Opium in the Library: Remedy & Reverie in the 18th and 19th Centuries

By Hannah Johnston, Library Volunteer

Writing on opium and opioids in the 20th century, particularly in the United States, was often characterized by an interest in the mechanisms of addiction, a growing concern for public health, and a widespread and a deep-rooted fear of the “dope evil.”[1] Only two centuries earlier, however, the “dope evil” was instead “a safe, and noble Panacea.”[2] While there was certainly an understanding of the addictive nature of opium and, to some extent, concern over its safety, many writers in the 18th and 19th centuries were simply fascinated by the drug.

Two works in particular, The Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d by Dr. John Jones (1645–1709) and The Seven Sisters of Sleep by botanist Mordecai Cubitt Cooke (1825–1914), showcase this interest in the origins, nature, and various uses of the drug. While differing in their goals and their opinions on the primary benefits of opium, both works demonstrate some of the ways eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writers grappled with a substance unlike any they had previously encountered. In conversation with each other, The Mysteries and The Seven Sisters can reveal how changing ideas in medicine, culture, and politics influenced the perception and use of opium in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Considered one of the first comprehensive works on the effects and mechanisms of opium, The Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d aimed to demonstrate how, when used effectively, the drug could be a reliable and incredibly useful medicine.[3] Dr. John Jones first explained the origins, nature, uses, and possible misuses of opium.[4] Jones’ book was what one might expect from an eighteenth-century English medical book—while he did devote time to discussing the history and recreational use of opium, he was most deeply invested in unearthing the mechanisms by which opium “lulls, sooths, and, as it were, charms the Mind ….[5]

Jones_Mysteries of opium reveald_1700_plate1_watermark

A table of opiate dosages to give to various populations of men and women from John Jones’s Mysteries of opium reveal’d (1701). NYAM Collection.

More than a hundred years later, in the mid-19th century, Mordecai Cubitt Cooke wrote a very different kind of opium book. The Seven Sisters of Sleep focuses on seven narcotic drugs – opium, tobacco, cannabis, betel nut, cocaine, datura (a genus of hallucinogenic plants), and fly agaric (a psychoactive mushroom) – allegorically described as the “sisters” of the Queen of Sleep, who each ruled over different portions of the world.[6] Six of Cooke’s twenty-six chapters were devoted to opium in various respects, and the appendix of the book included tables and information on the use and trade of opium on a global scale.[7] While Jones was more concerned with the proper way of producing opium, dosage for various ailments, and outlining the drug’s exact effects on the body (he noted that opium primarily impacted the stomach), The Seven Sisters was primarily focused on recreational or regular use of the drug, and offered personal accounts of experiences with opium as well as comprehensive reports of opium use, particularly in China.[8]

Cooke_SevenSistersOfSleep_1860_370_watermark

A table of opium and its substitutes, from Mordecai Cubitt Cooke’s The seven sisters of sleep: Popular history of the seven prevailing narcotics of the world (1860). NYAM Collection.

Cooke_SevenSistersOfSleep_1860_368_watermark

A table estimating the amount of people taking narcotics around the world, from Mordecai Cubitt Cooke’s The seven sisters of sleep: Popular history of the seven prevailing narcotics of the world (1860). NYAM Collection.

Writing on the possible pitfalls of opium use, Jones argued that opium “does not diminish or disable the Spirits by any means whatsoever… when duely and moderately used. Cooke, however, addressed several rather terrifying side effects of the drug.[9] He devoted his twelfth chapter to the dangers of opium, describing in vivid detail the horrifying dreams had by some opium users and noting the occurrences of violent psychotic breaks fueled by opium use.[10] While both works discuss the “noxious principle” of the drug, Cooke devotes far more discussion to its potential for misuse, perhaps reflecting a growing understanding and worry about opium’s addictive nature.[11]

Both works made a point to discuss the place of opium on the global stage; the differing ways each author approached the subject, however, reveal the rapidly increasing role of opium in British imperial activities around the world. Jones’ discussion of this subject is limited mostly to the origins of opium, where he notes the relative quality of opium sourced from different countries.[12] Cooke’s work, on the other hand, was published after the Opium Wars between Britain and China of the previous two decades, and reflects the importance of opium in British imperial growth. He described the ways that different ethnic groups used opium, particularly in Asia, and included reports on the rates of opium use throughout different parts of China.[13] Although largely refraining from the demonizing Chinese opium users, which often happened in late 19th century Britain and the United States, Cooke’s writing suggests a British fascination with opium as a cultural import as well as a recreational drug.

The Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d and The Seven Sisters of Sleep reflect the many ways in which views on opium have changed over the last three hundred years. All in all, both writers were invested in defending the use of opium, and noted the many pleasurable effects the drug had on mind and body. However, the ways in which these effects were described by each writer show how the changing political and cultural climate altered the place of opium in the public mind and on the global stage. These works can offer us a glimpse into the worldviews and events that informed the evolving understanding of opium, its uses, and its dangers.

This blog post was written to complement The New York Academy of Medicine’s  Opioid Symposium, held on Friday, September 20th, 2019. You can also “adopt” The Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d, featured in this blog post, and other related works, to help ensure their care and preservation. See more information about this here

References

[1] Several articles in [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums], Dec 1926 to Sept 1932, Volume 1, Manuscripts, New York Academy of Medicine Library, New York, NY.

[2] Dr. John Jones, The Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d (London: 1701), 1. All emphasis original unless stated otherwise.

[3] Ibid; Richard J. Miller and Phuong B. Tran, “More Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d: 300 Years of Opiates,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 21 (August 2000), 299–304.

[4] Jones, 1.

[5] Jones, 216.

[6] Mordecai Cubitt Cooke, The Seven Sisters of Sleep: Popular History of the Seven Prevailing Narcotics of the World (London: 1860), 1–5.

[7] Ibid, 357–371.

[8] Ibid, 163–180, 357–371.

[9] Jones, 81.

[10] Cooke, 163–180.

[11] Jones, 1; Cooke.

[12] Jones, 6.

[13] Cooke, 132–148, 366–368.

