Zauner was 25 when her mother was diagnosed with an aggressive, late-stage, mid-life cancer. Zauner was a rebellious child, resentful of Umma’s version of tough love. Growing up the lone Asian student in her Oregon community, she felt both othered at school and an outsider among her mother’s Seoul relatives when she visited them each summer. Just as she was beginning to appreciate her Korean heritage and understand her mother’s love, she learned about Umma’s diagnosis.   

The first half of the memoir exuberantly brings to life scenes from Zauner’s childhood and her brief post-college years as a musician in New York City. Surprisingly, without hesitation, she paused her makeshift career and flew west to care intensively for her mother. Attempting to heroically save Umma, Zauner zealously learned to prepare the native foods they shared. “I would radiate joy and positivity,” Zauner pledged. “I would learn to cook for her—all the things she loved to eat, and I would single-handedly keep her from withering away” (69). Her optimistic culinary efforts produce a poetry of exacting descriptions of the flavors and textures and preparation of those foods. It’s grimly ironic that the chemotherapy her mother endured wiped out her ability to taste or digest Zauner’s loving offerings of health.  

The second half turns from living with Umma to living without her. Wishing to sustain her bond with her mother as Zauner grieved, she continued preparing her Korean family’s recipes. Walking down H Mart’s redolent aisles released “waves” of sorrow that mark the enduring ebb and flow of her grief. Unsuccessful with conventional therapy, she found cooking the best form of self-care: “Every dish I cooked exhumed a memory. Every scent and taste brought me back for a moment to an unravaged home. Knife-cut noodles in chicken broth took me back to lunch at Myeong Dong Gyoja . . . The kalguksu so dense from the rich beef stock and starchy noodles it was nearly gelatinous. My mother ordering more and more refills of their famously garlic-heavy kimchi” (212-213). An image of abundance in the midst of loss.

Zauner’s detailed descriptions of cooking and consuming invite readers to her table, reminding us—as previous celebrated writers have—of the power of the senses to evoke memory and the power of food to strengthen human bonds. Food also powers Zauner’s self-understanding and the unexpected transformational love for her mother: “The culture we shared was active, effervescent in my gut and in my genes, and I had to seize it, foster it so it did not die in me . . . If I could not be with my mother, I would be her” (223-224).  

Zauner’s writing is itself active and effervescent. Through her grief, she holds a steady, unflinching gaze on cancer and death. As she writes candidly about her family, Zauner is critically reflective about her own life. Her writerly achievement is the immediacy of her felt experiences, her grief and her joys made palpable. “Let me feel this,” she courageously writes, dismissing her Korean family’s admonitions to withhold tears (202). An unforgettable image of the process of loving transformation that Zauner experienced unfolds in her description of making the Korean staple kimchee. It is a slow, exacting process of fermenting cabbage that at first strikes her as “controlled death” because “[l]eft alone, a head of cabbage molds and decomposes. It becomes rotten, inedible. But when brined and stored, the course of its decay is altered. Sugars are broken down to produce lactic acid, which protects it from spoiling. Carbon dioxide is released and the brine acidifies. It ages. Its color and texture transmute. It exists in time and transforms. So it is not quite controlled death, because it enjoys a new life altogether” (223). 

As if miraculously, a few years after Umma died, Zauner’s itinerant music career took on a new life. The band she has fronted, Japanese Breakfast, recorded the album Psychopop with a song she wrote about her mother, “In Heaven.” Then they toured the U.S. and South Korea. Although her mother was skeptical about a musical career, Zauner imagined that Umma would be “glad that I had finally found a place where I belonged” (233). 

Crying in H Mart: A Memoir
Michelle Zauner

Publisher Alfred A Knopf
Place Published New York
Edition 2021
Page Count 239

Web photo by Portuguese Gravit

The trajectories of tuberculosis (TB) and opera met in the mid-nineteenth century most notably with the production of La Traviata in 1853, and then La Bohème near the century’s end. With eminent scholars Linda and Michael Hutcheon, we talk about how these trajectories converged and how these resulting two operas then brought attention to the medical effects of the infection and the sociocultural influences on its spread. We also discuss how the discovery of germ therapy during the time between the staging of these operas affected the way social behaviors changed accordingly, that is, from understanding TB as hereditary to understanding it as infectious. We play audio clips from parts of the operas pertinent to perspectives provided. 

A big thanks to Drs Linda and Michael Hutcheon who in addition to providing their expertise and perspectives during the podcast, also contributed ideas for the production. 

Links
– The combined bio for Linda and Michael Hutcheon.
– The New York Metropolitan Opera on-demand video service where you can get access to high-quality video productions of La Traviata and La Bohème among many other operas and performances. (There could be a 7-day free trial available).
– Homer Simpson performing as Rudolpho in La Bohème singing Oh Dio! Mimi!
– We covered the effects of TB as an aesthetic ideal of beauty during the nineteenth century as represented in paintings earlier in episode 5.

Audio Credits
La Traviata
Preludio (National Philharmonic Orchestra; Richard Bonynge cond London Records 1979)
Prendi, Quest’È L’Immagine (Orchestra of the Opera House, Rome; Tullio Serafin cond; Victoria de los Angeles (Violetta); EMI Records Ltd 1960; digitally remastered 1992)

La Bohème
O Soave Fanciulla (Berlin Philharmonic; Herbert von Karajan cond; Mirella Freni (Mimi); Luciano Pavarotti (Rudolfo); Rolando Panerai (Marcello); London Records 1972)
Si. Mi Chiamono Mimi (ibid)
Mimi È Una Civetta (ibid)
Mimi È Tanto Malata! (ibid)

La Bohème photo from wikicommons

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  

04.22.26 472

Book ReviewVideo

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr 

04.21.26 665

Book ReviewFocusVideo

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

04.13.26 685

FocusReflection

Craftivism is Activism

03.23.26 656

Load More

Load More

For this Apollo on Call x W5H Book Club episode, Dave and Luki read Other Rivers: A Chinese Education by Peter Hessler. The book focuses on the quirks and challenges in the education system the author witnessed as a visiting professor in China. At the end, Dave and Luki reflect on an entire year of reading books about China, and how they feel at the end of this journey.

Check out Dave’s Substack for more! 

Web image created by Medhum.

But medically assisted death is not new. It has been present and debated since at least Greco-Roman antiquity and probably much earlier. However, its current status in various countries and within them is fraught with controversy even after legalization. For their involvement, euthanasia providers have been celebrated – and they have gone to jail. They have been portrayed as heroes or as villains, prominent among them American pathologist, Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011). Sometimes, health care workers are wrongly accused of killing their patients, especially when an unusual cluster of deaths arises – one example being the vicious prosecution of Canadian pediatric nurse Susan Nelles in 1981 for having murdered unhealthy neonates. She was later vindicated, absolved of all blame.  

Yet those of us who have worked with seriously ill people on the hospital wards know that a therapeutic choice to help suffering can run the risk of shortening those few remaining days. I recall more than half a century ago, a diminutive, elderly patient, writhing in agony on her bed. A much-respected senior clinician on his rounds demanded to know why we had not given “enough” morphine. “But chief!” we protested, “to raise the dose could stop her breathing!” “Why are you giving morphine?” he asked. “To relieve the pain.” “Have you succeeded?” “No.” “Then give enough; enough to make her comfortable” We did. She stopped moaning and died soon after. Unforgettable. We realized that decisions like this must be happening everywhere, but they occur within a cloud of trepidation, as bereaved family members might choose to make accusations. 

