Doctors In Britain Research Articles

Medical school origins of award-winning psychiatrists; analysis of a complete national dataset

BackgroundBritain attracts doctors from all over the world to work in the National Health Service. Elucidating the educational backgrounds of award-winning doctors working in the country is potentially an important medical education issue and a merit award audit. Using the British clinical merit award schemes as outcome measures, we identify medical school origins of award-winning doctors who have been identified as having achieved national or international prominence.MethodsThe Clinical Excellence Awards/Distinction Awards schemes select doctors in Britain who are classified as high achievers, with categories for national prominence and above. We used this outcome measure in a quantitative observational analysis of the 2019–20 dataset of all 901 award-winning doctors. Pearson's Chi-Square test was used where appropriate.ResultsFive university medical schools (London university medical schools, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Cambridge) accounted for 59.1% of the psychiatrist award-winning doctors in the 2019 round, despite the dataset representing 85 medical schools. 84.1% of the psychiatrist award-winners were from European medical schools, compared to 92.1% of the non-psychiatrist award-winners. International medical graduates accounted for 22.7% of the award-winning psychiatrists. Psychiatrists with the lower grade national awards came from a more diverse educational background of 17 medical schools. IMGs represented diverse medical schools from five continents and were most represented in the lowest grade of national merit awards at 24.2%.ConclusionsThe majority of the award-winning psychiatrists originated from only five medical schools. A greater diversity of medical school origin existed for the lowest grade national psychiatrist award-winners. International medical graduates contributed substantially to these award-winners; psychiatrist award-winners were more likely to be international medical graduates (22.7%) than non-psychiatrist award-winners (10.8%). This study not only indicates educational centres associated with the production of award-winners but also provides students with a roadmap for rational decision making when selecting medical schools.

Medical school origins of award-winning surgeons; analysis of a complete national dataset

BackgroundBritain attracts doctors from all over the world to work in the National Health Service. Elucidating the educational backgrounds of award-winning doctors working in the country is potentially an important medical education issue and merit award audit. Using the British clinical merit award schemes as outcome measures, we identify medical school origins of award-winning doctors who have been identified as having achieved national or international prominence.MethodsThe Clinical Excellence Awards/Distinction Awards schemes select doctors in Britain who are classified as high achievers, with categories for national prominence and above. We used this outcome measure in a quantitative observational analysis of the 2019 dataset of all 901 award-winning doctors. Pearson's Chi-Square test was used where appropriate.ResultsSeven medical schools (London university medical schools, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester) accounted for 52.7% of the surgical award-winning doctors in the 2019 round, despite the dataset representing 85 medical schools. Surgeons with the lower grade national awards came from a more diverse educational background of 43 medical schools. International medical graduates accounted for 16.1% of the award-winning surgeons and 9.8% of the award-winning non-surgeons. 87.1% of the surgical award-winners were from European medical schools, whereas 93.2% of the non-surgical award-winners were from European medical schools.ConclusionsThe majority of the award-winning surgeons originated from only seven, overrepresented, medical schools. A greater diversity of medical school origin existed for the lowest grade national merit awards. These comprised 43 medical schools and indicated greater globalization effects in this category. International medical graduates contributed substantially to these award holders; surgical award-winners were more likely to be international medical graduates (16.1%) than non-surgical award-winners (9.8%). This study not only indicates educational centres associated with the production of award-winners but also provides students with a roadmap for rational decision making when selecting medical schools.