Opium in the Library: A ‘Smorgasbord’ of Twentieth-Century Understandings of Addiction and Drug Use

By Hannah Johnston, Library Volunteer

“For sale in the open market — misery, degradation, crime, shame, disgrace, and untold suffering — who’ll buy, who’ll buy? … All the world, apparently.”[1] In her 1927 New York American article, “Disgrace and Crime Sold Openly in the Opium Market!”, Winifred Black bemoaned the toll that the opium trade and widespread use of the drug took on the American people.[2] She cautioned readers grimly of the fate of opium smokers, warning that using the drug would lead them to become “flitting shadows of men.”[3]

Dunham_Clippings_1927_BlackArticle_watermark

Winifred Black’s article in the February 22, 1927 New York American. NYAM Collection.

Black’s alarming article sits with hundreds of companions in a handmade, three-volume collection of clippings of news articles about narcotics dating from 1926–1932. The articles may have been collected by Lawrence Boardman Dunham Sr. (1882–1959), who was heavily involved in efforts to stem New York City’s drug trade in the 1920s and 1930s.[4] The collection was acquired by the NYAM Library in 1950.

More than fifty years later, in 2013, Thomas Reed donated an assortment of his own. Aptly titled Smorgasbord for Newcomers, and compiled in the 1970s by Reed and his colleague Herschel Kaminsky, the four-volume collection contains various photocopied writings and pieces pertaining to New York’s controversial Addiction Services Agency (ASA) from 1967–1975.[5] Founded in 1967, the ASA coordinated and operated drug rehabilitation programs in the city.[6] The Smorgasbord covers the Agency’s history, therapeutic approaches, legal battles, and much more.[7] Together, the narcotics article clippings and the Smorgasbord showcase the changing ways the U.S. handled and conceptualized opioid use and addiction, and demonstrate how these kinds of collected materials are exciting historical artifacts in and of themselves.

Lawrence Boardman Dunham’s apparent understanding of the drug crisis of the 1920s and 1930s, as evidenced by the clippings he chose to collect, was colored by a morality-based concern for the consequences of drug use and the drug trade.[8] The articles expressed concern and even outright fear over specific drugs — morphine, heroin — as well as over the vague but terrifying catchalls “narcotics” or “dope.” Writers stressed the threats drugs posed to society, particularly noting the supposed relationship between drugs and criminal activity. Just one day after her “Disgrace and Crime” article, Winifred Black published again in New York American on the issue of opium, this time warning the public of addicts themselves. She asserted that “[many] of the most brutal murders in America have been committed under the urge for morphine.”[9]

To the modern eye, these articles seem highly sensationalized, but their use of what we might today see as fear-mongering suggests a vested interest in prevention (as opposed to treatment) of addiction, particularly through the “education” offered by the articles. “Ignorance is the ally of the Drug Menace,” quipped an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser. “Knowledge is its enemy — the ONLY enemy which can scotch the serpent, and, some day, slay it!”[10]

Dunham_Clippings_1927_FearNarcoticsArticle_watermark

“FEAR Narcotic Drugs!” in the February 23, 1927 Boston Daily Advertiser. NYAM Collection.

In the intervening years between the sensational news stories of the narcotics clippings and the politically fraught world of the Smorgasbord, New York City saw numerous political as well as medical changes in the way drug use was understood and managed on a citywide level. In 1944, at the request of Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia (for whose first mayoral campaign, it should be noted, Dunham was the campaign manager), a committee formed by the New York Academy of Medicine released a report on “The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York.”[11] Although the LaGuardia Report debunked claims that this particular drug caused “delinquency” and crime, it confirmed larger-scale prevailing ideas about drug use even as it refuted them — namely its social nature.[12]

This continuity with the world of the narcotics clippings, however, contrasts with the apparent growing government interest in more deeply understanding drugs — in particular opioids —  and those who used them. The contents of the Smorgasbord reflect this ongoing shift. In particular, the first volume of the Smorgasbord reveals the ways the Addiction Services Agency engaged with changing views of addiction — while many powerful figures in the early years of the agency clung to moral and social understandings of opioid addiction, the document makes clear the growing trend towards understanding addiction as a physiological affliction.[13] Reed and Kaminsky’s collections reveal an agency with changing and conflicting ideas, motives, and goals in the growing opioid crisis of the 1960s and 1970s.

The narcotics article clippings from Lawrence Boardham Dunham and the Smorgasbord are wonderful and rare sets of materials. Both collections offer a snapshot of the country’s (and particularly New York City’s) understanding of narcotic drugs. However, the collections also reflect the positions and motivations of the individuals who compiled them. As modern readers, we can learn much from them — both from what is in them and from what has been left out. The clippings and the Smorgasbord can show us how the U.S. grappled with addiction at different points in the 20th century, but can also reveal the ways in which the compilers’ own thoughts and feelings influenced the stories they put together.

This blog post was written in anticipation of The New York Academy of Medicine’s upcoming Opioid Symposium on Friday, September 20th, 2019. See more details and register here. You can also “adopt” the two works featured in this blog post, which will help ensure their care and preservation. See more information about this here

References

[1] Winifred Black, “Disgrace and Crime Sold Openly in the Opium Market!”, New York American, February 22, 1927, from [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums], Dec 1936 to Sept 1932, Volume 1, Manuscripts, New York Academy of Medicine Library, New York, NY.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Description for [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums].

[5] Thomas Reed and Herschel Kaminsky (compilers). Smorgasbord for Newcomers, circa 1967–1975, Volume 1, Manuscripts, New York Academy of Medicine Library, New York, NY.

[6] “A Political History of the Addiction Services Agency,” Smorgasbord, Volume 1, Part ii, 23.

[7] Reed and Kaminsky, Smorgasbord.

[8] [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums].

[9] Winifred Black, “Opium Held Accountable for All Drug Addict Evils,” New York American, February 23, 1927, [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums]. It should be noted that Black, along with many of her contemporaries, use the word “opium” seemingly to refer to opioid drugs such as morphine as well as or instead of pure opium itself.

[10] “FEAR Narcotic Drugs!”, Boston Daily Advertiser, February 23, 1927, [Lawrence Boardman Dunham clippings and correspondence albums].

[11] Mayor’s Committee on Marihuana. The marihuana problem in the city of New York : sociological, medical, psychological and pharmacological studies.  Lancaster, PA: The Jaques Cattell Press, 1944.

[12] Ibid.

[13] “A Political History of the Addiction Services Agency,” Smorgasbord, Volume 1, Part ii.

Desegregating Harlem Hospital: A Centennial

This guest post is from Adam Biggs, faculty at the University of South Carolina Lancaster and panelist at the recent Academy Race & Health series event, “How Long Will We Wait? The Desegregation of American Hospitals.” Professor Biggs teaches courses in African American Studies and U.S. History, and his research explores the desegregation process at Harlem Hospital from 19191935.