Prior to Canada’s 2016 legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD), people seeking help to end their lives with dignity would sometimes go to Switzerland. There, providing assistance to a person able to voluntarily self-administer lethal drugs had been legal (with variations) since the 1940s. In 1998, the Swiss non-profit organization Dignitas was founded to offer assisted death (or assurances thereof) to its members. In 2010, 89-year-old Kay Carter of Vancouver, who was suffering from spinal stenosis, went to Switzerland to end her life. It seemed outrageous that “death with dignity” was available to citizens who could afford to leave the country– yet everyone else was deprived. After her death, the Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada’s law against assisted suicide is known as “Carter vs Canada.” Considering that ordinary suicide had been illegal in Canada until 1972, these changes reflect a remarkable and relatively rapid shift in attitudes to death and dying.  

But the controversies are not over. And Canada is far from alone. Religious objections can be found in many communities. Vulnerable and disabled people together with their caregivers worry that they could be targeted or urged to accept assisted suicide by institutions wanting to save money. The prohibitions on access for children or the mentally ill are repeatedly challenged and have been overturned in some jurisdictions. Psychiatrists argue that assisted suicide would rarely be contemplated if more mental health services were available. Palliative care doctors resent the implication that they should be the administrators of euthanasia; they saw themselves as purveyors of comfort for life, not death. They pointed to the World Health Organization emphasis on the global need for more palliative care, and they complained that the new law made patients even more hesitant to accept their help. Swirling throughout these debates is the well-intentioned question about how a society should treat the least of its members: humane treatment or humane killing. 

It is scarcely surprising, then, Assistedlab.ch comes out of Switzerland; nor is it surprising that it finds a rich supply of sources. Launched in 2023, it claims to be “a living archive of assisted dying” that strives neither to endorse nor criticize the movement. Led by Anna Elsner, a professor of French Culture and Medical Humanities at the University of St Gallen whose 2011 doctorate from Cambridge focused on mourning in the work of Marcel Proust. Her polyglot team includes three other investigators and a manager, all with doctorates in either history or literature, all with Swiss affiliations. They are supported by ten assistants, mostly graduate students, seven from Canada and one each from the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. They rely on an advisory board of four distinguished scholars from Montreal, Glasgow, London, and Garrison, New York (the Hastings Center).  

Funded in part by a starting grant from the European Research Council for five years (2023-2028), assistedlab.ch also acknowledges support from several other universities. It is active on Bluesky with 1400 followers and, in mid-2025, launched a newsletter to feature the latest entries and events of interest. 

Aside from its specific subject-matter, assistedlab.ch has many features in common with our own Medhum, the most obvious being the preparation of reviews by team members. The site is plain but attractive and color-coded for analysis of textual, performance, visual and audio sources, the majority being textual sources. Each menu entry sports a black and white image, which sometimes turns to color upon clicking. The sources – fiction and non-fiction books, short stories, essays, films, plays, artwork, podcasts, memoirs, news reports, and farewell letters from the recently deceased. Most sources are linked from the articles describing them, most from recent decades but some dating back to the 1990s. A bibliographic list of further reading in print or other media accompanies each entry. Keyword tags and an efficient search function make exploration easy. 

At the time of writing, assistedlab gathers more than a hundred articles, all in English, although the works examined can be in other languages. In addition, a news section, similarly color-coded, provides information about upcoming and recently past events: lectures, theatre, conferences, workshops, interviews and new publications. Thoughtful description takes precedence over hyperbolic criticism or praise, making the site welcoming for anyone approaching this dire matter with curiosity for themselves or their loved ones in terms of personal or professional life. It will be fascinating to learn usage statistics for assistedlab.ch, not only the numbers, but also the geographic origins and user traits, for it should serve a wide array of human beings as we wrestle with the most fundamental of existential questions facing us all.  

Web image from Assistedlab.ch.

Many modern physicians minimize, or are unaware of, a second source of historical medical success: the power of language and ritual to facilitate physical and psychological healing. Assisted by his priests, Aesculapius, the Greek god of medicine, healed the sick through poetry, narrative, and ritual. Even Hippocrates, the father of naturalistic Western medicine, paid tribute to Aesculapius in his famous Oath, and emphasized in many of his case histories the importance of interpersonal and contextual factors in patient care. While the healing power of language and context was rarely explicit in the subsequent history of Western medicine, it finally emerged into consciousness during the last two hundred years, when it was given the name placebo effect. Initially considered a minor aberration in suggestible people, more recently this component of healing has been recognized as an almost universal human facility (or reaction) of varying and sometimes amazing power.  

In this essay I present a case study of a traditional healing ceremony in which the therapy consists entirely of language, especially poetry, and the ritual context in which the language is spoken and chanted. I argue that this is a very powerful example of contextual healing. I then examine our contemporary understanding of the placebo effect, which is also a form of contextual healing, albeit ordinarily much less striking and more “dilute” than the Navajo example. Finally, I comment briefly on some features of healing miracles in the Catholic Church, arguing that these, too, are powerful instances of contextual healing that suggest at their upper limit, so to speak, such mechanisms may actually be able to reverse disease processes, like cancer or neurological impairment. Of course, this outcome is rare, unpredictable, and not at all understood.  

Sarah Mailcarrier and the Night Way 

Dark cloud is at the door. 
The trail out of it is dark cloud. 
The zigzag lightning stands high upon it. 
An offering I make. 
Restore my feet for me. 
Restore my legs for me. 
Restore my body for me. 
Restore my mind for me. 
Restore my voice for me. 
This very day take out your spell for me.  

Happily, I recover. 
Happily my interior becomes cool. 
Happily I go forth. 
My interior feeling cool, may I walk. 
No longer sore, may I walk. 
Impervious to pain, may I walk. 
With lively feelings may I walk. 
As it used to be long ago, may I walk.¹ 

These lines constitute a small segment from one of the poems chanted during the Night Way, a nine-day Navajo healing ceremony. In the early 1970s, Sarah Mailcarrier was the matriarch of an extended family whose camp was at Cornfields in Beautiful Valley near Klagetoh Mesa. A healthy woman well into her 60s, she developed severe lower abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, poor appetite, and swelling of her legs over a period of two to three months. Her family took her to Fort Defiance Indian Hospital, some 50 miles from home, where she was discovered to be suffering from cancer of the cervix, which had spread widely, blocking lymphatic ducts in her legs and partially obstructing her kidneys. The recommended treatment was palliative radiation at Gallup Indian Medical Center, a larger hospital in Gallup, New Mexico, another 30 miles distant from Cornfields. Sarah and her family declined this option and, instead, consulted a hand trembler, who diagnosed her problem and recommended a Night Way Sing or healing ceremony. The family hired a ha’a’tali or traditional healer who, along with his assistants, conducted the ceremony over nine days and nights at her camp in Cornfields.² 

According to Navajo diagnostic taxonomy, Sarah had fallen out of harmony with the cosmic narrative that defines the proper relationships among the Earth Surface People, the Holy People, and the natural world. This likely was the result of certain traumatic exposures and events in her life. Healing would require restoration of harmony through the chants, rituals, images, and stories that the Holy People had given to the Navajo for just this purpose. The ceremony was successful. Sarah’s symptoms were relieved, her energy restored, her anxiety disappeared, and she continued to function in her role as matriarch for several months until she drifted into a long sleep and died. 

