Advertisement

Abstract

It is not immediately obvious why a history of orthopaedics should interest anyone other than orthopaedists themselves. As a well-established surgical specialism, now mainly concerned with the treatment of fractures, low back pain, and the replacement of hip joints,1 orthopaedics ranks among the least controversial and most socially uninteresting areas of medicine. Its highly remunerated practitioners may not always be characterized in the most flattering terms,2 and in Britain certain problems still surround its place in undergraduate medical education and in accident and emergency services.3 But on the whole, its autonomy is unthreatened, it is not racked by problems of definition, and its professional organizations are secure. To an outsider, its most intriguing feature is probably its association with special types of shoes and mattresses.

Keywords

National Health Service Urban Slum Undergraduate Medical Education Industrial Accident Hospital Appointment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See J. Noble and CS.B. Galasko (eds), Recent Developments in Orthopaedic Surgery (Manchester, 1987); idem, Current Trends in Orthopaedic Surgery (Manchester, 1988).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    See Paul Vickers, ‘Orthopaedies’, in I. Craft et al. (eds) Specialized Futures: essays in honour of Sir George Godber (1975), pp. 1–29; and Royal College of Surgeons of England, Commission on the Provision of Surgical Services, Report of the Working Party on The Management of Patients With Major Injuries (November 1988).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    For an overview, see Gerald Larkin, Occupational Monopoly and Modern Medicine (1983), ch. 1: ‘Perspectives on Professional Growth’.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Against the latter approach, so far as professions are concerned, see Eliot Freidson, Profession of Medicine: a study of the sociology of applied knowledge (Chicago, 1970). Freidson’s advice, to let the sociological theory of professionalization flow from empirical studies, rather than vice versa, is acted on inGoogle Scholar
  5. Rita Schepers’s De Opkomst van net Medisch Beroep in Belgie: de evolutie van de wetqeving en de beroepsorganisaties in de 19th eeuw (Amsterdam, 1989).Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    See, for example, Glenn Gritzer and Arnold Arluke, The Making of Rehabilitation: a political economy of medical specialization, 1890–1980 (Berkeley, 1985). For examples of other ways of approaching the historyGoogle Scholar
  7. 10.
    For the USA, see Charles Rosenberg, The Care of Strangers: the rise of America’s hospital system (New York, 1987), esp. p. 210;Google Scholar
  8. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York, 1982), p. 165 et passim; andGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosemary Stevens, American Medicine and the Public Interest (New Haven, 1971).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    See Ivan Waddington, The Medical Profession in the Industrial Revolution (Dublin, 1984).Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    See Frank Honigsbaum, The Division in British Medicine: a history of the separation of general practice from hospital care, 1911–1968 (1979). Among several more or less social-contextual studies of specialisms in Britain recently to appear are:Google Scholar
  12. Ornella Moscucci, The Science of Woman: gynaecology and gender in England, 1800–1929 (Cambridge, 1990);Google Scholar
  13. W. F. Bynum, C. Lawrence and V. Nutton (eds), The Emergence of Modern Cardiology, Med. Hist., Suppl. no. 5 (1985);Google Scholar
  14. Lindsay Granshaw, St. Mark’s Hospital, London: a social history of a specialist hospital (1985); andGoogle Scholar
  15. Jennifer Beinart, A History of the Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, Oxford 1937–1987 (Oxford, 1987). The latter three are to some extent triumphalist accounts and it is significant that the latter two are both the result of commissions from the specialist institutions themselves, and, indeed, are as much about those institutions as about specialty formation.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosemary Stevens, Medical Practice in Modern England: the impact of specialisation and state medicine (New Haven, 1966), p. 11.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    ‘Corporatism’ is used throughout this study to refer to non-individualist, non-class oriented professionalizing activities, which have been informed by and, are themselves expressions of, managerial notions of efficiency. This usage, which relates to practice, rather than to political theories of the state, has largely been informed by Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880 (1989), ch. 7: ‘Toward a Corporate Society’, esp. p. 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 23.
    However, see Roger Cooter (ed.), In the Name of the Child: health and welfare, 1880–1940 (1992).Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    The point is underlined by Eduard Seidler’s ‘An Historical Survey of Children’s Hospitals’, in Lindsay Granshaw and Roy Porter (eds), The Hospital in History (1989), pp. 181–97.Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    Among the exceptions are J.V. Pickstone, Medicine and Industrial Society: a history of hospital development in Manchester and its region, 1752–1946 (Manchester, 1985), ch. 7, andGoogle Scholar
  21. David Green, Working-Class Patients and the Medical Establishment: self-help in Britain from the mid-nineteenth century to 1948 (Aldershot, 1985).Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    Noel Whiteside in her review of Peter Hennock, British Social Reform and German Precedents: the case of social insurance, 1880–1914 (Oxford, 1987) in Social Hist. Med., 1 (1988), pp. 243–4. But seeGoogle Scholar
  23. P.W.J. Bartrip, Workmen’s Compensation in Twentieth-century Britain: law, history and social policy (Aldershot, 1987), andGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul Weindling (ed.), The Social History of Occupational Health (1985). As with so many of these subjects, more research has been conducted in North America than in Britain or Europe. See, for example,Google Scholar
  25. David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz (eds), Dying for Work: workers’ safety and health in twentieth-century America (Bloomington, Indiana, 1987);Google Scholar
  26. Eric Tucker, Administering Danger in the Workplace: the law and politics of occupational health and safety in Ontario, 1850–1914 (Toronto, 1990); andGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniel M. Berman, Death on the Job: occupational health and safety struggles in the United States (New York, 1978).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See Susan Reverby and David Rosner, ‘Beyond the Great Doctors’ in Reverby and Rosner (eds), Health Care in America: essays in social history (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 3–16; and, for exemplification,Google Scholar
  29. Peter Wright and A. Treacher (eds), The Problem of Medical Knowledge: examining the social construction of medicine (Edinburgh, 1982).Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), p. 218.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Of the little work that has been conducted on medicine from patients’ perspectives, most has focused on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. See, Lucinda M. Beier, Sufferers and Healers: the experience of illness in seventeenth-century England (1988);Google Scholar
  32. Dorothy Porter and Roy Porter, In Sickness and in Health: the British experience, 1650–1850 (1988);Google Scholar
  33. Dorothy Porter and Roy Porter, Patient’s Progress: doctors and doctoring in eighteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1989); andGoogle Scholar
  34. Mary Fissell, Patients, Power, and the Poor in Eighteenth-Century Bristol (Cambridge/New York, 1991). An exception isGoogle Scholar
  35. F.B. Smith’s The People’s Health, 1830–1910 (1979).Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    Christopher Lawrence, ‘Democratic, Divine and Heroic: the history and historiography of surgery’, in Lawrence (ed.), Medical Theory, Surgical Practice: studies in the history of surgery (1992), pp. 1–47, esp. pp. 13–15.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    An important exception is Jane Lewis, What Price Community Medicine? The philosophy, practice and politics of public health since 1919 (Brighton, 1986).Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    Rosemary Stevens, ‘The Curious Career of Internal Medicine: functional ambivalence, social success’, in Russell Maulitz and D. Long (eds), Grand Rounds: one hundred years of internal medicine (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 339–64 at p. 360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Roger Cooter 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Cooter
    • 1
  1. 1.Wellcome Unit for the History of MedicineUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations