Out of the gay rights activism in the 1970s came AIDS activism in the early 1980s. By then, the incidence and severity of AIDS had become evident and caused enough fear to generate social backlash against those with the disease. This, along with federal government insouciance at the time, made it necessary for gay rights activists to extend their remit into advocacy for health care specialization and research advancements for AIDS. The expanded activism was visible on the streets and at governmental research institutions (e.g., National Institutes of Health). Where it was also taking place, and not in such an obvious way, was within certain hospitals.  

San Francisco General Hospital answered the call first in 1983 when it created a special unit for the care of people with AIDS in “Ward 5B.” The unit was in operation through its move in 1986 into Ward 5A to accommodate more patients, and until 2003 when advances in antiretroviral treatment of AIDS made the unit no longer necessary. But throughout, the struggle to maintain and advance the unit medically, socially, and politically persisted. The documentary film, aptly named “5B,” covers the struggles, successes, and failures of the unit, and the activism required of the staff and advocates for its creation and ongoing viability.  

From the Inside 

The story is told from various perspectives through interviews with key figures in the unit’s development and operation, and with archival footage of the unit and AIDS activism in the community. The most prominent among the key figures is Cliff Morrison, a clinical nurse specialist who spearheaded the idea for the unit and then managed it. Several other nurses who served in staff and supervisory positions are also featured. Participating physicians include Paul Volberding, an oncologist at the time who became pivotal in the development of effective HIV treatments, and Julie Gerberding, a physician treating patients on the unit who later became the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Lorraine Day, the chief of orthopedic surgery at the hospital when the unit opened, is heard often as an opposing voice. Hank Plante, a local television news reporter, also appears frequently to offer his perspectives on many of the social and political issues swirling around the unit. Among other participants are AIDS activists, volunteers, and family members of unit patients. 

Several storylines frame the documentary including how nurses drove the unit’s inception and then were instrumental in running it. “Nurses were in charge,” said Volberding, admiringly. Interwoven throughout the film are the experiences of the patients and individual nurses, including one nurse who was infected with HIV from a needle stick. “Those nurses were the real heroes,” said one activist.    

Rare is the story, though, about heroes who aren’t confronted with daunting challenges, and thus this documentary includes a storyline involving attacks the unit nurses encountered from inside the hospital. The nurses of this unit practiced in ways they considered safe but not in such a manner that would preclude them from touching patients or require them to don so much protective gear they become unseeable. Nurses and clinicians from other units objected and did not want to be compelled to adopt practices they thought endangered them on the occasions they took care of AIDS patients. The film follows this story through union grievances and public debates to their conclusion, which sided with the unit nurses and their advocates. The spirit of activism among the unit staff was pivotal in fending off the many challenges they faced. 

Keeping in Touch 

The documentary reveals stark juxtapositions that can manifest in the midst of an infectious epidemic, and in particular when an epidemic selects an identifiable group that is unwelcome in mainstream society. Two juxtapositions that stand out are the emotion of love with that of fear, and those who are deemed worthy with those who are considered disreputable. 

No treatments for the HIV infection or for the many horrid and lethal diseases resulting from AIDS were available when the unit opened—it was “a very, very unpleasant death” as one nurse put it. The nurses saw a big part of their role as offering love: “Here you were allowed to love your patients.” They offered it through human touch. Morrison’s view was, “If we can’t save these folks, we’re going to touch them.” To touch the patients in this way required that they balance it with the risk of exposure to infection and still comply with universal precautions. Nevertheless, fear was prevalent—some people were “truly hysterical” according to Gerberding—and it touched off conflict among the health care staff. “People were afraid…we found ourselves attacking each other…everyone was so stressed,” is how Volberding described the situation. This balance is one that is continuously negotiated in health care settings, but it was more pronounced during the early years of the AIDS epidemic, and at San Francisco General, it had to be mediated by hospital and union officials. 

At the time unit opened, and for a long while after, people with AIDS were scorned. The gay lifestyle was linked to the disease and so a view held by many was that the gay community deserved to be struck down by this plague. They were not worthy of all the human resources, technology, and money the disease required. The documentary brings this sentiment to life by showing the actions some people took to prevent getting these patients help, and the actions governments didn’t take to help them. Also shown, however, was how the activism of health care professionals and others in Ward 5B helped to overcome these obstacles. Without it in the case of the unit in Ward 5B, the activism in the streets outside the hospital alone may not have been enough.  