To explore the nature of Sarah’s healing, I have to explain a little more about Navajo medical beliefs. In traditional Navajo thought, all illness represents disharmony, in essence a snag or gap in the interconnectedness that characterizes the dineh (people), the harmonious Navajo Way. While there are many causes of disharmony (e.g. witchcraft, demon possession, soul loss, taboo violation, and traumatic exposure, as with Sarah Mailcarrier), the goal of treatment is always the same—to restore proper harmony at all levels, from within the patient’s own heart, to his or her relationship to the cosmos.  

The ceremonies, which can last up to nine days, require the patient and family to hire an ha’a’tali and his assistants, and to invite friends and clan members to set aside their other responsibilities and participate in songs, dances, prayers, and other rituals appropriate to the ceremony. Sung by the ha’a’tali these are magnificent narrative poems that tell of the creation of the Navajo people, and how all things were originally placed into their proper order. Likewise, in ceremonial dances, men impersonate Yei Be Chai, intermediaries between the Holy People (whom we might call “gods”) and the Earth Surface People (us), and channel their healing power.  

However, the dineh have never rejected Western medicine. Instead, they have integrated Western physicians, clinics, and hospitals into their overall worldview, considering them synergistic with, rather than antagonistic to, traditional ceremonies. The dineh believe that Western health care has simply added a different set of stories and a different network of ceremonies (e.g. clinic visits, x-rays, penicillin shots, arthritis pills) onto their already existing—and far more important—traditional healing practices. The Navajo were quick to observe that bilighani treatments were effective in alleviating outward manifestations, or what we would call symptoms, of disharmony, but they also maintained that such treatments had no influence on the underlying existential disorder. In other words, penicillin shots and arthritis pills are only symptomatic treatments. While bilighani methods could make the fever or rash or cough disappear, at least for a time, the fundamental issue of disharmony would remain. Why me? What does this illness mean in my life? How does this illness reflect my relationship to the cosmos? These questions could only be answered with reference, for example, to the story of Spider Woman, or the Hero Twins, or other narratives of Navajo cosmogony.  

Returning to Sarah Mailcarrier, it appears that by undergoing a Night Way Sing, she experienced a dramatic improvement in her quality of life. From a Western perspective, why might this be the case? First, the lengthy ceremony provided extensive and intense social support, represented by the participation of her extended family and friends, their contributions of time and money³, and overall solidarity. An extensive body of research indicates that high level of social support and prosocial behavior are associated with longer life, less morbidity, less disability, and greater satisfaction. Second, Sings are integral components of religious practice. For a person like Sarah Mailcarrier, religious belief (in the Western sense of the term) and cultural practices were inextricable. Once again, considerable research indicates that frequency and intensity of religious practice is associated with the same positive outcomes. Third, the ritual chants, vivid poetic images, storytelling, sandpainting, and dancing of the Night Way embody a belief system that generates positive expectations—and restores coherence to the patient’s life.⁴  

These components—social support, core beliefs, and positive expectations—all rely on language and communication. Empathy, the human ability to “intuit” what another person is thinking or feeling⁵, is a more basic neurological property than language, but without language humans could not have created the rich symbolic world in which we live. In the 1980s the psychiatrist Donald Sandler distinguished between Navajo symbolic healing, based on an integrated cultural narrative, including symbol and ritual; and scientific healing, which he believed could be clearly distinguished from the latter and which relies solely on specific instrumental effects of drugs, surgery, and so forth.⁶ Like Sandler, today’s physicians are quite willing to make allowances for the beliefs of patients from other cultures, but at the same time they cling to the belief that scientific medicine transcends culture and our effectiveness as healers is solely, or almost solely, explained by the instrumental effects of drugs and procedures. Thus, there is a widespread belief that scientific medicine is, as a system of curing disease, intrinsically culture-free. Antibiotics kill bacteria whether the patient is a middle-class American or an Amazonian Indian. Culture may enter into the picture for the Indian, e.g. because of his mistaken beliefs about illness, but has no effect on the American, whose beliefs (whatever they are) are medically invisible.  

From Placebo Effect to Contextual Healing 

For over 200 years Western physicians have been explicitly aware of the so-called placebo effect, but for most of that time have considered it a minor and somewhat disreputable factor on the medical scene. The first person to recognize and demonstrate the placebo effect was English physician John Haygarth in 1799, who was curious about the purported benefit a popular medical treatment of his time called “Perkins tractors,” metal pointers supposedly able to ‘draw out’ disease from the patient’s body. They were sold at the extremely high price of five guineas, and Haygarth set out to show that the high cost was unnecessary. He did this by comparing the beneficial results obtained by using dummy wooden tractors with those obtained with a set of allegedly active metal tractors. There was no difference. He published his findings in a book called On the Imagination as a Cause & as a Cure of Disorders of the Body.⁷ Subsequently, the term placebo (“I will please”) was coined to mean, as in this 1811 definition, “an epithet given to any medicine adopted more to please than to benefit the patient.” 

The modern understanding of the power of placebo intervention probably originated with Henry K. Beecher‘s 1955 classic paper, “The Powerful Placebo,” in which he described his experience as a medic during World War II⁸ After running out of pain-killing morphine, in desperation he replaced it with a simple saline solution, while continuing to tell the wounded soldiers that the injection was morphine. He often found that saline appeared to be almost as effective as morphine in relieving his patients’ pain and anxiety. Despite this dramatic demonstration, the orthodoxy surrounding placebo effects for the next several decades came to include three major components:  

• A focus on the specific intervention as its cause, i.e. the pill or the procedure itself “carried” or “transmitted” the placebo effect. 

• Importance of patient vulnerability, i.e. only suggestible persons were placebo-responders. 

• Miscommunication, i.e. the patient must deceived, directly or indirectly, into believing that he or she was receiving an “active” treatment.  

However, research in the last 30 years has completely exploded this orthodoxy and replaced it with a much more complex understanding that sheds light, for example, on the power of traditional medical systems, like the Navajo, that rely on poetry, narrative, and ritual to heal. To quote Franklin Miller and Ted Kaptchuk, two of today’s most prominent investigators in the field: “To promote a more accurate understanding of the elusive and confusing phenomenon known as the placebo effect, we suggest that it should be reconceptualized as contextual healing… Factors that may play a role in contextual healing include the environment of the clinical setting, cognitive and affective communication of clinicians, and the ritual of administering treatment.”⁹ Elsewhere, Kaptchuk added, “Research also suggests that (narrative and) ritual healing not only represents changes in affect, self-awareness, and self-appraisal of behavioral capacities, but involves modulations of symptoms through neurobiological mechanisms.”¹⁰  

Contextual healing, as the term implies, occurs in the context of expectations that arise from a network of beliefs. Moerman and Jonas, highlighting the fact that context can communicate therapeutic meaning to the patient, prefer using the term “meaning response.”¹¹ In some cases these beliefs may be based on past experience, but isolated from, or not intimately connected to, deeply meaningful worldviews (e.g. that penicillin cures a sore throat). In other cases they may closely connected to robust belief systems about the nature and origin of illness and healing (e.g. the Navajo Night Way). The latter are obviously more important than the former. The net valence of one’s beliefs determines the meaning of any medical interaction or treatment and, therefore, one’s expectations of its effect. Language, communication, empathy, narrative, and ritual determine the healing context. The universality of contextual effects on symptom relief has been demonstrated convincingly in neurobiological studies, especially those dealing with pain reduction. For example, on fMRI “placebo” treatment reduces activation of pain-related areas of the brain, e.g. the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.^{12, 13}  

Contemporary research on contextual healing has also revealed a number of unexpected features that are inconsistent with the earlier orthodoxy regarding placebo effects. For example, 

• Placebo effectiveness does not require deception; patients may report relief of symptoms even when told they are receiving placebo treatment.¹⁴ 

• There may be a link between genetic variants in the dopamine, opioid, serotonin, and endocannabinoid pathways in the brain and placebo responsiveness.¹⁵ 

• Placebo effects (as well as nocebo, or harmful effects) can exist in routine clinical practice, even if no “intervention” is given.^{16, 17} 

• Placebo response is greater when observed in clinical practice than when measured in randomized clinical trials.^{8, 19}  

This last feature requires some clarification. This is precisely the opposite of specific medication effects, which are almost always more prominent in clinical trials than in routine practice because the populations in trials are highly homogenized (e.g. limited age range, selected to exclude co-morbidities), adhere to highly structured protocols (e.g. frequent follow-up, expert clinicians. methods to insure, or at least measure, compliance) and include only highly motivated subjects. These conditions are ideal for demonstrating the drug’s maximal specific benefit (efficacy), while at the same time somewhat less ideal for showing contextual healing power, since individual variation and personal narrative are minimized. The specify potency of a drug tends to be less in ordinary clinical practice (effectiveness) where there are a mixture of patients with different ages, backgrounds, comorbidities, and levels of compliance. However, the latter less-than-standardized conditions are likely to enhance the power of contextual healing. For example, “It seems likely that the effectiveness of placebo for pain relief in osteoarthritis can be considerably larger than its efficacy. The artificial conditions of a clinical trial constrain the extent to which context effects…” can be manifested.²⁰ 

Can Language Spoken in Context Cure Disease? 

Given that contextual or narrative healing may be a powerful force in relieving symptoms and improving quality of life, can it ever cure chronic or progressive disease? It is unlikely that Sarah Mailcarrier’s Night Way ceremony damaged her cancer cells or had any influence on their progress. However, it seems clear that narrative healing may in many cases “cure” at least some cases of major depression, generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress syndrome, substance abuse, and perhaps even schizophrenia. Since these disorders are all characterized by abnormal concentrations or function of neurotransmitters, it is safe to say that contextual healing influences brain chemistry. Likewise, fMRI studies have shown that placebo treatments alter brain function. For example, placebo treatment in Parkinson’s disease may result in demonstrable changes in imaging, primarily resulting from increased dopamine release in certain areas of the basal ganglia.²¹ These changes may be associated with improvements in patient function. Likewise, placebo has also been shown to modulate physiological processes, like lowering blood sugar in diabetics and treatment enhancing immune responses, which may be related to neurophysiology in complex ways. ^{22, 23} 

There is a long history of rare, unexplained, but yet well-documented, cures in medicine. As medical knowledge has increased, the number of such inexplicable or “miracle” cures has diminished. Nonetheless, instances of the disappearance of widely metastatic cancer, or the resolution of aggressive autoimmune disease, do occur. Religious persons attribute these unexplained cures to supernatural intervention. Jacalyn Duffin’s 2009 book Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing in the Modern World describes her investigation in the Vatican archives of 1400 cases of miracle cures that were cited as evidence in canonization proceedings between 1588 and 1999.²⁴ Of these, 503 cases occurred in the 20^th century and 220 of them between 1975 and 1999, the final year of her study. Most in the 1975-1999 group were extremely well-documented. 20^th century cures included 41 cases of cancer or leukemia, 109 neurological diseases (e.g. multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Parkinson’s disease), and 89 obvious orthopedic conditions. The unifying factor was that every “miracle” was associated with narrative and ritual. Prayer to Jesus, Mary, or another person, i.e. the candidate for sainthood, took place in various contexts, solitary or communal narrative associated with Masses, novenas, relics, monuments, tombs, etc. These features are all analogous to Navajo healing ceremonies. The same sort of analysis has been applied to “miracle” cures at Lourdes, a pilgrimage site in France, with similar results: a relatively small number of thoroughly documented and inexplicable cures among many thousands of claims.²⁵ 

A Note on Nocebo 

Traditional cultures also recognize the power of language to harm, as well as heal. This includes spells, hexes, curses, and similar verbal insults that produce harmful effects on the person to whom they are directed. Since the phenomenon of “Voodoo death” was described by Cannon in 1942²⁶, various other syndromes of illness and death based on witchcraft and curses were re-evaluated or newly described have been reported; for example, “bone-pointing” (kurdaitcha) in Australia and “breaking tapu” in New Zealand. Among Aboriginal people an individual targeted by bone pointing may die within 24 hours or may decline inexorably over a period of days. ²⁷ Such a curse can only be reversed by the intervention of an appropriate sorcerer. Among the Navajo, many serious illnesses are caused by curses that lead to “soul loss” or “possession.”  

Likewise, in Western medicine the words of physicians or other health care professionals, and the context in which they are spoken, may actually increase a patient’s symptoms, anxiety, and suffering. The eminent internist Eric Cassell, paraphrasing an old childhood chant, taught “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but a word can kill you.” (Personal communication) There is no room here to discuss nocebo-inducing language in medical practice, which is analyzed in detail in chapter 13 of Coulehan and Block.^{28, 29} 

Conclusion 

In this essay I make the claim that contextual healing (aka the placebo effect) plays a major role in medical practice and that language, either spoken verbally, or used internally to represent beliefs and personal meanings, is the carrier or operative agent of contextual healing. In most circumstances contextual healing has a limited, but clinically significant, range of effects. The clinician by employing “skillful means” (to use a Buddhist expression) can promote and enhance contextual healing in the clinical setting.^{20, 31} Navajo medicine is an example of a traditional medical system built almost entirely on exploiting the vast resources available to contextual healing. To a greater or lesser extent, Curanderismo, Vodun, homeopathy, Christian Science, and many other approaches to the treatment of illness are based on contextual healing. The upper limit of this healing power is normally modest, but under certain circumstances for certain people it may be quite spectacular, as in presumptive miracle cures.  

Notes 

1. Navajo Night Way Song, https://www.lindavallejo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Chants-Prayers-Poems-2011-2.pdf, accessed on 3 December 2025. 
2. Coulehan J. May I Walk in Beauty. Humane Medicine, 1992; 8: 65-69. 
3. Kaptchuk TJ. Placebo studies and ritual theory: a comparative analysis of Navajo, acupuncture and biomedical healing. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2011; 366: 1849-1858 
4. By “intuit” I mean the development of a theory of mind (i.e. others have minds just like me). Primates and perhaps some other mammals have an analogous ability, but presumably without a symbolic language. 
5. A Sing is expensive. The patient’s family must hire an ha’a’tali and his assistants and also provide food and drink for a large number of participants and attendees. Some participants must also take time off from their jobs or other pursuits for several days. 
6. Haygarth J MD. On the Imagination as a Cause & as a Cure of Disorders of the Body, Bath; R. Cruttwell, 1801. 
7. Sandler D. Navaho Symbols of Healing. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979, pp. 265-273.  
8. Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. JAMA. 1955;159(17):1602-1606 
9. Miller FG, Kaptchuk TJ. The power of context: reconceptualizing the placebo effect. JRSM. 2008; 101: 222-225, p. 223. 
10. Kaptchuk TJ. Placebo studies and ritual theory: a comparative analysis of Navajo, acupuncture and biomedical healing. Phil Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011; 366: 1849-1858, p. 1849. 
11. Moerman DE, Jonas WB. Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Ann Intern Med 2002; 471-476. 
12. Brody H, Miller FG. Lessons from recent research about the placebo effect—from art to science. JAMA 2011; 306 (23): 2612-2613 
13. Colagiuri B, Schenk LA, Kessler MD, Dorsey SG, Colloca L. The placebo effect: From concepts to genes. Neuroscience. 2015; 307: 171-190 
14. Pecina M, Zubieta JK. Molecular mechanisms of placebo responses in humans. Mol Psychiatry. 2015; 20: 416-423 
15. Miller FG, Coilloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing. Perspect Biol Med. 2009; 52: 518 
16. Stub T, Foss N, Liodden I. “Placebo effect is probably what we refer to as patient healing power”: a qualitative pilot study examining how Norwegian complementary therapists reflect on their practice, BMC Complementary and Alternative Med. 2017; 17:262 
17. Benedetti F, Pollo A, Lopiana L, Lanotte M, Vighetti S, Rainero I. Conscious expectation and unconscious conditioning in analgesic, motor, and hormonal placebo/nocebo responses. J Neurosci. 2003; 23: 4315-4323 
18. Dieppe P, Goldingay S, Greville-Harris M. The power and value of placebo and nocebo in painful osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2016; 24:1850-1857 
19. Haake M, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C et al. German acupuncture trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 1892-1898 
20. Dieppe et al, p. 1852. 
21. Fuente-Fernandez R, Ruth TJ, Sossi V, Schulzer M, Calne DB, Stoessl AJ, Expectation and Dopamine Release: Mechanism of the Placebo Effect in Parkinson’s Disease. Science. 2001; 293: 1164-1166. 
22. Skvortsova A, Veldhuijzen DS, van Dillen LF, Zech H, Derkson SM, Sars RH, Meijer OC, Pijl H, Evers AWM. Influencing the Insulin System by Placebo Effects in Patients With Diabetes Type 2 and Healthy Controls: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2023; 85: 551-560 
23. Smits RM et al. The role of placebo effects in immune-related conditions: mechanisms and clinical considerations. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2018; 14(9): 761-770. 
24. Duffin J. Medical Miracles. Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. 
25. François B, Sternberg EM, Fee E. The Lourdes medical cures revisited. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2014 Jan;69(1):135-62.  
26. Cannon WB. “Voodoo” death. American Anthropologist, 1942; 44: 169-181. Reprinted in Am J Public Health. 2002; 92 (10): 1593-1596. 
27. Spencer, Baldwin; Gillen, F.J. Native Tribes of Central Australia. Cambridge University Press, 2010 [1899], pp. 476–477. 
28. Coulehan J, Block M. The Medical Interview. Mastering Skills for Clinical Practice. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis Company, 5^th edition, 2006, pp. 21-44 and 249-278.  
29. Hansen E, Zech N. Nocebo effects and negative suggestions in daily clinical practice – forms, impact and approaches to avoid them. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Feb 13; 10:77. 
30. Coulehan J, Clary P. Healing the healer: Poetry in Palliative Care, J Palliative Medicine, 2005; 8: 382-389. 
31. Blasini M, Peiris N, Wright T, Colloca L The role of patient-practitioner relationships in placebo and nocebo phenomena. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018; 139:211-231.  

Web image created by Medhum.org

The latter decision unarguably constitutes a significant setback in the struggle for reproductive rights for American women, but the history of access to abortion—and a sense of what the future might hold—may best be understood by taking the long view, across cultures. In Pushback: The 2,500-Year Fight to Thwart Women by Restricting Abortion, historian Mary Fissell does just that. Starting with the story of an enslaved woman in ancient Greece who becomes pregnant after being hired out as a prostitute by her enslaver, Fissell presents a series of case studies. Each one illustrates how women continued to have abortions through the centuries despite changing mores, laws, the influence of the church, and the irregular availability of experienced or qualified providers. The stories also demonstrate a pattern: as women gained more social and economic freedoms, the laws governing abortion became more restrictive, with the pendulum eventually swinging back in the opposite direction to a more liberal stance on abortion.

The enslaved woman in ancient Greece would likely have faced no moral sanction for seeking an abortion—her value lies in her continued availability as a sex worker, and, in her case, a singer. Documents suggest that women in her position would have had the knowledge to end her pregnancy, most likely with an herbal abortifacient, though squatting, jumping and sneezing were also recommended methods of preventing pregnancy immediately after sex. In ancient Rome, the focus on controlling fertility was somewhat different; Roman women had greater freedoms than their Greek sisters, raising concerns about adultery, which Augustus declared as a criminal offense. With  a focus on increasing the number of upper-class Romans who would rule the growing empire, controlling the fertility of elite married women was one way to achieve this end.

Leaving antiquity behind, Fissell nimbly guides us through the Middle Ages. In an era where Christianity is on the rise, and the issue of ensoulment is linked to the experience of quickening (when the pregnant woman first feels the fetus moving), the story of Brigid of Kildare was recorded. Brigid, a holy woman whose historical existence cannot be confirmed, was said to have helped a young woman miraculously end her unwanted pregnancy (a subsequent miracle attributed to Brigid helped a woman preserve her chastity).  The Church’s codified position on abortion was still more than 500 years away and for many of these early Christians, discussions of ensoulment notwithstanding, concerns around abortion as a means of covering up illicit sex appear to have weighed more heavily than any harm to the fetus.

In early modern Europe, in some parts of the continent, abortion had become a capital crime punishable by execution, a development that reflected “a larger cultural shift that sought to control female sexuality in the interests of Church and state.”  The story of Anna Harding who went on trial in 1618 was a case in point. Against the background of a witchcraft panic, Harding  admitted to providing both married and unmarried women with herbal and floral preparations to end their pregnancies. A “confession” under torture to having consorted with a demon led to Harding’s conviction and being burned at the stake. 

Indeed, herbal preparations to end unwanted pregnancies were common to societies as disparate as enslaved women in the Caribbean, who used abortions as an act of resistance, to Victorian women of all classes who sought abortions for many of the same reasons as women do today. Use of one of the herbs best known to induce abortion, pennyroyal, persisted up through the early 20^th century, although not without risk to the pregnant woman.

By this time, the idea that life begins at conception had gained a greater hold in the United States. Hugh Hodge, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, argued this “scientifically-based” premise as early as 1839, while the Pope’s 1869 declaration that life begins at conception would have been presented as divine revelation, though Fissell posits that concern on the part of European monarchs in Catholic countries worrying about depopulation and “degeneration” may well have influenced the pronouncement.

The story of Beatrice J, a Baltimore woman, who safely achieved two self-managed abortions in the 1940s through the aid of a catheter and ergot pills to induce uterine contractions, serves as a more modern example of women who had ended a pregnancy going on to administer abortions to others. In Beatrice’s case, after her trusted pharmacist helped set her up as an abortion provider, an undercover police operation exposed her practice. A trial followed, but charges were ultimately dismissed by a progressive judge on the basis that the “client”  who visited Beatrice was not actually pregnant.

In addition, Fissell points out this was not an isolated example by any means. Even in the most restrictive settings and time periods, there appears to have been a fair amount of  tacit acceptance.  In the U.S., for example, “Physicians performed legal abortions for a variety of indications, and the rest, so-called criminal abortions, went largely unremarked. In the 1920s and ‘30s, abortion providers were rarely prosecuted, whether physicians or not, and the former were at risk only if a woman died.” Moreover, once antibiotics and blood transfusions became available in the 1930s and 1940s, the morbidity and mortality associated with these procedures would have been reduced.

The presence of abortion providers who practiced under the radar persisted throughout the ‘30s and early ‘40s, albeit with some providers using their own judgement as to who was morally deserving of their covert services.  But the 1940s and 1950s also brought a more punitive attitude toward abortion in the United States. With an increasing number of arrests of providers administering safe abortions, dangerous practices became more widespread, as did abuses by practitioners, including sexual assault on clients. In turn, these tragic stories led to the underground movement of women and their allies who supported those in need, including the Jane Collective in Chicago, a group of women who risked criminal prosecution to help others obtain safe abortions. 

While the individual stories of women seeking abortions constitute the throughline of Pushback, Fissell consistently addresses the broader factors that affected access in each of the societies she describes, including eugenics, racism, nativism, and concerns about fidelity and heredity. Enslavement and labor demands, the appropriation by physicians in the 19^th century of care that was formerly the domain of midwives, and superstitions linking women’s fertility to fertility of livestock and crops, also come under scrutiny, as does the relatively recent shift of emphasis from the importance of the life of the mother to that of the fetus.

Readers might also consider the role of medical advances as factors that have altered our understanding of pregnancy, development of the fetus, and access to abortion. Among them was the development of simple urine tests that eliminate the uncertainty surrounding pregnancy, a means of confirmation light-years away from those early societies where pregnancy was confirmed by quickening. Sophisticated imaging of the fetus via ultrasound not only confirms pregnancy at an early stage, but packs an emotional punch. Moreover, the availability of medication through pharmacies and online sources for self-managed abortions, while under threat, has created a new landscape for pregnant women. This last means of obtaining an abortion, though formulated in a laboratory, suggests a new iteration of the herbal abortifacients used by so many generations past.

Pushback succeeds at being both highly readable and meticulously researched—the volume includes an extensive list of notes and references for each chapter. Fissell, who is the Inaugural J. Mario Molina Professor in the History of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also writes the Substack A is for Abortion: Snapshots from the Past. As a pre-modern historian of the 17^th century, she particularly enjoys the kind of “detective work” that accompanies that study. But she was also pleasantly surprised by how much she enjoyed researching and writing on the modern period, where sources are more readily available, including data she found through Ancestry.com.

Fissell completed her manuscript before the start of the second Trump administration and aside from allusions to Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson, Pushback does not explore the ways in which abortion became a flashpoint in our most recent national elections. (A description of politically motivated anti-vice campaigns that targeted abortion practitioners and pregnant women in the late 1940s and 1950s is included in the chapter dealing with that time period.)

But in a discussion with this writer, Fissell weighed in on current data that shows more American women than ever are having abortions despite the 2022 Dobbs ruling. “Restriction has an impact and makes abortion much more difficult and dangerous to access,” she said. “But it never stamps it out.” She also cited data that suggests roughly 66% of Americans think abortion is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor.  

Interestingly, Fissell did wonder at the onset of her research for Pushback whether she might change her mind on the issue. In the end, she describes holding the same views as when she started.  “Given that abortion was often shameful and secret if not [completely] illegal, I was amazed by how much I was able find out.” Her appreciation for insights from the reproductive justice movement deepened considerably as well, as it informed her understanding of women in earlier societies and the use of the term “choice,” then and now, for women in untenable circumstances.

“[Choice is] something a white woman with money can afford to have,” Fissell said. “Choice [does not apply to] a struggling waitress in a small Southern town who was raped and has two kids at home, and her wages won’t even cover their care…Casting the decision as choice means we don’t understand many women’s experiences.”     

Pushback by Mary Fissell was published by Seal Press (2025).
Web image by Medhum.org.

In this poem of high irony, 21 stanzas of couplets brilliantly spin out stereotypes of Indigenous people promulgated by white American culture. Among the stereotypes that Alexie develops: the tragic Indian; Indian women as sexual objects for white men; Indian men secretly desirable to white women; Indians as violent, alcoholic, childlike, mystical,” and members of a “horse culture.” But in addition, Alexie emphasizes how American whites have co-opted Indian culture: “white people must carry an Indian deep inside themselves” until finally, “all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts.” The poem is a painful reminder of how the United States has at one and the same time decimated indigenous people and their culture while exploiting those people and that culture for its own gain. It is a commentary on stereotyping, loss of identity, and loss of a people.

Sherman Alexie is a poet, novelist, short story writer, essayist, and film writer. He is a Spokane/Coeur d’Alene Indigenous person and grew up on a reservation in Washington state. His work focuses on relationships between Indigenous people and white Americans and on life within a white power structure. Alexie’s writing is consistently humorous and ironic.

How to Write the Great American Indian Novel
Sherman Alexie
https://fallsapart.com

Source The Summer of Black Widows, pp. 94-95
Publisher Hanging Loose Press
Edition 1996
Place Published Brooklyn, New York
Alternate Source Native American Songs and Poems, pp. 28-29
Alternate Publisher Dover Thrift Editions
Alternate Edition 1996
Alternate Editors Brian Swann
Place Published New York

A previous version of this review was published in the NYU Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database (Litmed).
Web image created by Medhum.org

More Posts from this Author

Two Paintings by Henry Sugimoto

07.01.25 1060

Two haunting paintings by Henry Sugimoto capture the emotional weight and injustice of Japanese American…

Three Poems by Gary Soto 

01.10.26 1134

Three poems explore cultural identity, family conflict, and the influence of media on class, belonging,…

Three Paintings by Edvard Munch

07.23.26 19

Edvard Munch transformed personal family tragedies into haunting paintings that reveal illness, grief, isolation, and…

The Waiting Room by George Tooker

06.12.26 427

George Tooker’s haunting painting reveals anonymity, isolation, and powerlessness within institutional waiting spaces.

Jurecic’s astutely researched, nuanced answers to those questions propose a corrective to the extreme skepticism of “disembodied criticism.” Such criticism, she claims, dismisses testimonial writing from “a position of distance and privilege.”  At the same time, her answers affirm that intellectually “rigorous” responses to texts are central to the critical humanities (15). To support her position, she offers attentive readings of illness narratives by Virginia Woolf, Reynolds Price, and Jean-Dominique Bauby, as well as the theoretical writing of literary and other scholars.  For instance, Jurecic speculates that the condition of a reader’s body aligns with their responses to texts. In a chapter called “Theory’s Aging Body,” she observes that as skeptical scholarly readers aged—think of Stephen Greenblatt, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler—they turned their attention to “illness, vulnerability, and mortality” (93).  Jurecic also suggests that criticism’s function to expose cultural conditions turns illness stories into critiques of the effects of contemporary medicine on our experiences of vulnerability and mortality. The relatively new concept of living “at risk” is a case in point. Stories about living with the risk of experiencing a particular illness in the future leave potential patients with uncertainty,” prompting narratives that seek the “personal meaning of the impersonal statistics” that medical encounters now regularly deliver (18).   

