The time has come when the existence of a private pestilence in the sphere of a single physician should be looked upon, not as a misfortune, but a crime; and in the knowledge of such occurrences the duties of the practitioner to his profession should give way to his paramount obligations to society.

— Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever”

It would have been cold on February 13, 1843, when the Boston Society for Medical Improvement convened. But anyone who heard Oliver Wendell Holmes’s fiery speech about puerperal fever would have forgotten about the chill outside immediately.

Holmes stood just 5’ 3”. And he was young, only 34 years old. But he was hot with moral authority. He was so sure that puerperal fever was contagious that he accused his skeptical colleagues of murder. He knew that in order to make them listen, he had to do more than lay out the facts. He needed a persuasive story.

As I’ll show presently, it was precisely this approach that allowed Holmes to win Nathaniel Hawthorne’s trust as personal physician to the great author near the end of his life. No mean feat, since Hawthorne was terrified by medical science.

The Crowd Puller

In those days, you had to speak well publicly to make a name for yourself. Oratory was required in school. In New England, the rhetorical standard was set in the pulpit, and public discourse followed. So it wasn’t an insult if someone said your speaking or writing felt sermon-like. Good sermons could awaken, convict, inspire, and transform even the most uneducated souls. The best professors and the best doctors fit the ministerial mold.

In New England, good speakers were a dime a dozen. But Holmes stood alone.

One of Holmes’s students recalled how he could hold a crowd:

He always makes people attentive, and I have been told that there is no professor whom the students so much like to listen to. In one of his books he says that every one of us is three persons, and I think that if the statement is true in regard to ordinary men and women, Doctor Holmes himself is at least half a dozen persons. He lectures so well on anatomy that his students never suspect him to be a poet, and he writes verses so well that most people do not suspect him of being an authority among scientific men.

This was also a time when science was retreating from the public sphere. Hawthorne was writing short stories about the terrors of the lab, where Rappaccinis and Chillingworths played God. As Michel Foucault said, it was a time when some doctors took the patient into account “only to place him in parentheses.”

Holmes was a scientist, but he hated how science made some of his peers “think only in single file.” And so he tried to wake his colleagues up on that cold day in Boston with facts, but also with panache and metaphor.

The Case for Contagion

Attention spans were different in 1843. The full text of Holmes’s speech, which he later published in essay form, was over 12,000 words. It would have taken him at least an hour to deliver it. He had to review many cases in depth, not just spin fetching tales.

But that’s why everyone in the Boston Society had gathered that day. They wanted to get better as doctors, for medicine itself to improve. So they listened.

Holmes points out that William Dewees’s A Treatise on the Diseases of Females, published in Philadelphia in 1833, explicitly denies that puerperal fever is contagious and that the Philadelphia Practice of Midwifery (1838) omits mention of the disease entirely.

Unthinkable now, but it was commonplace for a doctor or midwife to deliver one baby and then move to the other without washing their hands. Holmes’s words for such a physician? A “death-carrying attendant.”

He also opens with a logical list, a kind of syllogism, something he’d have learned from his humanities education. If all these things are true, then there’s no room left for opposing views.

1. Not all forms of puerperal fever may be equally contagious. But evidence shows the disease appearing again and again among patients of a single practitioner, even when no epidemic is present. That pattern demands explanation.
2. Whether infection travels through the air a physician carries into the sick-chamber or passes directly from his unwashed hands, the practical result is the same. We need not settle the question to act on it.
3. Contagion does not guarantee infection. Even the smallpox vaccine, fresh and carefully administered, sometimes fails. Same for scarlet fever. But no one doubts those diseases are contagious.
4. Seasonal and regional influences may trigger or worsen the disease. But smallpox follows the same patterns of rise and fall, and no one doubts it spreads by contagion. Why should puerperal fever be different?
5. If physicians can be shown to carry death instead of health, no excuse will absolve them. “[W]henever and wherever they can be shown to carry disease and death instead of health and safety, the common instincts of humanity will silence every attempt to explain away their responsibility.”

It made Holmes angry that colleagues could explain the deaths of new mothers as Providence, using God’s will as an excuse for their own failures to stop preventable deaths. 

We do not deny that the God of battles decides the fate of nations; but we […] are particular that our soldiers should not only say their prayers, but also keep their powder dry. We do not deny the agency of Providence in the disaster at Norwalk, but we turn off the engineer and charge the Company five thousand dollars apiece for every life that is sacrificed. Why a grand jury should not bring in a bill against a physician who switches off a score of women one after the other along his private track, when he knows that there is a black gulf at the end of it, down which they are to plunge, while the great highway is clear, is more than I can answer.

I’ll not reprise Holmes’s full review of cases (he painstakingly covers more than half a dozen). You can read the full text that he reprinted in Medical Essays here.

What I want to emphasize is how storytelling was much more than a way to “sell” science for Holmes. He knew that story piqued an emotional understanding of science, which was how doctors could be persuaded to act, and also how public trust could be earned and held.

Here’s his passionate conclusion in full:

It is as a lesson rather than as a reproach that I call up the memory of these irreparable errors and wrongs. No tongue can tell the heart-breaking calamity they have caused; they have closed the eyes just opened upon a new world of love and happiness; they have bowed the strength of manhood into the dust; they have cast the helplessness of infancy into the stranger’s arms, or bequeathed it, with less cruelty, the death of its dying parent. There is no tone deep enough for regret, and no voice loud enough for warning. The woman about to become a mother, or with her new-born infant upon her bosom, should be the object of trembling care and sympathy wherever she bears her tender burden or stretches her aching limbs. The very outcast of the streets has pity upon her sister in degradation when the seal of promised maternity is impressed upon her. The remorseless vengeance of the law, brought down upon its victim by a machinery as sure as destiny, is arrested in its fall at a word which reveals her transient claim for mercy. The solemn prayer of the liturgy singles out her sorrows from the multiplied trials of life, to plead for her in the hour of peril. God forbid that any member of the profession to which she trusts her life, doubly precious at that eventful period, should hazard it negligently, unadvisedly, or selfishly!

I read recently that we respond much more powerfully to troubled characters in fiction than we do to stock types who move from one adrenaline-spiked obstacle to the next. That’s because our deepest emotional responses are driven by three chemicals (dopamine, cortisol, and oxytocin). These brain responses are strongest when we truly care about someone else.

Holmes was trying to do something similar by creating a moral dilemma within the physicians he addressed. The doctor who cared nothing about exposing his patients to risk had no soul. But the doctor who could imagine a family’s grief and wrestle with his own culpability was more complex, more colorful, more worthy of trust.

If you’d been listening to Holmes on that February day, you know which doctor you’d have wanted to be.

Converting the Chief Skeptic

Despite his charms, it took time for Holmes to push his reforms. People thought he looked too young. One woman ordered him out of her house when he accompanied a senior physician during his medical training. “Take him away!” she cried. “This is no place for boys.”

Holmes’s colleagues respected his medical skill, but thought him “impaired” for writing poetry. And not all readers of The Atlantic loved him. To some he was a “tiresome little man.”

As one biographer explains, Holmes “disarmed criticism…by courageously persisting in the same method which had originally produced it, namely, by the most fearless intimacy with his audience, never keeping back any jest or any expression of confidence.” In a word, he was not afraid to make himself vulnerable in his writing. 

Holmes and Hawthorne shared pages in The Atlantic Monthly and also knew each other through the Saturday Club, a gathering of literary celebrities that included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Harriet Beecher Stowe hosted by the publisher James T. Fields. Hawthorne was quiet and shy, brooding around the edges, but Holmes loved to regale the group. As Annie Fields recalled, “with Dr. Holmes sunshine and gayety came into the room.”

The two writers developed a close intellectual relationship, commenting on each other’s manuscripts and commiserating with one another over the dangers of pseudoscience and careless experimentation. So it was no surprise that when he grew ill in 1864, Holmes was the only doctor that Hawthorne would see. Hawthorne had watched a friend die of pneumonia while a quack prescribed a variety of ineffective drugs, poultices, even cupping and blistering, to no avail.

As the two men walked the Boston streets, Holmes conducted a “talking exam,” listening while Hawthorne reported his symptoms of indigestion and fatigue. Holmes recognized that Hawthorne suffered from a profound sense of despondency which signaled imminent death, that there was no cure but compassion. This was an intimate moment—as vulnerable as the introverted Hawthorne had ever allowed himself to be with anyone—and it illustrates Holmes’s ability to reassure even this great skeptic of his good intentions. 

Hawthorne’s simultaneous fear of alternative medicine and medical science left him nowhere to turn as his own death approached. On the one hand were the mesmerists who sought to control the individual through pseudoscientific means. On the other were the Rappaccinis whose misappropriation of science was equally hostile to the privacy of the soul.

Only Holmes could rescue Hawthorne from those two nightmares. He did it as a man of science, as an indefatigable optimist, as a caring friend, and, yes, as a storyteller who knew that passion is one form of understanding.

Web image of A young Oliver Wendell Holmes from PBS.

The narrator in this three-stanza poem observes men in a mental hospital who suffer from what at the time (World War I) was called shell shock and now might be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder. In any case, they are insane; they relive the “batter of guns and shatter of flying muscles.”

For these tortured souls, “sunlight seems a bloodsmear” and “dawn breaks open like a wound that bleeds afresh.” They cannot escape their hideous memories of the warfare. The narrator sees them as living in hell, and he accepts for all society the blame for what has happened to them–we, he says, have “dealt them war and madness.”

Wilfred Owen is recognized as the master poet of the First World War. Writing from firsthand experiences, both in combat and in a hospital recovering from battle fatigue, Owen gave us image after image of how horrible this war was — how the idealized notions of heroism and manly valor meant next to nothing when one was trying to survive gas attacks and bombs dropped from planes. Owen was killed a week before the armistice.