“As I look back with charity at that period,” wrote Aubré Maynard in 1978, “I deplore the fact that I suffered more from the hostility and jealousy of some of my black colleagues than from the antipathy of whites, from whom I expected frank racial animosity.”[1] Lingering more than fifty years after he joined Harlem Hospital as one of its first black interns, Maynard’s feelings of resentment stemmed from acrimony that emerged during the desegregation process. After successfully overcoming white opposition, a heated debate broke out in Harlem over how best to utilize the facility in the interest of racial justice. But rather than a “magic bullet” for the problem of race, desegregation became a mirror of truth, exposing endemic obstacles to racial equality still deeply embedded within the medical profession and internalized within Harlem’s black medical community.

HarlemHospital_Ward_1929_watermark

Harlem Hospital ward, 1929. Image: Harlem Hospital records, 1887-1962, NYAM Collection.

Black civic activists had been advocating to desegregate New York’s municipal hospital system since the early 1910s.[2] But black practitioners would not gain entrance until the nation’s wartime effort placed a burden on medical staffing that could not be ignored. With a reluctant city administration, a small number of practitioners began acquiring low-level positions as early as 1917, and in August 1919, Louis T. Wright became the first black doctor to join the Harlem Hospital staff.[3] Continued advocacy over the next decade pushed the hospital to gradually incorporate black physicians and nurses into its ranks.

HarlemHospital_NurseClass_1929_watermark

Nurses of the class of 1929, Harlem Hospital, New York City. Image: Harlem Hospital records, 1887-1962, NYAM Collection.

This process, however, was not without challenges. For many of the established white staff, the presence of African Americans proved untenable. Shortly after their appointments, the hospital saw a mass exodus of white practitioners who transferred or resigned in protest. Many of those remaining displayed their discontent by acting with belligerence or passive aggression toward the new black hires.[4] Tensions reached a peak in 1927 when a hospital riot was barely averted after a junior white intern, dining in the cafeteria, threw water in the face of Aubré Maynard, a senior resident at the time.[5] Well publicized incidents such as this one amplified the hospital’s toxic racial climate and undermined the public’s trust.

In 1929, Mayor James Walker responded by reorganizing the municipal hospital administration. His reforms led to the dismissal of twenty-three white and two black physicians along with the appointment of twelve new black doctors and the promotion of Louis Wright to the Harlem Hospital board. Within a year, African Americans came to represent approximately forty percent of physicians on staff, making Harlem Hospital the first municipal institution of its kind to embrace the ideal of integration.[6]

Louis-T-Wright-colleagues-Harlem-Hospital-NY

Louis T. Wright and colleagues at patient bedside, Harlem Hospital, New York, N.Y. From left to right: Dr. Lyndon M. Hill, Dr. Louis T. Wright, Dr. Myra Logan, Dr. Aaron Prigot, unidentified African American woman patient, and unidentified hospital employee. Image: Joe Covello (for Black Star), CC-BY SA 3.0

But, while meaningful, the celebration was short-lived. Conflicts soon emerged over who should receive the coveted appointments and whether to transform the hospital into a cutting-edge integrated research facility or an institution dedicated to the training of black personnel.[7] Harlem’s local black medical association, the North Harlem Medical Society, split in two between those supporting and those opposing the hospital administration.[8] Bitter rivalries formed between graduates of black medical programs and those from predominantly white medical schools.[9] Not isolated to Harlem, the conflict also attracted the attention of the national black press, the National Medical Association, and the NAACP. Prominent churches, political leaders, and labor organizations throughout the city got involved as well. Louis Wright became a focal point of contention. A representative of the hospital administration and graduate of Harvard Medical School, opponents labeled him an “Uncle Tom” while supporters characterized the attacks against him as petty envy.[10]

The conflict came to an end in March 1935 when a riot broke out in Harlem. E. Franklin Frazier, a prominent black sociologist, investigated the cause of unrest and determined the hospital’s perpetual discord was a contributing factor.[11] In the years that followed, Harlem’s medical community directed greater public attention toward matters of patient care.

Latent resentment, however, lingered for decades. In 1952, despite an illustrious career, when Wright was nominated for the National Medical Association’s distinguished service award, he received only one vote.[12] Public doubts about black doctors and Harlem Hospital also persisted. Maynard lamented that accepting black doctors onto its staff had the ironic side-effect of diminishing the hospital’s reputation among Harlem residents.[13] Local political figures and New York’s medical community held similar doubts. In 1958, when Martin Luther King, Jr., was taken to Harlem Hospital for emergency care, one nurse in attendance recalled, “a lot of time was wasted while they argued.…They didn’t want to take him to the black hospital.”[14]

HarlemHospital_CorettaScottKing_1958_watermark

Coretta Scott King in children’s ward of Harlem Hospital with flowers sent to Martin Luther King, Jr., September 1958. Image: Harlem Hospital records, 1887-1962, NYAM Collection.

More than a celebratory centennial, the story of desegregation at Harlem Hospital raises meaningful questions about how best to address the problem of race in medicine. The conflicts that emerged within Harlem’s black medical community were not peculiar racial idiosyncrasies but, rather, emblematic of unresolved tensions evident in the profession at large and unaddressed in the hospital reforms. Desegregation proved not to be a miracle cure but instead led to a renewed call for black doctors to further interrogate the deeply embedded, protean forms of racial exclusion that endured in their profession and American society. Today, it reminds us that even watershed victories require continued vigilance and an unyielding commitment to the pursuit of racial justice.

References

[1] Aubré de L. Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story  (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978). 51.

[2] Michael L. Goldstein, “Black Power and the Rise of Bureaucratic Autonomy in New York City Politics: The Case of Harlem Hospital, 1917–1931,” Phylon 41, no. 2 (1980): 191.

[3] Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story: 18-25.

[4] Louis Tompkins Wright. “I Remember….” In Louis T. Wright Papers, Box 130-1, Folder 12. Manuscript Division, Moorland–Spingarn Research Center, Howard University, n. d. p. 93–94; Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story: 23.

[5] Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story: 43.; “Barely Avert Riot at Harlem Hospital,” New York Amsterdam News, 6 July 1927, 1, 2.