Power, Belonging, and Respectability

Power, Belonging, and Respectability

Warfare and the launch of medical reform in Britain, 1793–1811

AbstractUntil the beginning of the nineteenth century, registering and regulating the training of any medical practitioners in Britain had rarely been attempted, unlike in many other European countries. During the Revolutionary War with France, fevers swept through British armies, leading to numerous fatalities and crushing military defeats, especially in the disastrous expedition to St Domingo. The problem, as forcibly advocated by Robert Jackson, the leading expert on military fevers, seemed to be poor medical care due to both lack of compulsory medical training and the unsuitability of whatever training was available for army medical practitioners. With the simultaneous rapid advance of French military and civilian medical training and the threat of a French invasion, regulating British medical training and excluding the unqualified became a military necessity, and suddenly medical reform was receiving widespread attention. Emphasising the benefits to the Britain’s fighting ability, the reform effort, led by Edward Harrison, a very provincial Lincolnshire physician, under the patronage of Sir Joseph Banks, the President of the Royal Society, gained the support of leading politicians, including three Prime Ministers. For a short time, comprehensive medical reform seemed inevitable: but the opposition of the medical corporations, especially the London College of Physicians, could not be circumvented, and although Harrison persisted in his efforts for 6 years, no legislation was achieved. Nevertheless, within months, the Association of Apothecaries continued the process by pressing for a more limited reform, culminating in the 1815 Apothecaries Act. The long march towards the full regulation of doctors in Britain was started by the perceived military needs of the country during the war with France.

In Ukraine, mistrust of doctors remains high

Dr. Richard Styles was used to being trusted as a doctor in Britain, but that changed when he moved to Ukraine a decade ago, after working in a number of European Union-funded projects there. “There is nearly no trust in doctors at all, even amongst doctors,” says the chief medical director at

‘Not everyone can be a Gandhi’: South Asian-trained doctors immigrating to Canada, c. 1961–1971

Objectives. This paper will explore the social history of the transnational migration of foreign-trained doctors to western countries in the post-WWII era, by examining, as a case study, South Asian-trained doctors who were first licensed in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia between 1961 and 1971. Design. This article draws on both quantitative and qualitative primary sources. First, we analyzed the 1966 and 1971 copies of the Canadian Medical Directories (CMD), the annual compendium of all licensed practitioners in the country (over 20,000 practitioners). These CMD entries were supplemented by the annual returns of ‘intended occupation’ (those designated as ‘physician’ or ‘surgeon’) of landed immigrants to Canada, as compiled by the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration. Secondly, we analyzed testimony of 26 oral histories and narrative accounts of foreign-trained doctors being compiled as part of an ongoing multiyear program of research on the immigration of foreign-trained doctors to Canada. We have interviewed 14 doctors who, at one point in their career, practiced in Nova Scotia, 8 of whom were South Asian-trained medical practitioners. These oral interviews provide personal reflections on the process of professional and social acculturation that occurred as these foreign doctors settled in Canada. Results. The results of this paper indicate that the social history of the immigration of South Asian-trained doctors to Canada in the 1960s must be seen within a larger and more complicated pattern of the international migration of health care professionals. Indeed, the demand for foreign-trained doctors in Britain was in part a reflection of the out-migration of British-born doctors who were leaving the National Health Service for Canada, the USA, and Australia. And the demand in Canada for doctors was itself a reaction to the drift of a certain number of Canadian-trained doctors for advanced training in the USA. Conclusions. In this way, this article sheds important historical perspectives on the globalization of health human resources and the complicated, multiple migrations that continue to animate international health human resources today.

Women Doctors and Lady Nurses: Class, Education, and the Professional Victorian Woman.

The lives of the first women doctors in Britain have been well studied by historians, as have the many debates about the right of women to train and practice as doctors. Yet the relationship between these women and their most obvious comparators and competitors-the newly professionalized hospital nurses-has not been explored. This article makes use of a wide range of sources to explore the ways in which the first lady doctors created "clear water" between themselves and the nurses with whom they worked and trained. In doing so, it reveals an identity that may seem at odds with some of the clichés of Victorian femininity, namely that of the intelligent and ambitious lady doctor.

“I Make Here My Soil. I Make Here My Country.”

This article discusses the complex and multilayered notion of class in the lives of Iranian women migrant doctors in Britain. Addressing classed identities in skilled migrants' lives and professional belonging, the article first examines the construction of foreignness and the problem of belonging for a groups of doctors and dentists who lived in different cities in Britain in 2009–11. Second, drawn from the first point, it discusses the notion of “deserving to belong.” This article suggests that these highly political narratives should be read within an intersectional framework in order to understand the complex issues involved in the lives of skilled migrants.

