Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1011749 in Books
• Published on: 1999-03-16
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 224 pages

Synopsis
This book examines the role of the doctor in war, with reference to the Western front, 1914-1918. It examines the system that was developed for recruiting medical officers, highlighting the tensions between military and civil needs.'

Customer Reviews

What Did You Do in the Great War, Doctor?
Ian Whitehead's substantial contribution to the history of medicine in war is centred on the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC), an approach that leads to close consideration of administrative problems and policy matters not always to the fore when the Great War comes to mind. It is in some ways an establishment view, if not quite an official history, but not narrowly or uncritically so; issues emerge which were to remain on the medical-political agenda throughout the century. By July 1915 a quarter of British doctors had joined up, one tenth having done so in the opening months of the war, showing more alacrity than the labour force at large. The British Medical Association (BMA) acted as a channel for transmitting army requirements, persuading any sceptics of the validity of military needs in the face of some suspicion both of government policy and departmental practice; for one thing, out-and-out mobilisation of the profession was feared as a possible first step to a post-war salaried service. Failure to enrol for the RAMC incurred liability for compulsory combatant service, although appeals were allowed, but attempts were made to safeguard the practices of those in the forces, and to maintain a balance between civilian and military demands on medical resources. In chapters on students and women, more of a human-interest narrative begins to emerge. After a time it was realised that recruiting medical students wholesale might lead to problems in the future, and fifth-years had to go back and take their exams; conversely, it took a while for the powers that were to accept that women doctors could serve effectively with the forces abroad. Faced with War Office intransigence on this point, women set up their own voluntary organisations, achieving remarkable results, and at least a partial change in attitudes, by their high standards and expertise. Interestingly, the only pacifist we meet in the book is Dr Helena Wright, who rejected the wearing of uniform (the right to which, along with rank, others were struggling to win) but fought prejudice to obtain a post in a military hospital. Otherwise, the author is silent on the question of resistance to war, although moral dilemmas and the imposition of a new set of priorities are acknowledged, first in the context of training and later with regard to practice in the field. The needs of the state were of course assumed to be paramount; excessive sympathy was thought to lead to "desoldiering" - wasteful sentimentality had to be discouraged, leniency avoided, and a suspicious attitude cultivated. This outlook led to an image of the Regimental Medical Officer (RMO) as lazy and callous, which Ian Whitehead considers unfair to the vast majority although instances did occur of inadequate treatment and avoidable suffering. Readers will probably turn elsewhere (e.g. to the fairly recent books by Wendy Holden and Antony Babington) for a thorough discussion of a topic like shell shock, which looms so large in collective memory and in research. It does, however, receive attention, along with trench foot, lice and trench fever, and venereal disease (where non-medical considerations were allowed to inhibit treatment and prevention). In conclusion the verdict is that while the RAMC could be faulted on several counts, much of the responsibility for deficiencies lay with the government, and on the whole a good job was done. A problem for anti-war readers may be that the book tends to fall into the trap of taking the war for granted. Its protagonists can seem to emphasise the need to get a job done at the expense of any questioning of the reason why, and to be so busy devising solutions to sets of administrative and logistical difficulties as to lose sight of any need of a rationale, relegating human suffering to the background. Reverting to the question of military functions being a possible cause of concern, with the relationship of officer and soldier replacing that of doctor and patient, the author counters humanitarian scruples with the argument that maintaining health of the army was a way of shortening the war (of course this implies knowing you're on the winning side). In this 'doctor's war as no previous one had been' (p.260) the profession, he thinks, did make a substantial contribution to 'victory', but missed an opportunity for radical post-war reconstruction in its own sphere. Seven appendices confirm the high degree of scholarship that has gone into the work, while the bibliography and index remind us that some authentic voices from the time have been heard as well as the official records.

An absorbing read, even for the non-historian reader.
I am not a historian, neither am I a medic, but I thought that this book might provide me with a new perspective on people's experiences in The War. What I found on reading the book, was a thoroughly absorbing insight. Recommended.