[6] “Harlem Hospital Staff Is Reorganized, Giving Place to Nineteen Negro Doctors.” New York Age, 22 February 1930, 1.

[7] Ibid.

[8] “Doctors Quit North Harlem Society to Form New Medical Body; Old Body Repudiated,” New York Age, 24 May 1930, 1, 3.

[9] Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story: 53.

[10] “Plan City Hall March in Fight on Hospital,” New York Amsterdam News, 8 March 1933, 1, 2; Vanessa Northington Gamble, Making a Place for Ourselves: The Black Hospital Movement, 1920–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 58–66.

[11] Charles V. Hamilton, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.: The Political Biography of an American Dilemma (New York: Cooper Square Press, 2002). 55–63.

[12] W. Montague Cobb, “Louis Tompkins Wright, 1891–1952,” Journal of the National Medical Association 45, no. 2 (1953): 3.

[13] Maynard, Surgeons to the Poor: The Harlem Hospital Story: 81–82.

[14] Ebony Magazine. “[IN MY LIFETIME] Goldie Brangman on Saving Martin Luther King’s Life.” 2016.

How Long Will We Wait? A Recap of Our Latest Race & Health Series Event

This guest post is by Dr. Danielle Laraque-Arena, the 2019 Scholar in Residence at the New York Academy of Medicine. She is the tenured Professor of Pediatrics, Psychiatric & Behavioral Sciences, Public Health & Preventive Medicine at SUNY Upstate Medical University (UMU), the Former President of UMU, and moderated the Race & Health Series event, “How Long Will We Wait? The Desegregation of American Hospitals” on July 10, 2019.

The Race & Health Series, a powerful series of presentations, was initiated early this year, envisioning a more just society, reviewing key lessons of the past, evaluating current status of health equity, and engaging in robust dialogue with the community on the social, economic, and systemic issues that keep all people from enjoying a healthy life. The first presentation in this series reviewed the history of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and posed the question of whether Tuskegee could happen again. The second presentation, “How Long Will We Wait? The Desegregation of American Hospitals,” was prefaced by a showing of the documentary film, Power to Heal: Medicare and the Civil Rights Revolution, followed by a community-engaged discussion of the implications of the film for our current-day realities.

race_health_1

The Academy Library displayed archival Harlem Hospital photos in the lobby.

Barbara Berney, Ph.D., M.P.H. produced the documentary film. Dr. Berney, a distinguished scholar in public health, environmental justice and the US healthcare system, joined us from the shores of California. Barbara was joined by Professor Adam Biggs, an American historian from the University of South Carolina. The two scholars spoke to the diverse audience of about 300 people from the Harlem area, New York City, and New York State at large. They took us on a historical journey of the deeply segregated United States of the Jim Crow period. Their focus was on recounting the impact of Jim Crow state and local laws that dictated every aspect of life for black Americans following Reconstruction. During this period, segregation was mandated in all public facilities such as restrooms, restaurants, hotels/motels, schools, and hospitals. Professor Biggs highlighted the period from 1919–1935, focusing on the desegregation of Harlem Hospital. The audience, many of whom work or have worked at Harlem Hospital, were on the edge of their seats for this important discussion.

race_health_6

The author (left) with panelists Barbara Berney and Adam Biggs.

The background analysis of the Jim Crow period led to a focused discussion regarding the segregation of American hospitals and the dire conditions of health care for black Americans. The response from black physicians, the formation of the National Medical Association, the advocacy efforts of the NAACP, and the force of the conviction of people of conscience throughout the United States led to the partnering of the American government under John F. Kennedy and then Lyndon B. Johnson with activists, to begin to transform the landscape of American life and politics. The palpable national tone of the bitter struggles of the Civil Rights movement—with activities such as voter registration in the southern states that often led to the murders of civil rights activists—was ever real for many who in the audience had lived through those dark days.

race_health_3

Audience members at the panel discussion respond to the speakers’ powerful remarks.

In fact, among the attendees were individuals such as Phyllis Cunningham and Roger Platt, both of whose efforts were shared in the film. I had the honor of working with both Phyllis (nurse, activist) and Roger (internist, hospital inspector) during my 24 years in the Harlem area, but had renewed respect when I witnessed—as demonstrated in the film—their immense courage during the dangerous times of the 60’s. Others featured in the film included David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., former U. S. Surgeon General. I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Satcher a number of times. He spoke of the achievements of the Civil Rights movement, the passage of Medicare, and the continued aspiration for universal access for all: recognizing that health care is a right and not a privilege.

The film also reviewed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of Medicare in 1965. The intersection of these two landmark events leveraged their collective impact to amplify the message that health care is a human right. At the time of the passage of the Medicare legislation, the persistence of the “separate but equal” effect of Hill-Burton Act, providing for hospital construction, was alive. As Johnson noted, a hammer was needed to propel the desegregation of hospitals, and this was done by having the receipt of federal dollars in support of the care of the elderly be contingent upon desegregation of hospital services. The key lesson was that incremental progress, as had been imperfectly done in education, would not yield the fundamental results needed in health care. Civil rights were to be baked into the administrative process. Desegregation occurred through the brute application of the principle “follow the money.”

race_health_8

Audience members lined up to ask questions at the end of the discussion.

The two-hour session engaged questions from the audience. Individuals lined up to ask the obvious: How do we learn from the courage of those who achieved so much in the past decades? Does such courage exist today? What was the effect of desegregation on the elimination of health disparities—and by implication, is desegregation sufficient? The importance of history, the importance of courage under fire, and the lifelong commitment to social justice and health justice was clear from the engagement of the audience and the resounding voices of our distinguished panel.

Members and Fellows of the Academy, please follow our blog—and show your strong support for The New York Academy of Medicine by making sure your membership/fellowship dues are paid and up to date. Post a response to this blog and let us know how the Academy can work for you and continue the struggle for social justice and health equity. Thank you!

Get Your Primary Sources! Public Health in Modern America & Archives of Sexuality & Gender, Part III

By Robin Naughton, PhD

The New York Academy of Medicine Library has closed stacks, and as such, the serendipitous nature of browsing the shelves and discovering a gem stuck between two unlikely neighbors is limited to the librarians working in the Library. Thus, it is important that we provide patrons with access to the material in ways that they too can explore. This is a major goal of the Digital team, and it is made possible through a variety of digitization projects. Most recently, the Library partnered with Gale, a Cengage company, to digitize materials for two mass digitization projects: Public Health in Modern America, 1890-1970 launched in June 2019 and Archives of Sexuality & Gender, Part III: Sex and Sexuality, Sixteenth to Twentieth Centuries launched in February 2019.  Within the past year, the collaboration with Gale has helped the Library to digitize over 6,600 items, which represents almost a million images created.

