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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DH: What’s the name of the town?

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

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

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

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

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

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

DH: By Abraham Verghese.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts Written by Dr. Tony Miksanek

Book ReviewVideo

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

06.16.26 74

Biblioscopy

Biblioscopy: A Glimpse of New and Upcoming Books 

03.02.26 1223

Book ReviewFocus

The End of Days by Bernard MacLaverty 

11.03.25 497

Book ReviewLitmedVideo

Tell Her Everything by Mirza Waheed

10.20.25 676

Load More

Load More

Most chapters are titled after a medical condition (exceptions are “Hubris” and “Melodrama”). Some of the headings are familiar – Trauma, Infarct, Aneurysm, Meningioma. Other chapter titles flaunt delicious medical terminology that mingles the mysterious and the poetic with nomenclature such as Angor animi, Neurotmesis, Photopsia, and Anaesthesia dolorosa.

Included are riveting accounts of both mundane and seemingly miraculous patient outcomes. One success story involves a pregnant woman losing her sight due to a brain tumor that compresses the optic nerves. Her vision is restored with an operation performed by the author. Her baby is born healthy too. But tales of failure and loss – malignant glioblastomas that are invulnerable to any treatment, operative calamities including bleeding of the brain, paralysis, and stroke – are tragically common. The author describes his humanitarian work in the Ukraine. He admits his aggravation with hospital bureaucracy and is frequently frustrated by England’s National Health Service.

Sometimes the shoe falls on the other foot, and the doctor learns what it is to be a patient. He suffers a retinal detachment. He falls down some stairs and fractures his leg. His mother succumbs to metastatic breast cancer. His three month old son requires surgery for a benign brain tumor.

As his career winds down, the author grows increasingly philosophical. He acknowledges his diminishing professional detachment, his fading fear of failure, and his less-hardened self. He becomes a sort of vessel for patients to empty their misery into. He is cognizant of the painful privilege it is to be a doctor.

The title of Do No Harm is spot-on. After all, this commandment is a crucial caution to all doctors. And for neurosurgeon Marsh, it signifies the restraint he must exercise in his medical decision-making. His approach to the doctor-patient relationship features a gentle medical paternalism that incorporates plenty of honesty and kindness. He writes about his struggle (and occasional clumsiness) with breaking bad news.

His professional life is portrayed as paradoxical – constant anxiety and contagious confidence, phases of futility and strings of inspiring operative accomplishments. The gift of forgiveness, how uncertainty tortures doctors, and the process of dying are significant topics for Marsh. In the last few decades, there has been a proliferation of medical memoirs. Do No Harm rises above them all. The book informs doctors that it’s okay to be vulnerable and fallible, as long as they are also compassionate, truthful, and caring. 

Primary Source Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery 
Publisher Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press 
Place Published New York 
Edition 2015 
Page Count 288 

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

Two hidden stories by two famed authors written decades apart in two countries eventually became widely known. One, Anton Chekhov’s, At the Pharmacy, was translated into English in 1998, about one-hundred years after it was published in Russia. The other, Raymond Chandler’s, It’s Alright–He Only Died, was unearthed from its unpublished state by Strand Magazine in 2018, about sixty years after it was written. Though written in different times, and using different scenarios, both stories warn of the barrier money creates to urgent and necessary health care, and of the corrosion in professionalism it causes in providers. They tell of what was to become a defeating feature of Western health care because of financial incentives, social prejudices, and human folly.

Six Kopecks or Your Life

Peter Constantine reached back from the 1990s into the 1880s to assemble a translated anthology of some Chekhov short stories not available to English-speaking audiences. Among the chosen stories in The Undiscovered Chekhov: Thirty-Eight New Stories, is At the Pharmacy.

The story begins when Egor Alexeyitch Svoykin becomes sick. His physician prescribes medicine that a pharmacy would need to prepare. Svoykin felt some relief being in a large Russian city during the late nineteenth century that would have pharmacies he could count on. This feeling of relief dissipated just after entering the pharmacy and coming before the imperious pharmacist there. 

The pharmacist eventually raises his head from a newspaper, looks at the prescription, shouts instructions to his assistants, and then returns his gaze to the newspaper while at the same time informing Svoykin the prescription will be ready in an hour. Svoykin is the only person waiting at such a late hour as it was, and he was deteriorating.