The role of scurvy in Scott’s return from the South Pole

Scurvy, caused by lack of vitamin C, was a major problem for polar explorers. It may have contributed to the general ill-health of the members of Scott's polar party in 1912 but their deaths are more likely to have been caused by a combination of frostbite, malnutrition and hypothermia. Some have argued that Oates's war wound in particular suffered dehiscence caused by a lack of vitamin C, but there is little evidence to support this. At the time, many doctors in Britain overlooked the results of the experiments by Axel Holst and Theodor Frølich which showed the effects of nutritional deficiencies and continued to accept the view, championed by Sir Almroth Wright, that polar scurvy was due to ptomaine poisoning from tainted pemmican. Because of this, any advice given to Scott during his preparations would probably not have helped him minimise the effect of scurvy on the members of his party.

Shell shock at Queen Square: Lewis Yealland 100 years on

This article reviews the treatment of functional neurological symptoms during World War I by Lewis Yealland at the National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic in London. Yealland was among the first doctors in Britain to incorporate electricity in the systematic treatment of shell shock. Our analysis is based on the original case records of his treatment of 196 soldiers with functional motor and sensory symptoms, functional seizures and somatoform disorders. Yealland’s treatment approach integrated peripheral and central electrical stimulation with a variety of other—psychological and physical—interventions. A combination of electrical stimulation of affected muscles with suggestion of imminent improvement was the hallmark of his approach. Although his reported success rates were high, Yealland conducted no formal follow-up. Many of the principles of his treatment, including the emphasis on suggestion, demonstration of preserved function and the communication of a physiological illness model, are encountered in current therapeutic approaches to functional motor and sensory symptoms. Yealland has been attacked for his use of electrical stimulation and harsh disciplinary procedures in popular and scientific literature during and after World War I. This criticism reflects changing views on patient autonomy and the social role of doctors and directly impacts on current debates on ethical justification of suggestive therapies. We argue that knowledge of the historical approaches to diagnosis and management of functional neurological syndromes can inform both aetiological models and treatment concepts for these challenging conditions.

Offline: Standing down for patients

By an overwhelming majority, doctors in Britain voted to take industrial action for one day on June 21. In answer to the question “Are you prepared to take part in a strike?”, 32 455 doctors voted “yes” out of 52 068 valid votes cast (72%). The reason? Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of the British Medical Association's (BMA) Council, put it this way: “this clear mandate for action—on a very high turnout—reflects just how let down doctors feel by the government's unwillingness to find a fairer approach to the latest pension changes and its refusal to acknowledge the major reforms of 2008 that made the NHS scheme sustainable in the long term.” The last time doctors took industrial action was in 1975. They are clearly extremely angry about the proposed changes to their pension scheme. More angry, it seems, than they were about the Government's Health and Social Care Bill, which doctors also opposed, but not quite enough to consider industrial action. How will this strike appear to the public? The news media in Britain have given their verdict: “The shameful self-interest of doctors”, said one newspaper. “Inexcusable”, “baffling”, “mistaken”, “unseemly”, “a massive own goal”, and “greedy” were words used by others. Doctors are rightly nervous about a negative public perception. The BMA's press release announcing industrial action claimed their decision “does not constitute a strike”. This is wordplay. The ballot explicitly invited doctors to vote on strike action. Doctors resoundingly said they would—and now will. Hamish Meldrum has tried to pacify public anger by publishing an open letter in which he writes that, “It is with great regret that we, UK doctors, have been forced to take industrial action in order that our voice is heard by the Government.” When most workers in the private sector have much less secure pension arrangements than doctors, when most of the public is facing much worse financial hardship than doctors, and when most employees have considerably less job security than doctors, Dr Meldrum might reflect that the headlines he is so keen to dispute might contain a kernel of truth.

Working time directive and its impact on training

The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) was first introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1998 to all sectors of employment excluding the medical sector. It was gradually introduced to the medical sector in phases, starting from August 2004. The aim of the EWTD was to achieve a maximum of 48 h a week working time to help protect the health and safety of employees. In August 2004, a 58 h a week maximum limit was first introduced. This was gradually decreased to 56 h a week in August 2007 and eventually fell to the current 48 h a week in August 2009. The EWTD does not merely provide a maximum working hour limit per week. It also stipulates rest and break provisions during working hours. For junior doctors this includes an 11 h rest period in every 24 h, a rest break of 24 h for every 7 working days and a minimum of 20 min break in every 4 h of work. All these provisions are to standardize the work ethics of the NHS and protect both the doctor and patient from harm due to exhaustion. The primary goal of the EWTD is to protect the health and safety of workers and to prevent employees from being coerced by employers to work excessive hours; leading to a better worklife balance. It is also to ensure that workers are paid accordingly. Historically, junior doctors in Britain were exploited with work patterns that often required 80 or more hours on duty each week. These hours were remunerated poorly, with overtime initially not paid and subsequently paid at only 30% of the basic hourly wage. In 1990, only 10% of all UK employees worked 40 h a week. In Europe this figure was 34% (according to the Royal College of Surgeons, England). In the absence of legislation, it was possible for employers to avoid paying overtime altogether. What then is defined as work time? The SiMAP (Sindicato deMedicos de Astsencia Publica) ruling, by the European Court of Justice in 2000 states that time spent oncall by doctors in public medical emergency services where they are required to be at the health centre, must be regarded as working time and, where appropriate, as overtime. The Jaeger ruling in 2003 states that on-call working should be considered in

Writing migrants back into NHS history: addressing a ‘collective amnesia’ and its policy implications

The National Health Service (NHS) has used migrant workers from its inception. As early as 1957, the Willink Committee on medical manpower found that 12% of doctors in a random sample taken from the Medical Directories of 1953 and 1955 were mainly overseas-trained.2 The majority of these doctors had entered Britain during or after World War II, suggesting that many of them would have been Jewish and Central European refugees from Nazi-dominated Europe. Later, migration from the Indian subcontinent became a key dimension of the recruitment of doctors in Britain. At the end of the 1970s, the Royal Commission on the NHS estimated that between 18,000–20,000 registered doctors in the UK were born outside the UK, with half of these being from India or Pakistan.3 In the 1950s and 1960s, large numbers of Irish and Caribbean nurses were essential to the expansion of NHS services, a pattern that was replicated in the early 2000s when nurses from Africa, India and the Philippines came to the UK.4 A 2005 report found that in 2003, 29.4% of NHS doctors were foreign-born and that 43.5% of nurses recruited to the NHS after 1999 were born outside the UK.5 In spite of this long history of substantial migration into the NHS, little effort has been made to understand the ways in which it has influenced the development of healthcare in the UK. The popular perception of the NHS as a ‘typically British’ institution (in a restrictive white sense rather than in an inclusive sense) tends to prevail in public perceptions of the organization and in its self-image. Of the 19 photos used by the BBC's online archive to illustrate the development of the NHS up to the 1970s, not one shows a black or Asian person.6 The ‘historical timeline’ on the NHS website makes no reference to immigration.7 Political and organizational histories of the NHS pay scant attention to migrants. A word search for ‘immigration’ in Rivett's online National Health Service History yields little more than the occasional passing reference to overseas doctors.8 Nor can much be found in Webster's two tomes on the health services since the war.9 Where there is a focus on migrant health professionals in the NHS, the themes most widely covered are the experiences of individual groups of migrants and discrimination. This includes the dearth of opportunities for overseas doctors,10 the lack of recognition of the skills and experience of migrant nurses,11 exploration of how Irish nurses construct identity,12 reflections on the experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic NHS employees in the North West of England13 and a vast literature on racism grounded in empirical evidence14 as well as theoretical analysis.15 These studies have generated a wealth of useful data but three fundamental issues require further examination. First, there is a basic need to document and recognize the scale of the dependency of the NHS on immigration. Second, to what extent were migrants facilitators of development and/or agents of change within the NHS? Third, can a better understanding of this history inform policy?