Contributions

The Library contributed archival collections, and rare and historical materials for each project, providing users with access to major primary sources.

PHIAF0004-C00000-B0209700-00020

Bouton, S. M. (n. d.). Old Doc Politics is back again. New York: Public Relations Bureau Medical Society of the State of New York. Pamphlet in New York Academy of Medicine Library collection; digitized for Public Health in Modern America database.

Public Health in Modern America includes:

  • The Committee on Public Health of the New York Academy of Medicine – a collection of correspondence, reports, minutes, and documents on the significant work of the committee with New York’s health department and leading figures in public health. It is a collection about the New York Academy’s contribution and role in public health at the time.
  • Library of Social and Economic Aspects of Medicine of Michael M. Davis – a collection of the work of Dr. Davis in the early twentieth century, covering topics such as healthcare, medical economics, social security, legislation, and more.
  • Selected Public Health Pamphlets – over 2,200 pamphlets on various aspects of public health from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century.
Sanger_cover_cropped

Sanger, M. (1913?). What every girl should know. Reading, PA: Sentinel Printing Co. Book in New York Academy of Medicine Library collection; digitized for Archives of Sexuality & Gender database.

Archives of Sexuality & Gender includes:

  • Monographs – over 1,500 monographs on a variety of topics dealing with sex, sexuality, and gender.
  • Mary Ware Dennett Case Collection – an archival collection of the court case against Dennett for writing “The Sex Side of Life,” a pamphlet about sex for young people.
  • Correspondence between Eugen Steinach and Harry Benjamin – a collection of over forty years of correspondence about rejuvenation, including letters, postcards, diagrams, and photographs.

Together, these two products represent significant digitization making rare and unique materials available. Researchers can now go deep in ways not possible prior to digitization. For example, the material has optical character recognition (OCR), which means that researchers can search for a term and discover all the places where that term exists within a text, across the collection, or across the product, which includes collections from other collaborators. In addition, the products offer options to jump to diagrams, photographs, and other material types within a given item.  Thus, researchers now have direct access to substantial databases of primary source materials that they can analyze in novel ways.

External Digitization Process

Creating these products took tremendous amount of collaboration among multiple organizations and people.  For the Library, these products required the external digitization process, which was one process out of many that made it possible to seamlessly digitize this material. The external digitization process included an intricate tracking of each item digitized from the moment it was identified and taken off the shelf to moment it was returned to its place on the shelf.

The external digitization process workflow describes the steps involved.

Gale Production Process

External digitization process flowchart, created by the author.

Green indicates start and end.  White indicates steps in the process.   Yellow indicates that there are additional processes involved with their own workflows. Red indicates that there is an issue that needs to be resolved.

External digitization projects make it possible for the Library to digitize materials on a large scale and make the content available to universities and research institutions from Gale. It also makes the products created available to patrons in the Library. Thus, patrons visiting the Library can have access to these databases while in the Library.

Interested in using these databases in the Library? Click here to find out how to make an appointment to visit.

Apply for Our 2020 Fellowships

We’re pleased to announce that our two annual fellowships are open to applications!

nyam_rbr_106

The Drs. Barry and Bobbi Coller Rare Book Reading Room, where our fellowship recipients will conduct their research.

The Academy Library offers two annual research fellowships, the Paul Klemperer Fellowship in the History of Medicine and the Audrey and William H. Helfand Fellowship in the History of Medicine and Public Health, to support the advancement of scholarly research in the history of medicine and public health. Fellowship recipients spend a month in residence conducting research using the library’s collections.

Applications for our fellowships are being accepted now through late August for fellowships that may be used at any time during 2020.

Preference in the application process will be given to those whose research will take advantage of resources that are uniquely available at the Academy, individuals in the early stages of their careers, and, for the Helfand Fellowship, applications which include an emphasis on the use of visual materials held within the Academy’s collections and elsewhere. Applicants should provide information in their proposals about the collection items they plan to use, either by including a bibliography of resources they intend to consult or discussing those items in detail in the context of the application essay. Changes in the Library that are scheduled to take place beginning in the second half of 2019 will impact applicants whose projects rely heavily on 19th and 20th century serial literature or on monographs published during the second half of the 20th century. 

Applications are due by the end of the day on Friday, August 23, 2019. Letters of recommendation are due by the end of the day on Monday, August 26, 2019. Applicants will be notified of whether or not they have received a fellowship by Monday, October 4, 2019.

Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact Arlene Shaner, Historical Collections Librarian, at 212-822-7313 or history@nyam.org with questions or for assistance identifying useful materials in the library collections.

Click on their names to read blog posts about their projects from our most recent fellowship recipients, Matthew Davidson (Klemperer) and Tina Peabody (Helfand).

We look forward to hearing all about your projects!

“Filth is the Arch Enemy of Health”: The Committee on Public Health and Waste Management in New York City

This guest post is by Tina Peabody, 2019 Audrey and William H. Helfand Fellow at the New York Academy of Medicine, and a doctoral candidate in history at the University of Albany, SUNY focusing on the urban environment in the United States. She is currently completing her dissertation entitled “Wretched Refuse: Garbage and the Making of New York City”, a social and economic history of waste management in New York City between the 1880s and 1990s.

The Committee on Public Health at the New York Academy of Medicine is well known for their role in creating the Department of Sanitation in 1929, through the development of the Committee of Twenty on Street and Outdoor Cleanliness. However, the broader Committee’s activism on sanitation has a longer and more complex history. Soon after its formation in 1911, the Committee on Public Health decried the conditions of city streets. They held conferences on sanitation in 1914 and 1915 which included representatives of the Department of Street Cleaning and other municipal departments.[1] While Department of Street Cleaning Commissioner J. T. Fetherston claimed he could not update equipment nor flush streets with water, he nonetheless encouraged the Committee to educate the public about the connections between dirt and disease.[2]  With that in mind, the Committee wrote a report in 1915 which connected the pathogens in street dirt to illness.[3]

Two men hauling garbage into an open refuse truck.