His mouth was on fire; there was a drawn-out pain in his arms and legs; foggy images tumbled about like clouds and shrouded human figures in his heavy head. He looked as if through a veil at the pharmacist, the shelves of jars, the gas burners, and the cabinets. The monotonous pounding in the marble mortar, and the slow ticking of the clock seemed to him to be coming not from the outside but from inside his head. (p. 129)

When Svoykin reports to the pharmacist that he is becoming feverish and feeling weaker, “the pharmacist “remained stock-still and, leaning his head farther back, kept on reading his newspaper. He didn’t respond to Svoykin with word or movement—it was if he hadn’t heard him.” (p. 130) When Svoykin subsequently approaches the pharmacist pleading with him to hurry the prescription, the pharmacist again brushes him off saying, “It’ll be ready soon enough…excuse me, but there’s no leaning on the counter.” (p. 131)

The next half hour was “unbearable” before the prescription came and then made more so by the dubious rituals the pharmacist performed in adorning the prescription container. The pharmacist charged one ruble and six kopecks, but Svoykin was short the six kopecks. 

Under the circumstances…I would be grateful if you would let me bring you, or maybe send you, the six kopecks tomorrow…

I’m sorry, we don’t accept credit here.

What am I supposed to do?

Go home, get the six kopecks, and then you can have your medicine.

But…I’m having difficulty walking, and I don’t have anyone I can send…

That’s your problem.

pp. 132-133

Svoykin returned home, though with difficulty. The Kopecks were there on the table, but his illness kept him from returning to the pharmacy.

Just Drunk

Strand Magazine is a source for “unpublished works by literary masters.” The October-February (2017-2018) issue includes an unpublished Raymond Chandler short story. Chandler wrote crime fiction for the most part, and the stories usually involved the fictional detective, Phillip Marlowe. This story, however, written between 1956 and 1958, is about a person brought to a hospital emergency room and denied service for financial and social reasons.

As the story opens, a man who has been hit by a truck is brought into the emergency department at General Hospital. He arrives just before shift change and so the admitting clerk is already annoyed about having to assess him. The clerk checks the patient’s pockets for the required $50 deposit and finds nothing, so she could now send the patient to the county hospital, and that would be that. But, before she initiates the transfer, she asks a passing private attending physician to look at the patient. He sees that the patient is dirty, smells of alcohol, and would cost a lot to work up. Mindful of an admonition from a major donor that the “hospital is not run for charity,” the physician surmises the patient is “just drunk,” and agrees the patient should be moved to the county hospital. Off the patient goes.   

The next day, the same admitting clerk at General Hospital gets a call from the county hospital. She’s informed that the patient they transferred had a head injury requiring surgery, and that the patient had $4,000 in a money belt inside his undershirt. The patient couldn’t be saved, however, because of the delay involved in the transfer to the county hospital. “It’s all right—he only died.”

Fast Forward

If they could have foreseen the current time when they wrote these stories, 140 years ago for Chekhov and 70 years ago for Chandler, they would have realized that the scenarios they created became commonplace and institutionalized in many ways.

Pharmacists may not go unseen behind a newspaper as Chekhov’s pharmacist did, but they may be buried under insurance company paperwork or piles of prescriptions needing to be filled. And certainly in a few situations, perhaps only independents, do pharmacists have ways to cover costs when patients are short on cash, credit, or insurance coverage. They are very likely to send patients away to get money even when they are very sick.

Hospital personnel do not now actually reach into the pockets of unconscious patients to see if there’s enough cash for admission as Chandler conjures in his story, but he would see them still check for money in the form of insurance cards or proof of sufficient financial means. He would also see that the scenario he described in which patients without money get transferred to county hospitals had progressed to a degree that people are moved around among different health care providers based on health care insurance plan coverage or lack thereof. But the poor treatment of patients in need of emergency care can even occur in the “right” hospitals when they are held for hours to days in hallways or holding wards for beds to become available.

Scenarios such as these can and have been addressed to varying degrees through government welfare programs, regulatory requirements, technology advances, and professional practice standards among other responses. The two stories, though, also expose human folly not so amenable to these actions. What can be done about the pharmacist who won’t put the newspaper down to address the needs of a person seeking help for an acute illness? What can be done about the physician who after a cursory evaluation brushes off an unconscious patient as “just drunk?”

Chandler makes an attempt at addressing the human folly he and Chekhov reveal by describing how it fails humanity on both professional and personal levels, and in shaming the character, who is ostensibly standing in for those behaving as this doctor in the story did.

All he had done was disgrace himself as a person, as a healer, as a saviour of life, as a man required by his profession never to turn aside from anyone his long–acquired skill might help or save…Why should a doctor in such circumstances be better than other men? The answer is simply, that if he isn’t, he is not a doctor. The $4,000 would have made quite a difference in this case, wouldn’t it?  Should it?  

Chekhov and Chandler are perhaps hoping that those in the care of others will exhibit more humane and professional behaviors when they ask themselves many decades later: “Am I a doctor?”“Am I a pharmacist?” “Am I a human being?” Would it make a difference? Should it?

Notes

Title image:
A young girl waiting for a pharmacist to make up a prescription.
Photogravure, 1912, after J. Jendrassik, 1896
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

End image:
Nurse Aide Rocky FordHospital CO
Mennonite Church USA Archives, No restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons