At age nine, first misdiagnosed and finally identified as having facial bone cancer (Ewing’s sarcoma), Lucy underwent several surgeries and more than two years of intensive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Pain and nausea, anxiety and fear of more pain and nausea were only part of the ordeal. The young Lucy became aware of what it is to be severely, chronically ill. Her sisters behaved differently toward her: they were polite. “Suddenly I understood the term visiting. I was in one place, they were in another, and they were only pausing.” Even her father felt uncomfortable at her hospital bedside, and Lucy was relieved that he came infrequently.

But being at home was worse: in the hospital the other patients and the staff expected little from her and she felt no guilt or shame; amidst her family, she blamed herself for the tension, arguments over money, and her mother’s depression, even though these elements had existed prior to her illness. Her hair fell out and she became dimly aware that people were staring at her face. Nevertheless, “I . . . was naturally adept at protecting myself from the hurt of their insults and felt a vague superiority . . . . “

Well enough to return to school, Lucy’s disfigured face drew taunts from classmates; she understood finally that she was perceived as ugly and that she would not be loved. Only on Halloween, when she could mask her face, did she feel free and joyful, unconcerned about her appearance, “normal.” Her moods now alternated between despair, determination, and escapism. She became convinced that only facial reconstruction and a restored appearance would make life bearable.

During years of reconstructive surgery Lucy evolved complex rationalizations to give meaning to her suffering. Two anchors had stabilized her existence throughout the misery: a passionate adolescent love of horses, and an adult love of poetry. Eventually outward appearance and inner life became harmonious. “The journey back to my face was a long one.”

Unfortunately, Lucy’s story does not end here. At age 39 she committed suicide. Soon after, her close friend, writer Ann Patchett, wrote a book about their friendship, Truth & Beauty: A Friendship, published in 2003 (HarperPerennial).

Lucy Grealy Interview in 1994 (20 Min.)

Autobiography of a Face
Lucy Grealy
Houghton Mifflin 1994 Boston: 256 pages

1995 Whiting Award Winner in Nonfiction , Poetry: https://www.whiting.org/awards/winners/lucy-grealy
Web image generated from the book cover by Medhum.

“Prof. William Osler, of the University of Pennsylvania, was summoned by telegraph this afternoon to go to Walt Whitman’s bedside. The aged poet had a relapse, and it was feared that he was dying. When the doctor came away from the little frame house at 328 Mickle Street, Camden, at 8 o’clock tonight, he said the poet was resting easily and about holding his own.” 

Osler first visited Whitman in 1884, shortly after moving to Philadelphia to take up his position as Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Maurice Bucke, a Canadian psychiatrist and mutual friend, had asked Osler to look in on Whitman, who was complaining of dizzy spells and fatigue. The professor obligingly ferried across the Delaware River to Camden and made a house call. Osler reported that the poet had no residual neurological deficits from his earlier stroke. He was unimpressed with Whitman’s current symptoms and, in fact, later described him as “a fine figure of a man who had aged beautifully, or more properly speaking, majestically with a large frame and a well-shaped, well-poised head…“ ^{1, p. 21} 

However, four years later the situation was more serious. On June 14, 1888, Whitman developed slurred speech, prostration, and confusion “such as we know are not uncommon with sclerosis of the arteries of the brain.”^{1, p. 178} When Osler was called in, he recommended general supportive care and issued a cautiously optimistic prognosis (as the Times reported), but evidently did not present his patient with a specific diagnosis or discuss pathophysiology. Whitman recovered over the following weeks, but his health gradually deteriorated over the next several years until his death in 1892. 

During the years Osler served as the poet’s primary care physician, their relationship was respectful, but not ideal. Whitman frequently complained about the great clinician’s rosy bedside manner. “Osler made light of my condition,” the poet wrote. “I don’t like his pooh-poohs. The professional air of the doctor grates on me.” ^{1, p. 50} On another occasion he told his friend Horace Traubel, “I confess I do not wholly like or credit what he (Osler) says. I do not fancy the jaunty way in which he seems inclined to dismiss my troubles.” ^{2, July 3, 1888} Evidently, Osler continued to speak in generalities, rather than addressing specific concerns that Whitman raised as he became progressively feebler.  