Commitee of Twenty, Dusty Trucks 2

The Committee of Twenty was particularly concerned about open refuse trucks which could spew dust and debris. Images: Committee of Twenty, Committee on Public Health Archives, New York Academy of Medicine, ca. 1930.

In 1928, a subcommittee called The Committee of Twenty was formed, in part because conditions did not improve substantially after the conferences and report.[4]  Among their recommendations, the Committee of Twenty supported the creation of a unified sanitation agency with full control over street cleanliness.[5]  They envisioned themselves as educators for the Department of Sanitation as well as the public, and they researched the latest collection methods and equipment from Europe to recommend improvements.[6] The newly-created Department of Sanitation, however, resisted investing in the recommended equipment, partially due to the expense.[7] Still, the Committee monitored street conditions, and kept photographic evidence of city and private sanitation trucks spewing dust and debris on the streets or other violations of sanitary ordinances.

Commitee of Twenty, Dirty Streets

Picture of overflowing refuse cans from the Committee of Twenty. Image: Committee of Twenty, Committee on Public Health Archives, New York Academy of Medicine, ca. 1930.

The Committee of Twenty also educated the public about outdoor cleanliness and especially the connections between dirt and disease. They issued pamphlets warning that “filth is the arch enemy of health,” and urged them to take personal responsibility for clean streets. “Do not put all the blame on the city administration,” one pamphlet read. “This is your city. A clean city means better health, better business; greater happiness for all; respect for law and order.”[8]  Along with educational literature, they placed litter baskets around the city, and posted signs which reminded New Yorkers of sanitary practices like “curbing” dogs.[9]  They also encouraged public participation in solving sanitary problem in novel ways, such as holding a contest for the best litter basket design in 1930.[10] 

Committee of Twenty, Don't

Educational Pamphlet from the Committee of Twenty. Image: Committee of Twenty, Committee on Public Health Archives, New York Academy of Medicine, ca. 1930.

The Committee was also influential in the citywide cleanup effort in preparation for the 1939 New York World’s Fair. Members of the Committee of Twenty and their allies argued that the Fair was the perfect opportunity for improving street cleanliness. Committee members Bernard Sachs and E. H. L. Corwin wrote that New York City was “the ‘Wonder City of the World,’ beyond a doubt; the ‘cleanest city,’ by no means. But we must make it that.”[11]  In line with the idea, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia declared April 1939 “dress up paint up” month, and launched a broad beautification effort which included removal of litter, dog waste, and even “beggars, vagrants and peddlers.”[12]  Bernard Sachs was the representative for the Committee of Twenty on the Mayor’s Committee on Property Improvement, which was developed for the cleanliness campaign.

Committee of Twenty, Why Clean Streets 1

Educational pamphlet from the Committee of Twenty. Image: Committee of Twenty, Committee on Public Health Archives, New York Academy of Medicine, ca. 1930.

Committee of Twenty, Why Clean Streets 2

Educational pamphlet from the Committee of Twenty. Image: Committee of Twenty, Committee on Public Health Archives, New York Academy of Medicine, ca. 1930.

In 1950, the Committee on Public Health supported an initiative to introduce alternate side street parking to allow street cleaning unobstructed from parked automobiles, but otherwise was much less active on sanitation issues after the 1939 World’s Fair.[13]  At a meeting with Department of Sanitation Commissioner Andrew Mulrain in 1950, the Committee even debated whether unclean streets actually did cause disease.[14]  One Dr. Lincoln wondered if clean streets were not simply a matter of “public pride.” [15]  Still, the Committee’s early work on outdoor cleanliness would have a lasting legacy, particularly in terms of public education. The Outdoor Cleanliness Association, which was formed shortly after the Committee of Twenty [16], continued their educational work with regular cleanliness drives through the 1950s and 1960s in coordination with the Sanitation and Police departments.

References

 [1] “Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Health, Hospital, and Budget Committee October 26, 1914,” The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1914–1915 (New York, NY), 74; “Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Health, Hospital, and Budget Committee Conference on Street Cleaning May 7, 1915,” The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1914–1915 (New York, NY), 153–55.

[2] “Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Health, Hospital, and Budget Committee,” November 16, 1914, The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1914–1915 (New York, NY), 84–85; “Minutes of the Meeting of the Public Health, Hospital, and Budget Committee Conference on Street Cleaning May 7, 1915,” The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1914–1915 (New York, NY), 153-54 .

[3] Committee on Public Health, “Thirty Years in Community Service 1911–1941: A Brief Outline of the Work of the Committee on Public Health Relations of the New York Academy of Medicine” (The New York Academy of Medicine, 1941), 79.

[4] Committee on Public Health, “Thirty Years in Community Service 1911–1941,” 80.

[5] “Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Committee on Public Health Relations,” May 14, 1928, The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1927–1928 (New York, NY), 134; Committee on Public Health, “Thirty Years in Community Service 1911–1941: A Brief Outline of the Work of the Committee on Public Health Relations of the New York Academy of Medicine,” 10.

[6] Committee on Public Health, “Thirty Years in Community Service 1911–1941,” 80.

[7] Committee on Public Health, “Memorandum of a Conference between Dr. William Schroeder, Jr., Chairman, Sanitary Commission…..May 19, 1931,” 1–4, Committee on Public Health Archives, Box 4, Folder 50c.

[8] Committee of Twenty on Street and Outdoor Cleanliness, “Why Clean Streets? Because Filth Is the Arch Enemy of Health” (New York Academy of Medicine, n.d.), Special Collections, New York Academy of Medicine Library.

[9] Committee on Public Health, “Thirty Years in Community Service 1911–1941: A Brief Outline of the Work of the Committee on Public Health Relations of the New York Academy of Medicine,” 80.

[10] Committee of Twenty on Street and Outdoor Cleanliness, “Prize Contest for the Design of a Litter Basket For New York City” (New York Academy of Medicine, n.d.), Special Collections, New York Academy of Medicine Library.

[11] Bernard Sachs and E. H. L. Corwin, “Fair Offers Opportunity: City Is Urged to Institute a Program of Outdoor Cleanliness,” New York Times, July 4, 1938.

[12] Marshall Sprague, “Clean City for Fair: Public and Private Groups Hard at Work Dressing Up New York for April, 1939 Mayor Is Enthusiastic Keeping Waters Pure Refurbishing Statues Beautification Drives,” New York Times, September 18, 1938; Elizabeth La Hines, “Drive Is Begun For a Tidy City During the Fair: Outdoor Cleanliness Group to Ask Wide Aid in Fight on Sidewalk Rubbish One Nuisance Abated Aid Through New Equipment Model for Other Cities,” New York Times, April 9, 1939.