But Then 

These fevers abated some when medical advances produced treatments that obviated the need for AIDS units, and changes in societal attitudes led to more acceptance of gay lifestyles. The next epidemic that targeted marginalized and susceptible groups would determine whether lessons learned from the time of this unit had been incorporated in response protocols. That opportunity came the year this documentary was released in 2019 when Covid struck elderly people first and hardest, and especially those in communal living arrangements.  

Note: 

The documentary was featured on the podcast episode, How Terrible It Was: Three Takes on the AIDS Crisis with Dr. Ross Slotten, which can be accessed here on medhum. In addition to the documentary, the podcast episode included the novel, The Great Believers, and the memoir, The Plague Years: A Doctor’s Journey through the AIDS Crisis were discussed. The author of the memoir, Dr. Ross Slotten, joined the podcast as a guest. 

Title image credit: 
James Steakley, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons 

Documentary information: 
Film title: 5B
Directors: Paul Haggis, Dan Krauss 
Studio: Vertical Entertainment 
Viewing source: Amazon Prime 
U.S. release date: June, 2019 
Run time: 134 minutes  

Trailers from 5B Film

Change Not Charity traces the grassroots movement leading to the passage in 1990 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the law that mandates accessibility for the disabled.  

People with disabilities have a long history of being isolated, excluded socially as well as physically from facilities that were not accessible. Beginning in the late 1960’s, Jerry Lewis’ Labor Day Telethons were watched by nearly half of the country and raised millions of dollars towards finding a cure for muscular dystrophy. But despite its good intentions, by arousing the audience’s pity of the disabled to attract donations, the telethons also heightened the distance between “normal” people and people with disabilities. 

Children were among those whose disabilities affected them in harmful ways. In one of the many interviews, Cynthia Jones describes how, at the age of five and a half, she was selected as a poster child for the March of Dimes because she was “blonde, blue-eyed, and braced.” When her teacher passed around a flyer to promote polio vaccines in class, she was horrified to see a picture of two children, one labeled “This”, the other “Not This.” Cynthia was the “Not This.” At that moment, she realized that no one wanted to be like her. In fact, many young children with disabilities were institutionalized and kept out of the public eye. 

In February 1972, reporter Geraldo Rivera’s broadcast from inside Willowbrook State School, an institution for disabled children on Staten Island, shocked the nation and helped spark the disability rights movement. At the same time, a group of disabled college students in Berkeley, with a donation from the Rotary Club, formed the Center for Independent Living (CIL), offering services which included applying for government assistance, counseling and transportation. CIL drew disabled people from throughout the country who wanted to live in a place where they could find support and practical help. Judy Heumann, a disability rights advocate who had successfully sued the NYC Board of Education when she was denied a teaching position, became the Center’s Deputy Director.  

 In 1973, an update to the Federal Rehabilitation Act was enacted to help veterans. At the end of the document there was a 46-word clause, Section 504, barring discrimination against the disabled in federally funded institutions. People with disabilities took note, but the new regulations languished unsigned until demonstrators occupied the Federal Building in San Francisco and protested in Washington DC. The demonstrations drew national attention and led to Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano signing the regulation into law. Years later, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act expanded the earlier regulation to include private institutions and businesses.  

The story of the disability rights movement has elements that resonate today. Letter-writing campaigns and connections forged with members of Congress and the Executive Branch helped garner support for pending legislation and advance the movement’s agenda. Justin Dart, Vice Chair of the National Council of the Handicapped, crisscrossed the country holding town meetings to find out about discrimination in local communities. He issued his findings in a report titled “Toward Independence,” which served as a roadmap for disability legislation. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was initially introduced in 1988, at which time opponents called it the bankruptcy bill because the cost of creating accessible spaces was considered too exorbitant. In Washington DC, people parked their wheelchairs and maneuvered up the steps to the US Capitol into the Rotunda where over 100 protesters were arrested. ADA was finally passed two years later in 1990 with the support of President George H.W. Bush.   

The disability rights movement led to significant change in large part because people showed up repeatedly over the years in multiple venues across the country to ensure their voices were heard. And while much has been achieved, the documentary ends with a reminder that there is still more work needed, citing that two out of three adults with disabilities are not in the work force.  

Change Not Charity, part of the PBS’s American Experience series, is a comprehensive overview of the pivotal events leading up to the passage of ADA, using archival footage of demonstrations and interviews with participants, Congressmen, and legal advocates. The documentary is directed by Jim LeBrecht, who won the Academy Award for his previous documentary Crip Camp, a more personal documentary, with its focus on some of the key people in the movement beginning with their experiences at the sleepaway camp. Both documentaries provide insight into the struggles faced by the disabled and the efforts to advance disability rights.  

