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

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

DAVID HSU: Do you practice medicine at all anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alphonse Daudet and Intractable Pain

26.05.2026 488

Children Who Remember Former Lives 

6.04.2026 9429

The Anatomist by Frederico Andahazi

17.02.2026 544

Rethinking Medications by Jerry Avorn

20.01.2026 682

The Word Is an Instrument of Healing 

16.12.2025 736

Stuck By Heidi J. Larson 

3.11.2025 663

In “Mandatory Evacuation Zone,” Felice Aull has gathered 63 beautifully crafted poems in which she examines the intricacies of language and loss, of grief and healing.  Each of the book’s five sections considers these themes in slightly different ways, always in language that is understated, vivid, and exact.  In Section I, we read poems that focus on the author’s complicated family history and her early loss of homeland.  In “Tracings” (page 15), an unknown relative (thanks to online genealogy searches) reaches the narrator and wants to meet her.  She, however, only wishes to learn “. . . how my parents / and my infant self / made our tortuous way out . . . . ” Brought in infancy from Germany to America, the author suffers the loss of both native homeland and native language (“Notes from an Alpine Vacation” page 16).  She searches photos of her mother and ponders museum note cards illustrated by Holocaust survivors (“Museum Notecards” page 18), imagining what she can’t quite know and yet can’t quite forget.  

Section II finds the narrator as a young woman in American, awakening to sexuality (“Gay Blades,” “Camp Counselors Make Out,”  “On the Staircase” pages 29-31), becoming a wife and mother, and then a grandmother.  A grandchild’s birth is both joyful and yet another “slipping toward / the edge of separation” (“Daughter in her Eighth Month” page 37). 

In Section III, the author turns her gaze to observations of the world around her, around us, aware of how many come to loss and death.  “Be prepare to mourn,” she tells us in “Disaster in October” (page 49), and in the moving poem, “I Saw the Smoke,” re-visions September 11th in words stripped of sentimentality and therefore made more powerful. 

Sections IV and V confront bodily loss through aging and illness, noting how, in so many ways, we try both to capture and to let go: “You snap photo upon photo / hoping to grasp and preserve / what cannot be grasped” (Capturing Alaska” page 66).  We learn of the most personal losses in poems of biopsies, surgeries, and chemotherapy.  When facing the unknown, every event might seem to hold a prediction.  In “Stunning Blows,” a doorman stuns a mouse, claims that it’s dead.  But the narrator, aware of the wages of time, writes, “But I still see it, like death, / moving toward me” (page 81).  At the book’s end, we return to language, how it too can leave us (“Forget That” page 90).  Yet in the collection’s final, gentle poems, the poet is “able, finally / to walk past the park’s redbud tree / without weeping” (“Immunity” page 96).

Although there are many poems that confront loss both recalled and experienced. grief for self and others, illness and the unknown in this collection, there are also poems of great acceptance and ultimate joy: “These gifts and losses, every year, mine” (“The Key to Gramercy Park” page 98).  The poems in “Mandatory Evacuation Zone,” show us how poetry can help us to “declutter” (see “Divesture” page 99) and release, and at the same time, hold on to and embrace.

Kelsay Books, California 2017: 100 pages

Felice’s website: https://www.feliceaull.com/

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

The story begins abruptly. A woman named June is driving westward alone in her car, destination unknown. She is trying desperately to escape the small town near Litchfield, Connecticut where she grew up, after the funerals for four people who have died in a lethal housefire — her ex-husband Adam, her boyfriend Luke, her daughter Lolly, and her daughter’s fiancé Will. The tragedy is compounded by the timing of the fire, the night before the scheduled wedding of June’s daughter.  

In a format that is increasingly common in current literature, the story unfolds from the unique perspective of people connected in various ways to those who perished and those who survived the disaster. The gallery of characters includes June, Lolly, Luke’s mother Lydia, the lesbian couple who own the seaside hotel where June hides out, the Native American woman who cleans the rooms in the hotel, Will’s parents, and a fidgety, socially awkward adolescent who has an unhealthy fixation on Lydia. Each chapter is told from the vantage point of one person, in their voice, in their thoughts. The narrative is in the first person except for the chapters that recount June and Lydia’s experience. There is minimal dialogue, mostly stream of consciousness story telling. Insight emerges from the action. The chapters weave together seamlessly, and you feel yourself drawn more and more into this microcosm of people struggling to make sense of a senseless tragedy. It would be a category error to call the novel a page turner. But there is a profound mystery at the core of the story, an appreciation of the ineffable wonder at how our lives play out and the complexity of our interactions with one another. 

This haunting book incorporates many classic themes that characterize literature that can engage us – the pain of the sudden loss of loved ones, loneliness, regret for mistakes made and actions not taken. It  echoes Tolstoy’s notion that every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Were it even simply a tale of coping with heartbreak and learning from life’s catastrophes, this would be a notable book. But there is an unexpected element that emerges from the prose that raises this novel to another level and makes it truly worth reading. 

Amid the grief and wreckage of personal stories, June and Lydia’s stories gradually move to the narrative center. Each one is wracked with guilt and remorse for ill-thought-out actions that caused a loved one profound emotional pain and hurt. Faced with death of the loved one, they feel powerless to get past  their feelings of worthlessness and shame. But as the story gradually unfolds and moves inexorably to its conclusion, each woman becomes more acutely aware of what she has done and is willing to accept responsibility. This self-knowledge culminates in a moment of genuine forgiveness and a sense of rebirth, 

In the Jewish tradition, forgiveness for sins must be preceded by a verbal recognition of wrongdoing, regret for what has been done, and a public resolve to avoid doing the same thing again if the opportunity to sin presents itself in the future. But there is a wrinkle depending on the nature of the sin. If it is directed to God, confession and repentance are enough to wipe the slate clean. But for sins committed against people, confession and repentance alone are insufficient. True forgiveness and closure are not achieved until forgiveness is granted by the person who was injured. Did You Ever Have a Family? describes and captures this interpersonal healing process in lyrical prose. Moreover, the sense of rebirth that animates the climax of the novel recapitulates the Jewish notion that a person who achieves genuine repentance after committing a sin is a new person, completely different than the person who committed the crime.  

There have been recent books like A Children’s Bible by Lydia Millet that create a storyline that incorporates biblical elements. Did you ever have a family?’ is different. The architecture of the novel and its human voices are unequivocally modern. But the deeper structure has a profoundly religious sensibility; it grapples with spiritual themes and ideas normally taken up in non-secular settings. The book is infused with a heartfelt intensity that is unusual in contemporary fiction. I’m sure the author would be gratified to know that his book has beautifully articulated the regenerative power of forgiveness in a manner that transcends the bounds of plain fiction.  

Did You Ever Have a Family? 
Bill Clegg 
Reviewed by Howard Trachtman 
Simon & Schuster, Inc 
Published 2015 
Paperback version, Scout Press, 2016, pp291 
Web Photo by Norbert Buduczki