This situation contrasts with some of the poet’s earlier medical experience. For example, shortly after his stroke in 1873, Whitman consulted Dr. Mathew Grier who must have explained the etiology of the problem. Whitman later wrote to his friend Peter Doyle, “Did I tell you that Dr. Grier here says that my real disease is the brain not being properly furnished and nourished with blood…” ³ The poet’s other physicians included Drs. Silas Weir Mitchell and his son John Kearsley Mitchell. The famous neurologist and champion of neurasthenia made house calls on Whitman twice in 1878 when the poet reported symptoms of rheumatism and prostration, which he had self-diagnosed as a recurrence of his previous stroke. Mitchell assured him that the stroke, which had resulted from a ruptured blood vessel in the brain, was not responsible for the current symptoms. These, Mitchell claimed, were caused by chronic stress, perhaps exacerbated by anxiety over a public lecture that the poet was just then preparing to give.³ In other words Mitchell considered the illness a manifestation of neurasthenia. He prescribed travel, mountain air, and vigorous outdoor activity, which was Mitchell’s generic regimen for neurasthenia in males, quite the opposite of his more famous regimen of complete bed rest for female neurasthenics. ³ The poet took Mitchell’s advice seriously and embarked on a trip to Colorado, after which he professed himself cured.  

While Osler’s optimistic persona must have pleased many patients, it irritated Whitman. He judged his doctor’s cheerfulness to be insincere, or at least questionable. The elderly poet was an eccentric who fiercely valued his independence. While at times he showed a sweet and gentle side, he could also be touchy, irascible, and assertive. As the poet grew progressively frailer during 1888 and 1889, Traubel recorded a series of house calls during which Osler assured him that he would soon recover. “Do not take a gloomy view of Whitman’s case,” Osler told Traubel, “he will come around.” ^{2, July 3, 1888} In this short poem, I try to resurrect the poet’s attitude toward his famous doctor: 

Walt Whitman Reflects on His Doctor’s Bedside Manner 

As an old rat that must be allowed to die 
in his own way, I start with a prejudice 
against doctors. Never mind worrying 

about your sickness, he scolds me,  
I’m seeing to all that. The man tinkers  
with platitudes and conceals his thoughts.  

In his gospel of encouragement 
I’m supposed to be agreeable and dumb 
while he puts the best construction  

on what’s happening. What does he know 
about Whitman, the old rat? A shoemaker  
tells his customer the shoe fits just right 
but the shoe pinches the fellow wearing it.  

Whitman was a master of self-promotion. He appeared to encourage members of his inner circle who viewed him as a prophet, as well as a poet. Dr. Maurice Bucke even wrote a book claiming that his friend was one of the few humans who had achieved “cosmic consciousness.” The others included Jesus, Mohamed, and the Buddha. Did Osler fail to understand that his one- size- fits- all approach to physician-patient communication might not be appropriate for a patient with Whitman’s complex and eccentric personality?  

Although dissatisfied with Osler’s bedside manner, the poet respected his doctor’s clinical abilities. Several months after the medical crisis in 1888, Whitman wrote, “As for Osler: he is a great man—one of the rare men. I should be much surprised if he didn’t soar way, way up—get very famous at his trade—someday. He has the air of something about him—of achievement.”^{2, December 26, 1888} Indeed, by that time, Osler had already accepted the position of Professor of Medicine at the new Johns Hopkins medical school in Baltimore.  