Jurecic also reflects on the ways theorists have understood the possibilities of representing and responding to pain in the varied approaches of philosophical thinkers Elaine Scarry, Martha Nussbaum, and Richard Rorty, along with anthropologists Jean E. Jackson, Byron Good, and Veena Das. In an exceptionally comprehensive and nuanced reading of Susan Sontag’s theoretical, fictional, and journal writing about suffering, Jurecic uncovers Sontag’s inconsistent, yet revelatory positions on the human capacity for responding to representations of pain. The chapter on Sontag is enriched by Jurecic’s reading of Annie Lebovitz’s controversial photographs of Sontag’s final days (included in A Photographer’s Life: 1990-2005) and David Reiff’s responses to Sontag’s suffering in his memoir about his mother’s illnesses (Swimming in a Sea of Death).   

Illness as Narrative closes with examples of what Jurecic calls reparative writing and reading practices. Reparative writers, such as Jean-Dominique Bauby (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), Jurecic claims, both create “a more coherent sense of themselves” and dislodge culturally “fixed ideas and narratives” about illness or disability (109). Her discussion of reparative reading considers the limits of two competing readings of Anne Fadiman’s The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. One assumes that readers will empathically and unreflectively imagine those who are culturally different from themselves. The other looks skeptically at the assumption that what medical educators call cultural competence can be acquired by reading a book. Jurecic suggests that strategies for reading and teaching informed by Janelle S. Taylor, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, and Rita Felski encourage more complex habits of response, such as Taylor’s concept of “’empathic curiosity’” (122).    

Illness as Narrative poses questions so central to discussions in the medical humanities that it should be read by those who teach in the health professions and disciplines. Jurecic’s book advances the groundbreaking case made by Arthur Frank that illness narratives contribute not only to medicine, but also to contemporary culture and individual lives. Since Illness as Narrative rigorously addresses questions of how to respond to and teach the literature of suffering, it has consequential implications for literary studies and the critical humanities more generally. It exemplifies how a marginalized sub-field can offer a perspective that the dominant theories in the larger discipline fail to notice. Perhaps the most urgent professional question Jurecic asks is what we lose if writers and readers attuned to the ill or suffering body are not heard in critical discussions. Fortunately, Jurecic’s clear, jargon-free prose and the texts she writes about also welcome readers in disciplines beyond literary studies and health humanities into the conversation.  

Illness as Narrative: 
https://upittpress.org/books/9780822961901/

Arlene Croce: 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/12/26/discussing-the-undiscussable

Arthur Frank:  
The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics, 2^nd ed. Univ of Chicago Press, 2013. (Orig. 1995) 

Illness as Narrative 
By Ann Jurecic 
University of Pittsbugh Press: 2012, 192 Pages 
Web Photo by Mostafa Saeed 

In my four years of Canadian medical school, I can only remember being taught four clinical pearls specific to Chinese patients. The first two were epidemiological facts: Hepatitis B is endemic in China and Chinese people have a higher incidence of nasopharyngeal carcinoma than non-Chinese. The third was an observation, that Chinese babies are often born with a large, purple discolouration on their buttocks that fades with time. These discolourations were pejoratively called Mongolian blue spots. 

The fourth clinical pearl was the strange one. I don’t remember much about the classroom content of first-year medical school, but this moment sticks with me even now, two decades on. In ethics class, we were learning about the concept of patient autonomy, the concept that patients have the right to make choices about their own health care. At this point, the ethicist mentioned to us that in many Asian cultures, especially Chinese and Japanese, people chose to forego autonomy and informed consent when it came to elderly family members and end of life care. What she meant was that Asian families often withheld information about the nature of their parents’ terminal illnesses from them for fear that by telling them parents the truth, their parents would feel irrevocably sad or upset, and that this might even hasten the progression of their illnesses. Until that day, I had never heard of this issue of withholding information from elderly family members before. As a Chinese Canadian, I had taken it for granted everyone would want to know the truth about their health when the time came. 

A few months after that talk, I was at home and broached the topic with my father. 

“Dad, they taught us that Chinese don’t like to tell elderly people that they are dying in order to protect them. Have you ever heard of this?” 

“Of course. You didn’t know about this?” He raised an eyebrow and gave me a look, as if surprised at how little I understood the world. “For Chinese people, we don’t talk about these things. If you know you are sick and dying, then your sickness will be worse.” 

My father was a learned man. He was a PhD in economics and had lived in North America for more than half his life. I expected more from him. “So you’re telling me that if it was you, you wouldn’t want to know?” 

“Of course I wouldn’t want to know.” 

His answer startled me. I had known that we had some different conceptions rooted in our different backgrounds, but for some reason, this caught me by surprise. I had expected him to share in my discovery of something that I presumed was backwards, old-fashioned Chinese thinking. But now it turned out that he was exactly the person being described in the ethics handbook. How little did I know of the world? How little did I know of my father? 

I dug out my first-year ethics textbook the other day and found the specific passage in question. On the subject of autonomy and Asian patients, the author Philip C. Hébert explains: 

When I read the passage over now, I can’t help but find it jarring. For an ethics textbook, the passage does seem to make the assumption that the western way of autonomy is the only right way. I wonder why I didn’t feel that way when I read the passage the first time so many years ago. 

This specific issue, that of telling an elderly family member about their diagnosis, became the basis of The Farewell, a 2019 film directed by Lulu Wang starring Awkwafina and Tzi Ma. The movie was loosely based on events from Wang’s own family life, in which an elderly grandmother is unaware that she’s been diagnosed with lung cancer. In the movie, the grandmother’s extended family decides that they want to have one last big family get-together but they can’t tell her about her diagnosis. They plot an elaborate fake wedding for one of the grandchildren and use it as an excuse to get everyone together. The movie is told from the vantage point of Billy Wang (played by Awkwafina,) the Americanized granddaughter who loves her grandmother and doesn’t really understand why they can’t tell her the truth. 

By the end, the movie settles on making the point that although the Chinese way of not telling the elderly about the diagnosis is different from what Billy is used to in the West, it isn’t necessarily worse, and it might even have its own merits. 

The movie wraps up with a postscript that Wang’s grandmother in real life is still living happily a good six years following her diagnosis. The movie implies that by not burdening her with the truth, the family has managed to improve the grandmother’s quality of life for at least these last few years, and hints that they might even have possibly affected the outcome of her illness and helped send the cancer into remission by not burdening her with the truth about cancer. 

In my own medical career working with Chinese immigrant patients, I have witnessed versions of this issue arise on several occasions. Several times, I have been asked by well-meaning children that “should anything serious ever happen to my mother or father, please do not inform them of the situation.” 

Sometimes, the request is gentler. “If any really important bad news needs to be broken to the parents, please let me know first and then we can discuss what to do about it.” 

As I’ve come to understand it, the reason for the request is a combination of things. There’s the obvious, overarching cultural basis to it. Confucius may not have ever specifically addressed the issue of whether people should withhold life-threatening medical diagnoses from their parents, but he did repeatedly underscore the value of filial piety and how one’s loyalty to one’s own parents should in some ways exceed their loyalty to themselves. So, in a way, not telling our parents the truth about their own mortality is just a little white lie to ease help ease a loved one through one of life’s inevitable travails. At least they’ll feel better not having to worry. 