[13] Committee on Public Health, “Pioneering in Public Health for Fifty Years” (The New York Academy of Medicine, 1961), 62.

[14]  “Minutes of the Meeting of the Subcommittee on Street Sanitation,” June 21, 1950, The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine Minutes 1949–1950 (New York (N.Y.)), 473.

[15]  Ibid.

[16]  George A. Soper, “Attacking the Problem of Litter in New York,” New York Times, November 5, 1933.

 

 

 

 

 

Color Your Heart Out at the Museum Mile Festival

Museum Mile street sign

Part of Museum Mile!

The New York Academy of Medicine is once again participating in the annual Museum Mile Festival! This year’s event will be held on Tuesday, June 11th from 6:00pm-9:00pm and will feature lots of fun activities and performances, as well as free admission to eight museums along Museum Mile (Fifth Avenue in Manhattan from 82nd to 110th Streets).

Cover of NYAM 2019 Coloring Book

Can’t make it to Museum Mile? Our coloring books are online, too!

We’ll be offering coloring pages using images from our collections and crayons. We hope you’ll stop by our table at 103rd Street!

The Medical Journals of U.S.-Occupied Haiti

This guest post is by Matthew Davidson, a doctoral candidate at the University of Miami and the 2019 Paul Klemperer Fellow at the New York Academy of Medicine. His research examines public health in Haiti during the 1915-1934 U.S. occupation.

During the nineteen years of the early twentieth century that the United States occupied Haiti (1915-1934), U.S. officials liked to claim that they had brought modern medical thought to the Caribbean country. Their contention was bunk, but it apparently felt very real when the Haitian physician, Dr. François Dalencour, received a letter from a French colleague asking for copies of any Haitian medical publications. “I was ashamed,” Dalencour later wrote, “of being obliged to tell the truth, to say that there were none. [i] He would have been able to send along reports authored by the occupation medical service, but there was apparently nothing current otherwise. Haiti, Dalencour decided, needed a medical journal.

Soon after, he established one.

LeJournalMedicalHaitien_May1920_1_watermark

The first issue of Le Journal Médical Haïtien (NYAM). 

The occupation, it turns out, was indeed an important period for Haitian medical thought. As was the case in other fields, it provoked a flurry of intellectual production. Consequently, whereas doctors such as Dalencour lamented the lack of Haitian medical publications at the start, by the end the local medical establishment could boast of several. U.S. officials claimed this was a sign of how far medicine in Haiti had “progressed” under their tutelage, but it was truly more the product of Haiti’s own medical tradition. [ii] Meant to advance medical practice and public health policy, the journals provided a forum for Haitian practitioners to debate and discuss all sorts of matters related to health and medicine in the country.

Dalencour’s periodical, Le Journal Médical Haïtien, was arguably the most important of the occupation-era publications. Not only was it the first, founded in May 1920, but it also did the most to open up space for the Haitian medical profession to articulate ideas and positions about their field. With U.S. personnel otherwise completely dominating all aspects of medicine and public health in Haiti, Le Journal Médical Haïtien was the only venue (outside of individual private practices) actually controlled by Haitians. It accordingly brought together “all members of the Haitian Medical Corps, without any distinction”: doctors, pharmacists, dentists and midwives. [iii] In doing so, the journal bridged longstanding divisions within the medical corps and laid the foundation for further independent initiative.

As Le Journal Médical Haïtien facilitated the reorganization of the Haitian medical profession, it also laid bare the lie that the occupation brought medical modernity to the country. After all, it was not because the U.S. introduced “scientific medicine” or any other set of ideas to Haiti that the journal appeared. Rather, it had its genesis in the pre-occupation period. As Dalencour wrote in the first issue, the project was first conceived in 1903. He was still a medical student at the time, so establishing a journal for medical reform was a “somewhat pretentious idea.” [iv] Nonetheless, it was then, well before the Americans landed, that the first steps were taken to establish a “general review of the medical movement in Haiti” (as Le Journal Médical Haïtien was later billed). The principles laid out by Dalencour and his collaborators in 1920 were even the same as those declared in 1903. All that had changed was the name. Dalencour had originally chosen the title Haïti Médicale, but – further reflecting the strength of Haiti’s pre-occupation medical and intellectual traditions – another journal had taken that name in 1910. [v]

The next to emerge was Les Annales de Médecine Haïtienne. Established in 1923 by two young doctors, Drs. N. St. Louis and F. Coicou, Les Annales was associated with a newly reorganized union, le Syndicat des Médecins. Much more oppositional in outlook, the journal was conceived as an “organ for the expansion of medicine in Haiti and for the defense of the interests of the medical corps.” [vi] Explicitly anti-occupation, it actively contested the U.S. health project in Haiti and worked to organize Haitian doctors against it under the auspices of le Syndicat des Médecins. It was not merely a political publication, though, for it also carried articles dedicated to public health education and research in the medical sciences. Over time, such articles became more and more prominent, and as the occupation ended Les Annales de Médecine Haïtienne essentially transitioned to purely scientific journal. U.S. medical sciences, however, continued to be received coolly.

LesAnnalesDeMedecineHaitienne

May-June 1932 issue of Les Annales de Médecine Haïtienne (Schomburg Center, NYPL).

The last of the occupation-era publications was the only one that owed its existence to the occupation health project. The Bulletin de la Société de Médecine d’Haïti, founded with that society in 1927, was the sole journal fostered by U.S. officials, and it was the only one to have U.S. practitioners on its editorial board or to publish articles authored by occupation doctors. The society itself was organized and controlled by the occupation health service, the Service d’Hygiène. Accordingly, most independent doctors (i.e., those not directly employed by the Service d’Hygiène) tended to find the Société “too American” and remained outside of it. [vii] Nonetheless, the Bulletin was more than just an American journal based in Haiti.

BulletinDeLASocieteDeMedecineDHaiti_Jan1927_1_watermark

The first issue of the Bulletin de la Société de Médecine d’Haïti (NYAM).