Change Not Charity Film Trailer

CHANGE NOT CHARITY  

Director: Jim LeBrecht 
Narrator: Peter Dinklage
A STEWARD/GAZIT PRODUCTIONS FILM FOR AMERICAN EXPERIENCE 2025 
RT 53 minutes 

Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution 

Carol Schilling Jan 3, 2025

A powerful film celebrating disability rights, resilience, and community, revealing untold struggles and triumphs that demand greater recognition and action

It is one thing to read about bipolar disorder in a textbook, and another thing to observe it firsthand. Some of us have friends or family members whom we have seen in the throes of a manic episode. As a psychiatrist, I have witnessed mania at close range literally hundreds of times. But to be an audience member and to experience it in a way that manages to be both educational and entertaining is a rare privilege. And to do so as a multimedia event, fusing theater with visual arts, is surely unique.  

Sam Kissajukian’s one-man show 300 Paintings is a must-see that is currently enjoying a return engagement at the Vineyard Theatre in New York. (It is purely a coincidence that the theater, just off Union Square, is a block away from my former psychiatric office of eighteen years.)  

Kissajukian is an Australian stand-up comic. In 2021, during the pandemic, he experienced a five-month bipolar manic episode. During that time, despite having no previous background in visual arts, he decided to become a painter. Moving into a warehouse, he began to paint. He barely slept, frequently turning out multiple works a day. By the end of the episode he had created three hundred paintings, documenting his mental state.  

Kinssajukian has created the show he calls 300 Paintings as the culmination of his personal and artistic journey. The show has won numerous awards, including Best Comedy at Sydney Fringe 2022 and 2023, and the Mental Health Awareness Award at Adelaide Fringe 2024. It has played at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and it first came to the Vineyard last fall. He has also had several exhibitions of his paintings, and has come out as a strong advocate for mental health awareness. 

While 300 Paintings calls on the author’s experience as a comic, it is no mere stand-up routine. At 80 minutes it has the dimension and scope of a play. There are serious undertones, yet there are many undoubtedly funny parts: We hear how at his most grandiose Kinssajukian thinks of himself as a “Pisscasso” who goes through a blue period in days, rather than years. At another point he describes how he affected a beret. Funny or serious, he is always charming and engaging, and he breaks it up by showing projections of his work.  

There are times when the dialogue takes on the rapid, pressured speech of a person who is manic, and his thought process shows the jumping from topic to topic that a psychiatrist refers to as “flight of ideas,” But this feels intentional. At no time do you worry that the performer does not have it under control. And he readily attributes this to his rapid diagnosis and treatment by a psychiatrist.  

At the end of the performance, Kissajukian announces that a curated exhibition of his paintings is on view in the lobby, and that he will be available to meet the audience.  

Two Paintings by Kissajukian

Podcast

Web image provided by Sam Kissajukian

​​​Public reactions to t​he fatal shooting of a health care insurance company executive in front of a hotel in Midtown Manhattan on December 4, 2024, revealed a deep, seething antipathy across the country directed at the health insurance industry​, an antipathy that has existed for at least thirty years. ​Its ​persistence brings to mind four movies​: As Good as It Gets, Critical Care, and Rainmaker​, released in 1997 and ​John Q ​in 2002, ​each depicting scenarios where rage against the healthcare system play a key role. ​​​​​​ 

​As creators in the arts often do, the makers of these movies were picking up on trends and signals before they were appreciated throughout society, and envisioning how they might play out in real life​ 

How it starts 

“Fucking HMO bastards, pieces of shit…sorry.”  

This is how Carol reacts to the pediatrician who tells her the HMO should have covered certain tests for her suffering, asthmatic son. “Actually, I think that’s their technical name,” is the doctor’s response. This is from a scene in the 1997 movie, As Good as It Gets, directed by James L. Brooks. The movie won major awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts, Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and Screen Actors Guild​. It​ also ​drew ​attention from the mainstream press for revealing a building rage about to boil over.  

Ruthe Stein, from the San Francisco Chronicle, sensing the importance of the scene, wrote on December 23, 1997, 

As Good as It Gets may be the first movie to take on HMOs…Brooks strikes a chord when he has Carol use four-letter words to describe the HMO that has mangled her son’s case. The audience hoots and claps its approval.  

​​Then- ​President Clinton pointed to the scene as representative of real life while speaking at an event involving the Health Care Bill of Rights. 

Movies Raging Against the Managed Care Machine 

As Good as It Gets (1997, director – James L. Brooks). The movie mostly concerns the relationship between an author with obsessive compulsive disorder and a waitress whom the author depends on for a routine set of practices around his breakfasts. A side story involves the waitress’ young son who has severe asthma. At one point he needed certain tests done, but his health plan refused coverage. This situation led to the scene in which the boy’s mother reacted to this news in a way that attracted widespread public attention. The scene lasted for less than a minute, yet its effect on the image of managed care activities continued for years.  

The Rainmaker (1997, director – Francis Ford Coppola). The movie plot involves a scam operation posing as a health insurance company. A young lawyer, fresh from passing the bar exam, takes on the company through the case of a plaintiff. The plaintiff is a young man who has a form of leukemia that can be successfully treated but will kill him otherwise. The insurance company denies coverage for the needed treatment and denies seven subsequent appeals. The lawyer eventually ascertains that the company denies all claims as a matter of course. Although a judgment is made against it, the company declares bankruptcy and goes out of business, thereby vitiating the settlement awarded. The patient dies. The movie is perhaps best-known for a line said by the lawyer’s assistant which fueled the growing public sentiment at the time: “There’s nothing more thrilling than nailing an insurance company.”  

Critical Care (1997, director – Sidney Lumet). The setting for the movie is mostly in a hospital critical care unit. As in As Good as It Gets, a particular scene feeds the fury to come about managed care. A resident physician taking care of a terminal patient who has been clear about not wanting to continue treatments that only prolong suffering, argues with a senior physician and mentor about the advisability of putting the patient through yet more futile interventions. With his guard down from a combined state of inebriation and dementia, the senior physician tells the resident that the patient is fully insured and is thus a source of guaranteed revenue. He goes on to explain the economics (and immorality) driving these decisions.  

[With HMOs] we get paid not to perform medical procedures. It’s a little like when the government pays the farmers not to grow crops. However, with insurance we get paid to perform medical procedures. Do you understand the difference?  

On that basis, and that basis alone, he demands that the resident proceed full speed ahead. 

With this scene, the moviemaker is going further than pointing to just the managed care organizations as the source of rage, but also to the health care providers who can spot opportunities for self-dealing. Viewers already sensitized to managed care activities could become even more worried, incensed, or nihilistic about the situation.  

John Q (2002, director – Nick Cassavetes). About the same time John Q. Archibald’s full-time factory job is cut in half, along with his health insurance, his son collapses from heart failure while playing in a Little League baseball game. After a cardiologist tells John about his son’s need for a heart transplant and the financial requirements which he can’t meet, a nurse he asked why his heart condition had not been detected before tells them, “HMOs pay the doctors not to test. That’s how they keep costs down.” This comes up again when John asks the cardiologist how it could be that his son’s condition had never been discovered. An accompanying intern chimes in saying,  

HMOs pay their doctors not to test. That’s their way of keeping costs down. Let’s say Mike did need additional testing and insurance says they won’t cover them. The doctor keeps his mouth shut and, come Christmas, the HMO sends the doctor a fat-ass bonus check. 

The surgeon qualifies the intern’s assertion as possible but unlikely.  

Try as he might, John Q cannot come up with the $75,000 down payment. The hospital administrator will not put his son on the transplant list, and he is released to be taken home where he will die. John pulls out a gun and takes the emergency room hostage. No one is killed, no one is shot, and a solution is found in the end. However, the movie raised the level of rage to one that produced the possibility of gun violence.  

How It Ends? 

Nearly thirty years have passed since these first movies depicted the rage that came in response to aggressive measures directed at managing health care costs, especially when they involved restrictions on certain products and services health care providers ordered and patients expected. Did these movies get it right? In large measure, they did. Management activities got more aggressive over the years and indeed many of those portrayed that were particularly egregious became a reality for some. As a medical affairs executive in a large pharmacy benefit company before, during, and after these movies were released, I witnessed (and fought against) the scenarios they depict as well as many others as bad or worse (with the exception of gun violence).  

Where the movies helped to identify the problems early and possibly stoked the existing rage by bringing attention to them, they, along with professional health organizations, news media, and consumer advocates, pushed legislatures and regulatory agencies into creating laws and rules concerning how these activities are managed. These measures helped some, but media stories, books, and movies highlighting the problems appear regularly, keeping the rage alive, and maybe even intensifying it to the level anticipated in John Q. Maybe, even, to the level that played out on an early morning Manhattan street in December 2024.  