Osler was a sensitive, cultivated man, but also a rationalist, who initially looked askance both at Whitman’s exuberant poetry and the cult that had grown up around its author. Although he admired the man, he had no wish to become a disciple. He loved poetry and enjoyed quoting passages from Shakespeare and the Romantic and Victorian poets. Regarding his first impressions of Leaves of Grass, Osler later wrote, “Whether the meat was too strong, or whether it was the style of cooking—‘twas not for my pampered palate.” ^{1, p. 22} He found his new patient’s long, unruly poems and earthy subject matter self-indulgent and lacking in discipline. The boisterous persona reflected in Whitman’s poems jarred Osler’s methodical mind. In the following poem, I imagine the clinician’s response to his early encounters with the Good Grey Poet: 

Dr. William Osler Remembers His Call on Walt Whitman 

I took the ferry that day and found him 
in the front room of a small house 
on Mickle Street, buried to his chest 
in papers, magazines, and musty  
brown bundles. Push yourself a path, 
he said. I reckon you’re a friend of Bucke’s. 

His famous head had aged majestically— 
unkempt white beard; smooth, clear cheeks; 
a fissured, geographic forehead. 
His voice was pitched a shade too high,  
but strong like the rest of him. Of symptoms 
he said but little–remarkable 

for a man of 65. For a moment 
I felt that sweet aromatic presence 
his disciples spoke of–for me, though, 
the edge of chaos. I sometimes wish 
the man had made a difference in my life, 
opened me up, but how could I forego 

my restraint? Or professional kindness? 
For a man like me, a man of substance, 
what could be worse than falling in love 
with Whitman? I listened to the music 
of his tongue, but could never cross the line 
that reads, Who enters here, abandons discipline. 

Yet, in his later years, Osler grew to respect his one-time patient’s poetry, as well as his charismatic personality. In fact, at the time of his death from pneumonia in 1919, he was in the process of writing an appreciative reminiscence of his encounters with Whitman. 

The uneasy, but respectful, relationship between these giants in their respective fields provides interesting material for reflection. If the poet was so dissatisfied with Osler, why didn’t he go back to Weir Mitchell or his son, who were more easy-going and communicative? Mitchell’s reputation as a clinician easily equaled Osler’s, and he was a poet as well. Could it be that Whitman benefited in some way from Osler’s staunch optimism, or had developed deep trust in Osler’s judgment, despite the constant complaints he issued to Traubel and others? Alternatively, why didn’t Osler modify his paternalistic approach, since it seemed clear that Whitman preferred to play a more active role in the relationship? And those time-consuming house calls that required taking a ferry across the river! Why not recommend a more pliable colleague?  

References 

1. Philip Leon, Walt Whitman & Sir William Osler, ECW Press, Toronto, 1995. 

2. Horace Traubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, vol. 2, at http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel (accessed December 30, 2024) 

3. Feinberg CE. Walt Whitman and his doctors. Arch Intern Med 1964; 114: 834-842. 

Photo of Sir William Osler and Walt Whitman from WikiCommons.

The internationally-acclaimed poet, Micheal O’Siadhail (pronounced, Meehawl O’Sheel), joins us to talk about One Crimson Thread, a memoir of 150 sonnets he wrote about the last two years of his late wife’s life with Parkinson’s disease. O’Siadhail reads four sonnets from the book relating directly to clinical scenarios familiar to health care providers, caregivers, and family members, and to the trajectory Parkinson’s disease exhibits. We discuss the insights they offer that extend beyond those of conventional biomedical sources. O’Siadhail also tells us how the forms of poems contribute to their meaning, and offers thoughts on what drives fear of poetry among many, a fear that could needlessly result in missing the 150 opportunities in the book to better appreciate the array of issues confronting people with Parkinson’s disease than is otherwise possible.

Citation:
Micheal O’Siadhail. One Crimson Thread. Waco, Tx; Baylor University Press, 2015.

Links:
The sonnets read are reproduced and issues discussed during the podcast are summarized in Russell Teagarden’s companion blog piece in According to the Arts.
Micheal O’Siadhail’s website is here.
Baylor University Press details for One Crimson Thread are here.

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

Feature photoo by Marco J Haenssgen