sub-, sub-, sub- specialist there is, because, gosh, it’s good to know that if you need them, they’ll be there. But what a privilege it is to be able to see people from all generations at any given moment. I never know from one day to the next who I’m going to see, and on a single day about two years ago I actually saw patients of four generations in the same family: great grandmother, grandmother, mother and daughter. So I think that I’m a commercial for family medicine, but I’m not a commercial for making medicine into a disease-oriented, as opposed to a people-oriented, field. I think we can’t get to the diseases until we know who people are.

JC: I agree. I’m not sure we can return to the past or to the more holistic view that we recognize in your father and some of the doctors that I encountered when I was young. But I think we need to keep working and seize any opportunity that presents itself to get our message through. I’d like to thank you for this discussion. We could continue for several hours on these topics, and that would be very interesting, but in the interest of time, we have to conclude now. So thank you.

Alan: And I want to thank you and Lucy for thinking of me in this context. I also would be remiss in not thanking my wife, Doris. We’re going to be celebrating our 49th anniversary (in September 2024) with a few days in the Adirondack Mountains. Also, my three sons, Leon, David, and Sam, my late father and mother, Eric Solberg (my colleague and co-author in DOC for over 25 years), and the many mentors I’ve had: English professor Chick Chickering at Amherst College; cardiologist and poet John Stone at Emory University School of Medicine; Howard Rusk, the pioneering rehabilitation medicine physician in New York; Sam Nixon, a president of the American Academy of Family Physicians; and Bob Rakel, who was the chairman who took a chance on me after I was fired as editor of the New York State Journal of Medicine, even though I hadn’t worked in a hospital or clinic for several years.

I’ve been incredibly fortunate to have all these individuals in my life. There was also Kurt Deuschle, chair of community medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. When I was fired as editor, I called him, looking for a few words of sympathy and encouragement. Instead, Kurt sternly replied, “It’s your own damn fault.” I was crestfallen and speechless. But then he explained, “You got too far away from patients.”

I’ve never forgotten that advice.

Alan Blum, MD, is a family physician and professor of Family Medicine at the College of Community Health Sciences, which also functions as the Tuscaloosa Regional Campus of the University of Alabama School of Medicine. He is the first holder of the Gerald Leon Wallace Endowed Chair in Family Medicine at The University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences. One of the foremost authorities on tobacco problems, Blum is the director of The University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society, which he established in 1999.

Links
1964 Surgeon General’s Report
University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society
Irwin Redlener’s Bio on Wikipedia
Alan’s stories and sketches of patients 
Alan’s website about an artist who was a patient for over 50 years at the state mental hospital in Tuscaloosa

Intro photos from Covering Cancer? exhibition at Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society

On this episode, we talk with Dr. Ross Slotten about his memoir, Plague Years: A Doctor’s Journey through the AIDS Crisis. He covers the time from when he entered family medicine practice just as AIDS was emerging, through the crisis, and the decades since as both a physician and a member of the at-risk community of gay men on the north side of Chicago. We also talk with Dr. Slotten about two other sources covering the early years of the AIDS crisis: a documentary film about the first country’s first AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and a literary novel about a group of gay men with AIDS or at risk for AIDS in Chicago. 

More about Dr. Slotten’s background is here, which includes authorship of the book, The Heretic in Darwin’s Court: The Life of Alfred Russel Wallace (published by Columbia University Press, 2006).

Sources:
Plague Years: A Doctor’s Journey through the AIDS Crisis by Ross Slotten, published 2020, University of Chicago Press
5B, directed by Paul Haggis and Dan Krauss, released June 2019
The Great Believers by Rebecca Makkai, published 2019

Russell Teagarden’s blog pieces on episode sources:
Plague Years
5B
The Great Believers

Recommendations (we didn’t have time to talk about):
Rent (play, movie), Jonathan Larson
Angels in America (play, movie), Tony Kushne
Blue (movie), Derek Jarman

The Clinic & The Person is a podcast developed by our editor Russell Teagarden to summon or quicken the attention of health care professionals, their educators, researchers and others to the interests and plights of people with specific health problems aided through knowledge and perspectives the humanities provide.

Feature image by Iluha Zavaley 

We feature James Dickey’s poem, Diabetes, with our guest, the renowned physician-poet Dr. Jack Coulehan. We discuss insights the poem offers about the trajectory of type 2 diabetes from the time of symptom onset until the time a balance is achieved between maximum compliance with disease management requirements and the compromises an acceptable lifestyle can necessitate for many individuals. In addition to providing his perspectives on how the poem expands on the biomedical components of diabetes in recognizing effects such as fear, anxiety, frustration, and oppression, Dr. Coulehan recounts how he has used this poem and others in teaching medical students and residents. He also tells stories of particular instances in which he used poetry as part of the care he provided certain patients, and as a way to connect with them. 

Links:
Dr. Jack Coulehan’s bio and posts on Medhum.org

The poem, Diabetes, and the comparative biomedical text discussed can be seen here in Russell Teagarden’s blog, According to the Arts. 

Dr. Coulehan’s poem, I’m Gonna Slap Those Doctors, which was central to one of the stories he told, can be accessed here. And, his poem, The Man with Stars Inside Him, which was central to another story he told, can be accessed here.

In this episode, we make a distinction between illness as the subjective perceptions of a health problem and disease as the pathological basis of a health problem. This distinction is explained in much greater depth here in According to the Arts. 

The Clinic & The Person is a podcast developed by our editor Russell Teagarden to summon or quicken the attention of health care professionals, their educators, researchers and others to the interests and plights of people with specific health problems aided through knowledge and perspectives the humanities provide.

Feature image by Álvaro Serrano