Podcast: The Clinic & The Person

Film Trailers

As Good as It Gets Trailer

John Q Trailer

The Rainmaker Trailer

Critical Care Trailer

Web photo by Christian Harb 

The phenomenon sometimes referred to as “baby blues,” a mild transient state affecting as many as 80% of new mothers, had been recognized early on. In his influential 1946 book on baby care Dr. Benjamin Spock advised that one could snap out of it by just going “to a movie, or to the beauty parlor, or [getting] yourself a new hat or dress” (p. 29). If a new dress did not do the trick, the implication in that era was that you were a defective woman. In the 1962 edition, Spock still repeated the same advice verbatim. The notion there could be a persistent mood disorder requiring treatment required far longer to catch on. In her book, Moran elucidates some of the factors that rendered it difficult to accept the existence of postpartum depression and explain why persistent advocacy was necessary.  

One such factor involved organized psychiatry. While early editions of the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) had proposed psychodynamic causes for mental illnesses, in an attempt to be neutral about their origins the DSM-III did not include postpartum disorders as discrete entities. One implication of this was that there was no code to use to get health insurance to reimburse for medical care. The result, according to James Alexander Hamilton, a psychiatrist who had written the first modern monograph on postpartum mental illness, was that “many thousands of very sick women [were] very badly treated” (p. 67). It took several editions of the DSM until this was addressed. And even in DSM-V, postpartum depression would still be coded as Major Depressive Disorder with peripartum onset.  

Eventually the idea there was something more serious than” baby blues” yet still relatively common took root in the public consciousness. One began to hear about it on television talk shows. Yet these appearances often featured extreme cases such as that of Andrea Yates who had drowned her five children: “Tragedy and insanity got ratings. This still allowed advocates a chance to raise awareness on a massive national platform. But it also made postpartum depression frightening and unclear” (p. 166). It took celebrities such as Brooke Shields to come out about their experiences to change the national conversation. After publishing a memoir about her postpartum depression, in 2005 the actress went on the Today Show where she was criticized by Tom Cruise for using antidepressants. When the public rallied behind Shields, this proved to be a turning point for the movement. 

When national bipartisan legislation was proposed to increase awareness and to fund research for postpartum depression, the issue became a political football. Anti-abortion activists coined a brand new “disorder” they called “post-abortion syndrome” and would not consider supporting one without the other. It was not until the passage of the Affordable Care Act that the MOTHERS act went through, and not even then without the concession to abortion politics.  

If Moran’s book breezes through the science behind postpartum depression somewhat rapidly, its chronicle of an important advocacy movement for women’s health makes it worthwhile, and its extensive use of oral histories within the context of the author’s own history ensures it is an interesting read.  

Blue
Rachel Louise Moran
University of Chicago Press, 2024, 304 pages

Web image by Alexander Grey 

See https://www.postpartum.net/ for information about Postpartum Support International, one of the advocacy groups profiled in Blue.  

The Center for the Study of Tobacco in Society is ready for the 2024 Election. Check out their new exhibit: A Vote for Cancer: Tobacco Advertising and Presidential Elections and read an interview with the Center’s founder, Dr. Alan Blum, in conversation with Jack Coulehan.

Tobacco was America’s first cash crop and a mainstay of the US economy for 300 years. So it’s no surprise that manufacturers of cigars, chewing tobacco, and cigarettes have had a presence in presidential and other electoral campaigns since the mid-19th century.

The first Presidential campaign buttons appeared in 1896 – promoting Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan — and were given away by Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company to promote its Sweet Caporals cigarettes. By the mid-1900s, cigarette advertisers would distribute whimsical presidential campaign buttons featuring advertising icons such as Philip Morris’s bellhop Little Johnny and Brown and Williamson’s Willie the Penguin. The button gimmick culminated in RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company’s nationwide “Vote for Joe” advertising campaign in 1992 for its cartoon character Joe Camel.

Toward the close of the 20th century, the combination of restrictions on cigarette advertising and the approval of political action committees by Congress enabled cigarette makers to donate directly to Presidential candidates and lessened the need for cigarette product advertising.

Alan Blum, MD
Introduction to A Vote for Cancer: Tobacco Advertising and Presidential Elections

Interview with Alan Blum

Jack Coulehan Oct 24, 2024

The battle against smoking evolved from awareness campaigns to challenging a profit-driven industry, using humor, irony, and persistent activism to drive cultural change.

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