SH20 THE WORSHIPFUL SOCIETY OF APOTHECARIES OF LONDON

Originating from the Gild of Peppers (1180) and later The Grocers’ Company, the Society was eventually incorporated by royal Charter in 1617. Members who specialised in preparing and selling substances for medicinal purposes were referred to as apothecaries.Initially the apothecary brought a description of a patient's complaint to a physician who prescribed medication which was dispensed by the apothecary. By the mid‐seventeenth century apothecaries commonly acted independently and in 1701 the College of Physicians sued William Rose an apothecary for treating a patient without the involvement of a physician. Although the case was decided against the apothecary it was reversed in the House of Lords in 1704. This case ensured the evolution of apothecaries into general practitioners of medicine and established the legal foundation of General Practice in England and Wales.The Apothecaries’ Act 1815 gave the Society the statutory right to conduct examinations and grant licenses to practise medicine. The Society evolved into one of the main non‐university licensing bodies alongside the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. One of its most celebrated graduates Dr Elizabeth Garrett‐Anderson became the first woman to qualify as a doctor in Britain having previously being refused admission to medical school on gender basis.The Society pioneered a number of post‐graduate diplomas including the Diploma in the History of Medicine. An annual Diploma Course consisting of 34 lectures is run by the Society and followed by a written examination, short dissertation and an observed lecture for those who wish to obtain the Diploma.

No hope for Hewitt

No matter how talented a chameleon, Patricia Hewitt has, according to a recent poll for doctors.net.uk website reported in The Times (Hawkes 2007), united twothirds of Britain's doctors against her and persuaded almost half of them to retire prematurely or move their work to another country.

Christopher M Callahan and German E Berrios, Reinventing depression: a history of the treatment of depression in primary care, 1940–2004, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xvii, 214, £30.50 (hardback 0-19-516523-3).

Over the last ten years, according to the WHO, depression has emerged as the leading cause of disability amongst young adults in developed countries. It is estimated that 3 per cent of the global population now suffer from the disease and over twenty million take Prozac. The apparent growth of this illness and the appearance of new treatments (especially the SSRIs) has attracted widespread critical comment. Sceptical psychiatrists, such as David Healey and Elliot Valenstein, have traced the role of the major pharmaceutical companies in the identification and marketing of psychiatric conditions and pharmaceutical solutions; bioethicists and therapists, such as Carl Elliott and Peter Kramer, have argued that we are entering an era of cosmetic pharmacology as new pharmaceutical treatments make possible new conceptions of identity and agency. Yet despite the considerable critical and philosophical comment that the rise of the new anti-depressant treatments has attracted, few have engaged in any serious examination of the actual coalface of depression treatment—the frontline prescribing work of general practitioners and family doctors in Britain and the USA. Reinventing depression does just this. It provides a welcome and necessary intervention in both the debate over anti-depressant use and the historiography of late-twentieth-century psychiatry. Callahan and Berrios argue that the persistence of depression in industrialized countries can be attributed to the ongoing attempt to treat mental illness as a clinical rather than a public health problem. The appearance of new pharmaceutical treatments has moved in tandem with the development of materialist models of the disease. This faith in neurobiological aetiologies has led, the authors argue, to our under-estimation of the social and psychological factors that contribute to the illness and to the under-recognition of the burden of depression in the wider community. The failure of our current approach to depression does not arise from any particular inadequacy in the newer forms of drug treatments or clinical investigation, rather it is an artefact of wider political changes in the status and organization of general practice and primary care psychiatry. In their exploration of the connections between our changing conceptions of depressive illness and the changing practice of primary care, Callahan and Berrios have produced an exemplary and deeply nuanced piece of medical history. They begin their case contesting the myths of the “old time doctor” and the idea (advanced by Edward Shorter) of a traditional empathic doctor–patient relationship. Instead they draw on early post-war surveys of primary care by J S Collings and Stephen Taylor to argue for a long tradition of overworked and under-funded local practitioners prescribing non-specific sedatives and hypnotics to patients presenting for psychological distress. They claim that levels of psychiatric morbidity in the community have remained fairly constant although they recognise that the clinical profiles of certain mental diseases are mutable and reflect wider social and environmental transformations. Callahan and Berrios make perceptive connections between the changing clinical profile of depression, new developments in pharmacology and epidemiology and the political organization of general practice. They demonstrate the limited impact of the new anti-depressants of the 1950s (chlorpromazine, imipramine and the monoamine oxidase inhibitors) outside asylum psychiatry, arguing that it was market driven promotion of the non-specific minor tranquillizers that established the treatment regime for emotional disorders in primary care. Likewise the development of new gradualist models of morbidity in cardiology (notably Pickering's work on hypertension) led to new measurements of the severity of depression, which in turn supported new epidemiological investigations into the under-reporting of emotional distress in the wider community. My only minor cavil with this sophisticated reading is that it tends to under-estimate the role of general practitioners themselves in the development of new psychiatric treatment regimes. Certainly many of the authors' arguments for the unique opportunities afforded to the general practitioner for longitudinal studies of the history and context of emotional disorder were made by visionary general practitioners like C A H Watts back in the early 1950s. Similarly the role of the Royal College of General Practitioners in fostering primary care research into psychiatric epidemiology is not acknowledged, which is surprising given that this contributed in part to the new assessment of psychiatric morbidity described in the volume. These are, however, very minor quibbles in what is an extremely thoughtful and impressive piece of work.