In this poem he opens with a series of questions about who these mental cases are, why they rock back and forth in some kind of purgatory, why they are so tortured with panic and misery. In the second stanza, he answers the opening questions: these are the men whose minds have been ruined by their war experiences, for whom the grotesque carnage of the war was “rucked too thick for these men’s extrication.”

In the final stanza, he explains why these men are so tortured by their memories. And, typical of Owen, he points out that everyone who supported the war contributed to the madness of these mental cases.

📖 Read the poem

The Poems of Wilfred Owen
Wilfred Owen
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Edition: 1986
Editors: Jon Stallworthy
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

These changes have not all been for the better. Perhaps you have noticed such unsettling changes yourself. A child in a restaurant is glued to a tablet screen, probably the last resort of a weary parent trying to enjoy their first peaceful meal in days. A group of tourists in Paris marvels at the Eiffel Tower, not as it is, but as it appears through their phone camera and on their phone screen. Neighborhoods have become quieter and less lively, as children have retreated from the streets and hunkered down at home with their phones. 

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the NYU Stern School of Business, elaborates upon these ideas in his book The Anxious Generation. In this book, he describes the dual trends of increasing smartphone/screen-based engagement, driven by perverse economic incentives of technology companies, and decreasing real-world, human-to-human play, driven by over-protection from modern parents. The collision of these forces has defined Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012, as the most anxious and depressed generation of our time. 

In the book, Haidt notes that the tactics of technology companies to drive increased user engagement have been well documented by activists such as Tristan Harris. Much like tobacco companies in the mid to late 20^th century, modern technology companies prey on young users (e.g. children) as a source of future/recurring revenue, and fight off consumer protections through aggressive lobbying campaigns at the government level. As a result, children are spending record numbers of hours on smartphones, increasingly isolated from the real world and irritable when deprived of their digital drugs. Haidt also observes that the technology problems of girls and boys are unique. For example, girls are significantly more prone to social media addiction and the associated psychological disturbances such as distorted body image and self-worth. On the other hand, boys are much more avid users of video games and pornography, which reduce their desire for real-world play and romantic relationships. 

Haidt also notes that over a longer but overlapping time period, children have been overly protected from real-world responsibilities and real-world play. He attributes these new attitudes to the changing media landscape and how crimes are portrayed in the news, as well as legal challenges which have incentivized parental overprotection. In one example, he describes a pitiful incident in which an eight-year-old child was seen walking the streets alone, and a concerned passerby called the police to report an “abandoned child.” In this case and many others, parents have been held responsible for this absurd new “crime”, a sight which would have been entirely commonplace 30 years ago. Haidt highlights the irony of how the real-world, full of rich experiences, appropriate risk-taking, and character-building responsibilities has been overly regulated by our society, whereas the digital world, rife with dangers for growing adolescent minds, has been almost entirely unchecked, unregulated, and ignored.  

Bringing people out of the digital world and into the real world is a formidable task. One strategy that Haidt found success with was to encourage people to reconnect with a sense of awe in the world. Awe is a vague concept, but can be defined as a feeling of wonder inspired by the sacred or sublime. The real world is full of such awe-inspiring moments, if only we could stop to notice them. In a comically simple exercise, Haidt encouraged students in his university course to take a walk through Manhattan without their phones or headphones, and then to write about their experience on this “awe walk.” The written reflections were so beautiful that he included excerpts of his students’ work in the book to illustrate how such simple measures could have such a profound impact. One such excerpt is reproduced below: 

For children who have no choice but to grow up in the digital era, Haidt attempts to boil his recommendations down into four rules for a healthier childhood:  

1. No smartphones until high school. 

2. No social media before the age of 16. 

3. No phones in schools. 

4. More independence, play, and responsibility in the real world. 

He recognizes that while these solutions are simple, their implementation is anything but. As a society, we face a daunting collective action problem as it pertains to technology and real-world experiences. Such problems require collective solutions, and Haidt encourages parents to get together, organize, and raise their children together in a real-world oriented manner. While broader changes in school policy may seem out of reach, Haidt encourages struggling schools to get inspired by the numerous case studies of schools that went phone-free and experienced positive changes by almost every metric, within a matter of two to three years. 

Some may say that our society is too far gone to reverse these negative changes, but this is certainly not the case. In fact, people are more skeptical now than ever of the negative role of technology in our lives, and collective action on this problem may be easier now than it ever has been before. As we sit perched on the precipice of a new technological revolution in artificial intelligence, this sentiment has already garnered potent opposition to unchecked technological advance and implementation. Will we learn from our past mistakes? Unfortunately, our track record is not encouraging. Only time will tell how far we go before we decide we need a detox. 

The Anxious Generation 
Jonathan Haidt 
Penguin Press, New York City, March 26, 2024, 400 pages
Web Photo by Joel Fulgencio