This leads to the second reason, the belief that knowledge of one’s own mortality will almost certainly worsen any medical condition and hasten one’s demise. Given our own modern understanding that stress can make health worse, it does make sense to presume that fear about one’s own demise, very likely the greatest stress of all, could have deleterious health effects on a person who is already ill. 

Finally, sometimes the reason for requesting us to forego patient autonomy is simple pragmatism. Maybe mom or dad are unable to handle stress even at the best of times and we already know they won’t take the news well. In this case, shielding them from the truth might make a lot of things go more smoothly. 

In any case, when I’ve been presented with this scenario, as a Westerner, it’s difficult to dial down the urge to sit the patient’s family down and start channeling American police and cowboy movies. I can just imagine myself putting my hand on my holster and informing them that, “Ma’am, this isn’t the way we do things around here.” 

In my early years in practice, this is pretty much how I approached the problem, by understanding it as a purely cultural difference, and assuming that the ethics underpinning autonomy and informed consent should have universal application to all patients, regardless of cultural background. My understanding was that if you were living in Canada, then you had better accept that you had to do things the Canadian way. In short: when it comes to medical care, this is how we do it here. 

With that in mind, I’d sit down with the family member and explain to them that while we respected that other cultures could feel differently about this issue, this wasn’t really the way it’s done in the West. Then I’d present a compromise. “How about I ask your parent a hypothetical question along the lines of ‘if something were to happen to you, would you want to know about it?’” 

I’ve done this on several occasions in my career, and without fail, each time the elderly patient would contemplate the question for a moment before shaking their head and deciding that that no, they were better off not knowing the truth. 

What’s the big deal about all this? What happens if Grandmother or Grandfather doesn’t know the truth about their own illness? Is it really such a big problem if their child makes all the major medical decisions for them while they exist in a state of unknowing bliss? Isn’t that not that different than how parents often approach major medical decisions for an infant or a small child? 

And what about patients who explicitly abdicate responsibility for their own health at the eleventh hour? If the parent specifically says that they don’t want to know about their illness, then what? What are the implications of them ceding responsibility for this portion of their life to their loved ones? 

On a very basic pragmatic level, the parent not knowing about their own medical illness throws a monkey wrench into the basic efficiency of the health care encounter. In the West, certain aspects of health care depend on the patient being able to make informed choices, or at least depend on them having the knowledge of their illness. 

Imagine attempting to go for surgery or chemotherapy but not actually knowing that you have cancer. Imagine furthermore, that all the nurses and doctors who talk to you, who know full well that you are dying, cannot slip up even once and tell you the truth about what you are facing because once they spill the beans, there’s no putting anything back into Pandora’s box. 

Treatment decisions that might normally just be a quick conversation with a patient, now need to be run by an intermediary. Doctor visits that take ten minutes now take twenty minutes as a result.  

Furthermore, the practical effect of withholding information doesn’t end with health care. It applies even beyond the medical aspects of end-of-life care. Estate planning, inheritances, all the things that give grieving families around the world even more grief, are much more easily dealt with if the person who is dying is able to say what they actually want done. Except they can’t, if nobody actually is allowed to tell them that they are dying. 

There’s also this aspect from the family member’s standpoint: when a person agrees to make all medical decisions for their parent, they are agreeing to take responsibility for some decisions that are essentially impossible to make, especially when it pertains to end-of-life care. Should we perform heroic, but most likely futile measures on your parent? How hard is it for someone, even if they’ve had a full discussion with their parent, to be willing to make these life and death choices on behalf of their parent? 

Perhaps I’m giving away my Western upbringing, but I still can’t help but feel that there is something inauthentic about withholding the truth. Imagine living your days in an imagined reality where you believe you aren’t actually very sick, but you are. Without this end-of-life discussion experience, the person who is sick, and very likely their children, are not able to emotionally share life’s final journey together. Since it’s a journey that we all have to take, and it’s well-accepted that a serious illness or death in the family is one of the most difficult and stressful things that anyone has to go through, it only makes sense that if we can talk about it as a collective, surely we could deal with it better together than going through it alone. 

In the West, we are proud to have come up with these ethical principles that define our medical care. We laud the principles of autonomy and informed consent and look down at cultures that do things a different way. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed that in fact, Eastern and Western ideas about this aspect of medicine are not as dissimilar as we might presume. Yes, it’s true that in the West, as doctors we make a point to talk to the patient about death. We’re not afraid to tell a patient they have cancer, and we’re not afraid to try to tell them that the end is near. But at the same time, we usually stop right there and don’t say much beyond that. 

What does it actually mean to be dying? How does that make you feel? Is it scary? Do you have any regrets? Is there anything else you would like to do before you go? How does it make your children feel? Is there anything we can do to help with any of this? These are not conversations doctors typically have, but they seem to be at the heart of facing death honestly and authentically. 

The fact is we’re mostly not trained as doctors to have these conversations. Quite frankly, I’m not sure that most of us even have these conversations at home with our own families. It’s too easy, most times, when faced with these end-of-life crises, for doctors to leap into problem-solving mode. That is, after all, what we’re best at. End of life care sometimes becomes a series of day-to-day crises to manage. You’re having difficulty getting up? We’ll bring in a wheelchair. Constipated? There are so many pills for that. In pain? Good thing narcotics have been invented. As doctors, we’re trained to reflexively problem-solve. But sometimes, maybe what people need as they face death, is just someone to be present, to listen, and to talk to. Death may be inevitable, but it can still come with catharsis. 

Fortunately, the culture of Western medicine is changing. Conversations around death have become more normalized. The development of palliative care, a relatively new field of medicine that has appeared in the last several decades, has certainly helped this process. When it comes to death and dying, medicine in both the East and West still has much to learn, but at least we are trying. Maybe we will get where we need to be someday. 

My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia in 2013. Shortly after he was diagnosed, we were faced with the issue of establishing power of attorney and determining what to do in the event of end-of-life care decisions. At the time, his illness wasn’t that severe, and he was a pleasant, if mildly confused, sixty-eight-year-old. He’d even been driving up to a few months prior. 

So one night, at dinner at my mother’s house with my sister and me present, we took out the power of attorney paperwork and gathered around the dinner table with him. I remembered how he’d told me so many years ago that he wouldn’t want to know if he was suffering from a terminal illness, so I tried to explain to him that we weren’t asking him these questions because anything was imminent, but just as a precaution for the distant, distant future; we wanted to know his wishes in advance. We asked him that in the event he became incapacitated, what would he want us to do? Did he want heroic measures like CPR and being put on a ventilator? 

I still remember him looking back at us, sheepishly, like a small child. It’s impossible to know just how much he understood in that moment. 

He smiled and said, “I guess if it’s already that bad, you don’t need to do anything.” 

Then he got up and shuffled off to the living room. 

I breathed a sigh of relief. It was obvious that, demented or not, it was a conversation that my father had not wanted to have. And the same went for me. 

I never talked to him about his diagnosis again. 

Web photo by Alexander Grey

Additional Chapters from A Chinese City Doctor’s Notebook

When Your Body Isn’t Yours 

01.12.26 808

From Tigers to Otaku

09.16.25 1687

The Happiest Couple

07.28.25 1423

The Things We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Dying 

05.13.25 2005

One Patient, Two Systems 

02.24.25 2691