Breastfeeding and Health Professionals in Britain, New Zealand and the United States, 1900–1970

Modern medical opinion is almost universally in favour of breastfeeding as the best food for newborn infants. Yet this was not always the case. American social historian Rima Apple has argued convincingly that medical attitudes in the United States undermined breastfeeding in the first half of the twentieth-century. She explains how the concept of “scientific motherhood”, successfully promoted by the medical profession during the first half of the twentieth century, “fostered the acceptance of, when not the wholesale commitment to, bottle feeding under physician-supervision”. In her recent book on breastfeeding in the United States, Jacqueline Wolf argues that while many doctors in the United States supported breastfeeding, they inadvertently undermined it by advocating routine feeding and by providing a viable alternative through milk formulas. Considering the experience of breastfeeding in two further environments, Britain and New Zealand, contributes to the discussion of the role of health professionals in promoting breastfeeding. Doctors in Britain and New Zealand did not promote the move from breast to bottle, as Apple found in America. Nor did they appear to undermine breastfeeding by their advocacy of routine feeding. The decline in breastfeeding occurred later than in America. It coincided with the new fashion for “demand feeding”, and with a new movement to medicalize breastfeeding itself. A study of breastfeeding in different countries and over time indicates that the attitudes and advice of health professionals were significant factors in the success or otherwise of breastfeeding.

Shortage specialties: changes in career intentions from medical student to newly qualified doctor

There is currently a shortage of doctors in Britain, especially in general practice, psychiatry and pathology. This study aimed to examine whether career intention, especially in the shortage specialties, changes between undergraduate level and graduation. The 234 participants were Senior House Officers and Pre-Registration House Officers, who had provided information about their career intentions in their fourth year of medical school. Participants completed a postal questionnaire about their current career intentions. 38.9% of medical students rising to 63.3% of doctors definitely intended to pursue a particular specialty. While the numbers of people who definitely wanted to pursue general practice and psychiatry increased, in line with nearly all other specialties, the overall attractiveness of these shortage specialties fell. Early career advice and support during medical school and immediately after graduation may help doctors to be confident in pursuing shortage specialties to which they were originally attracted.

The good psychiatrist

There is a general belief that anyone undertaking the arduous task of becoming a doctor is aspiring to be a ‘good’ doctor and that those going on to become psychiatrists are wanting to be ‘good’ psychiatrists. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to be a ‘bad’ doctor, or a ‘bad’ psychiatrist. Do we ‘become’ bad by default, lack of attention, or when attitude and personality clash with patient aspiration and societal pressures? Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, is widely quoted: ‘Think how surprised we would be by a community of 130,000 (the number of doctors in Britain) where nobody committed serious crimes, went mad, misused drugs, slacked on the job, became corrupt, lost competence, or exploited their position’ (Smith, 1997).

Bodies Public: Disease, Death and Doctors in Britain, 1650–1900. By Roy Porter (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2001) 328 pp. $35.00

January 01 2004 Bodies Public: Disease, Death and Doctors in Britain, 1650–1900 Bodies Public: Disease, Death and Doctors in Britain, 1650–1900. By RoyPorter (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2001) 328 pp. $35.00 Christopher Hamlin Christopher Hamlin University of Notre Dame Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Christopher Hamlin University of Notre Dame Online ISSN: 1530-9169 Print ISSN: 0022-1953 © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc.2003 The Journal of Interdisciplinary History (2004) 34 (3): 452–453. https://doi.org/10.1162/002219504771997999 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Christopher Hamlin; Bodies Public: Disease, Death and Doctors in Britain, 1650–1900. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2004; 34 (3): 452–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/002219504771997999 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc.2003 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.