I wish I had read Gould’s Prefatory and Introductory prior to last week’s assigned reading from his “Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine.” It’s as if someone’s turned on the light of understanding, and I finally comprehend what he’s talking about…or at least understand <i>Where </i>He’s coming from.
In the Prefatory and Introductory, Gould supplies a comprehensive insight to the purpose of the text – a collection of some of the most anomalous, abnormal and bizarre medical curiosities. In this sufficient introduction, he indicates the curiousness regarding the fact that a collection of these types of medical oddities hadn’t previously been assembled. This is odd, according to Gould, due to the overwhelming interest in this topic thus leading him to the conclusion that this interest surely would have brought about an earlier compilation of such information. Gould stated “truly it has been said, facts are stranger than fiction” statement. And his statement of “persistently dominant interest,” I felt, juxtaposed the flurry of “Reality TV” shows that have exploded across the networks as of late. It seems to be human nature to want to submerge ourselves in these “reality” based scenarios, which are often times seemingly anything but realistic.
His justification for these articles to serve as more than entertainment or an answer key to sheer curiosity is felt in his statement explaining that clinicians and investigators need a source as such for reference. This benchmark of sorts can be used to when investigating their particular cases. They can compare their findings with those therein Gould’s anthology and determine if a similar instance has been documented.
Gould recognizes the suspicion present when reading these tales of ancient philosophers, however he advises their acceptance should be evident as is that for modern cases. From this statement, and moving into his example about how Pare’s ideas could be either well or poorly received, depending on the topic of discussion, he briefly explores the concept of credibility or “ethos.” He continues to correlate this battle of old-time versus new medicine by adding that honesty is underlying in both, and that although extreme and bizarre, the credibility is present in both. Continuing with the subject of journalist’s burden of credibility, which still exists very much still today, Gould states the journalist’s responsibility ceases assuming they’ve cited a reputable authors and sources. And I believe this still holds true today.
In the spirit of a true author, Gould provides somewhat of a full disclosure, identifying that modifications were made to some extent for certain reasons. He is sure to include that while tremendous effort were made to ensure the integrity of the information, that there is a possibility errors are present. He continues by soliciting his readers’ critiques, comments and suggestions. I appreciate this type of honesty. Finally, he recognizes the efforts of various contributors, which, as we examined in the Ethical Issues class, is of the utmost importance. Giving credit where credit is due is essential.
Looking at Gould’s sales pitch…or article in the Philadelphia Medical Journal, I felt as if I was being approached by a Girl Scout selling me cookies. His effort is valiant, tugging on the patriotic strings of the readers. He isn’t shy, clearly stating his opinion of this journal and how it’s subscription is cheaper than that of its competitors. He identifies a vision of a limitless future—visualizing a 100-page weekly journal (far more than the current length of the time) adequately serving a profession of medical “men.” I suppose there were no medical women at the time! And for a mere $3.00 per annum, I must admit, I would have broke down and bought a subscription.
Historical Essay Style by Medical Authors Osler and Gould