The Bulletin de la Société de Médecine d’Haïti was an important register for the medical sciences in Haiti. From 1927 until the end of the occupation, it published an impressive array of scholarship, much of it by Haitian practitioners. With an emphasis on medical specialization, it tended to be more concerned with the medical sciences than with public health policy or practice, and it accordingly developed a reputation for being the most scientific of the journals. As a project, however, the Bulletin mostly just brought to fruition ideas and proposals first put forth in the pages of Le Journal Médical Haïtien (or by the 1890 Société de Médecine de Port-au-Prince before that). In form as much as in content, then, the Bulletin was as Haitian as it was American. Consequently, when the American editors shuttered the journal in 1934 with the end of the occupation, the Haitian medical establishment remained committed to the project: it lived on as the Bulletin du Service d’Hygiene et d’Assistance Publique – Medicale et Sanitaire.

BulletinDuServiceDHygieneEtDAssistancePublique_Jun1934_1_watermark

The first issue of the Bulletin du Service d’Hygiene et d’Assistance Publique – Medicale et Sanitaire (NYAM).

Each of these journals have largely been overlooked by historians, despite being incredibly rich sources. With their debates about public health policy, research on various health matters, clinical notes, correspondence between doctors and medical officials, translated articles from abroad, social commentary, and more, they offer significant insight into the state of medical care and the politics of health during the occupation. They would also be of interest to anyone thinking about Haitian social and intellectual history more generally. Few copies of each journal still exist, but they – with the exception of Les Annales – can be found at the New York Academy of Medicine library.

References

[i] Dalencour, François, « En Manière de Programme. » Le Journal Médical Haïtien (Première Année, No. 1, May, 1920; New York Academy of Medicine Library).

[ii] See, for instance, Parsons, Robert P., History of Haitian Medicine (New York: Paul B. Hoeber Inc., 1930).

[iii] Dalencour, François, « En Manière de Programme. » Le Journal Médical Haïtien (Première Année, No. 1, May, 1920; New York Academy of Medicine Library).

[iv] Dalencour, François, « En Manière de Programme. » Le Journal Médical Haïtien (Première Année, No. 1, May, 1920; New York Academy of Medicine Library).

[v] Haïti Médicale was published from 1910-1913, and then was briefly revived again in 1920.

[vi] Les Annales de Médecine Haitienne (9eme Année, No. 3 &4, Mars-Avril 1932; Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York Public Library).

[vii] Bordes, Ary, Haïti Médecine et Santé Publique sous l’Occupation Américaine, 1915-1934 (Haiti: Imprimerie Deschamps, 1992), 300.

NYAM’s First Female Fellow: Mary Putnam Jacobi

By Carrie Levinson, Reference Services and Outreach Librarian

The history of the New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM) includes many great figures, including Samuel Smith Purple, a founding Fellow as well as advocate for our Library, author of a large number of medical works, and the ward physician under the Board of Health during the NYC cholera epidemic of 1849 (“Dr. Samuel Smith Purple”, 1900); Valentine Mott, an eminent surgeon who helped to found Rutgers Medical College and was chair of surgery at Columbia College (“Obituary: Death of Dr. Valentine Mott”, 1865); and Abraham Jacobi, a pioneer in pediatrics and President of the Academy from 1885-1889 (Watson, 1896). These doctors all had one thing in common (besides, of course, being physicians): they were all men. Until 1880, there had never been a female NYAM Fellow. The woman who managed to break this glass ceiling? Mary Putnam Jacobi – by one vote (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015).

Watson_PhysiciansAndSurgeonsOfAmerica_MaryPutnamJacobi_1896_407_watermark

Mary Putnam Jacobi (Watson, 1896).

Mary Putnam was born on August 31, 1842, in London. Her parents, who were both Americans, returned to the States in 1847, and settled in New York City. In 1859, she began studying medicine, first receiving a diploma from the New York College of Pharmacy in 1862 (the first woman to do this) and then graduating with her MD from the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania in 1864. In 1866, she traveled to Paris to enroll in the École de Médecine – once again, the first woman to be admitted – and graduated from there in 1871 (Watson, 1896).

Just these accomplishments would have been enough to put Putnam in the history books, but she hadn’t even begun to make her mark. Women’s education at the time was often separate from men’s, and she argued that higher education, particularly medical school, should be co-educational, as women’s medical colleges did not have the same resources as those affiliated with large hospitals. Returning to New York, she organized the Association for the Advancement of the Medical Education of Women and served as its president for almost 30 years (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015).

In 1876, Jacobi (now married to Abraham Jacobi) published an important essay: “The Question of Rest for Women during Menstruation”, which won the Boylston Prize at Harvard University (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015). Why was that so significant?

Jacobi was a stickler for rigor in scientific research. She believed that many other doctors did not live up to these expectations and allowed their biases to color their research. One of these biases was the widespread belief, specifically argued for in Edward H. Clarke’s Sex in Education; or, a Fair Chance for the Girls, that women who exerted themselves during menstruation could face serious health issues. This belief was used to justify separating women from higher education and certain professions. Relying heavily on statistics and empirical evidence, Jacobi thoroughly debunked this notion (Bittel, 2009).

Jacobi continued her work in fighting for equality for women throughout her lifetime – she wrote in favor of suffrage and taught at the Women’s Medical College of the New York Infirmary for Women and Children until 1889, assisting in elevating educational standards (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015).

letter_mary_jacobi_watermarked

Letter from Mary Putnam Jacobi to Sophie Boaz, February 27, 1884, documenting Jacobi’s son’s death from diphtheria, a major public health problem at the time. NYAM Collection.

Jacobi even considered her own life as a means to advance medical research – when diagnosed with a brain tumor, she wrote a paper about it before passing on at the age of 63: “Description of the Early Symptoms of the Meningeal Tumor Compressing the Cerebellum. From Which the Writer Died. Written by Herself” (U. S. National Library of Medicine, 2015).

NYAM’s collection of Mary Putnam Jacobi’s productions can be found in our catalog.

References

Bittel, C. (2009). Mary Putnam Jacobi & the politics of medicine in nineteenth-century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Dr. Samuel Smith Purple. (1900, October 1). The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com

Obituary: Death of Dr. Valentine Mott. (1865, April 27). The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2015, June 3). Changing the Face of Medicine: Dr. Mary Corinna Putnam Jacobi. Retrieved from https://cfmedicine.nlm.nih.gov/physicians/biography_163.html

Watson, I. A. (Ed.). (1896). Physicians and surgeons of America: A collection of biographical sketches of the regular medical profession. Concord, NH: Republican Press Association.