Take a photo of a barcode or cover
9 reviews for:
Lifesavers and Body Snatchers: Medical Care and the Struggle for Survival in the Great War
Tim Cook
4.24 AVERAGE
9 reviews for:
Lifesavers and Body Snatchers: Medical Care and the Struggle for Survival in the Great War
Tim Cook
4.24 AVERAGE
A fascinating history of Canadian medicine and military procedures during WWI. Not for those with a weak stomach. As you might expect, there are many descriptions of war wounds and medical procedures. Truly remarkable what veterans endured and survived!
Tim Cook is a well-known WW1 historian, but Lifesavers and Body Snatcher is at best a surface level examination of the medical side of WW1. Long, winding, with lots of unnecessary repetition, and tangents that could have been removed (at least 100 pages could be cut if it was edited more succinctly). I would not say this is one of Cooks better works.
In his thesis Cook admits that he’s not doing a deep dive into the medical advancements in WW1 and honestly, others have done it and done it much better. Medical history is not Cook’s strength as seen in the 3 chapters he dedicated to trying to stir up controversy over the collection of samples that medical officials collected during the war.
Cook fluctuates wildly in these chapters, as if trying to reconcile this idea with himself. Though this practice was ethically grey at best – and one of the many reasons why we have stringent medical and medical research ethics today – the collection of samples as teaching aides goes back centuries in medical history. This was widely know as seen through the laws that were enacted where the bodies of those accused of murder and sent to be hanged were then donated to medical science. Let alone strict laws with the dealings of the dead and large fines / prison sentences for those caught exhuming corpses.
Medical instruction with a three-dimensional object was the norm at the time and really the only way, along with autopsy, for understanding how the human body works and how it could go wrong. Preserving samples was the only way to “see” prior to the advancements in diagnostic imaging that we have today. Seeing a healthy or diseased organ preserved in its three-dimensional form is much easier to understand then a drawing that is flat and may be inaccurate. As a surgeon I know once lamented, “No body ever looks like the books once you open them up.”
Cook struggles with reconciling the scientific method of medical research, which involves collecting samples right away. When else could the lungs of a gassed victim be collected for teaching and instruction purposes if they weren’t right away? Its not like they could exhume a body expecting soft tissue to still be there. The wording of the text in these chapters becomes derisive and the tone shaming.
Cook’s shaming isn’t limited to those who collected tissue and bone samples. He chastises everyone from politicians to military members and those who were asked to write histories and accounts. Or those involved in the delay of a Military Museum. Cook loses sight that his hindsight is 20/20, and that yes. Things get lost to the annals of time. In these later chapters you can feel the heavy weight of his abashing finger waggle of disappointment to the people involved in theses projects in the past.
I can only assume Cook finds the business of medical research ghoulish and without a doubt it was and is an ethical mine field. One that continued well into the 20th and even the 21st century. Lest the modern reader forget, when you leave a tissue sample behind in a doctor’s office, clinic, or surgical setting, it is no longer your property. This is something you agree to when you sign a surgical consent form. That clinic or hospital is responsible for the proper disposal of tissue samples. But samples can also be used for medical research or instruction. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks details this very well.
To give Cook his due, he is very good at detailing how an injured front-line soldier got medical help during the war. He is very good at explaining the different battles and how the various medical officers both embedded in units and in the CAMC helped the front-line infantry as best as they could. That said, I don’t think he has the stomach to detail the horrific injuries this war caused, and the lengths medical professionals went to in order to help. He falls back at times on medical jargon or sweeps off into purplish praising prose (I lost track of the number of times “brave” was written) when he returns to his beloved infantry men.
Sure, in Cook’s words the story of body snatching has been told. But not by a deft understanding hand.
In his thesis Cook admits that he’s not doing a deep dive into the medical advancements in WW1 and honestly, others have done it and done it much better. Medical history is not Cook’s strength as seen in the 3 chapters he dedicated to trying to stir up controversy over the collection of samples that medical officials collected during the war.
Cook fluctuates wildly in these chapters, as if trying to reconcile this idea with himself. Though this practice was ethically grey at best – and one of the many reasons why we have stringent medical and medical research ethics today – the collection of samples as teaching aides goes back centuries in medical history. This was widely know as seen through the laws that were enacted where the bodies of those accused of murder and sent to be hanged were then donated to medical science. Let alone strict laws with the dealings of the dead and large fines / prison sentences for those caught exhuming corpses.
Medical instruction with a three-dimensional object was the norm at the time and really the only way, along with autopsy, for understanding how the human body works and how it could go wrong. Preserving samples was the only way to “see” prior to the advancements in diagnostic imaging that we have today. Seeing a healthy or diseased organ preserved in its three-dimensional form is much easier to understand then a drawing that is flat and may be inaccurate. As a surgeon I know once lamented, “No body ever looks like the books once you open them up.”
Cook struggles with reconciling the scientific method of medical research, which involves collecting samples right away. When else could the lungs of a gassed victim be collected for teaching and instruction purposes if they weren’t right away? Its not like they could exhume a body expecting soft tissue to still be there. The wording of the text in these chapters becomes derisive and the tone shaming.
Cook’s shaming isn’t limited to those who collected tissue and bone samples. He chastises everyone from politicians to military members and those who were asked to write histories and accounts. Or those involved in the delay of a Military Museum. Cook loses sight that his hindsight is 20/20, and that yes. Things get lost to the annals of time. In these later chapters you can feel the heavy weight of his abashing finger waggle of disappointment to the people involved in theses projects in the past.
I can only assume Cook finds the business of medical research ghoulish and without a doubt it was and is an ethical mine field. One that continued well into the 20th and even the 21st century. Lest the modern reader forget, when you leave a tissue sample behind in a doctor’s office, clinic, or surgical setting, it is no longer your property. This is something you agree to when you sign a surgical consent form. That clinic or hospital is responsible for the proper disposal of tissue samples. But samples can also be used for medical research or instruction. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks details this very well.
To give Cook his due, he is very good at detailing how an injured front-line soldier got medical help during the war. He is very good at explaining the different battles and how the various medical officers both embedded in units and in the CAMC helped the front-line infantry as best as they could. That said, I don’t think he has the stomach to detail the horrific injuries this war caused, and the lengths medical professionals went to in order to help. He falls back at times on medical jargon or sweeps off into purplish praising prose (I lost track of the number of times “brave” was written) when he returns to his beloved infantry men.
Sure, in Cook’s words the story of body snatching has been told. But not by a deft understanding hand.
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
very informative history about the medical aspect of the canadian forces in WWI. sometimes hard to listen to because of the content
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced
There is a lot to praise in this book. Cook weaves together a massive amount of literature and this will become an easy recommendation for those wanting a medical history of Canada and WWI. Yet, the most interesting part of this book, and what seems to be the greatest addition this book makes to the literature, is buried within the over 450 pages of writing. Indeed, the "body snatchers" aspect is interesting and brings up questions of medical consent in the professionalizing medical bodies, "othering" soldiers' bodies (those that were damaged beyond repair), and the contradiction of narrative that argued for the christlike and sacred sacrifice of Canadian soldiers. These points are surely touched upon (sort of), but they aren't deeply explored or greatly analyzed and they get lost as chapters jump around to various other topics, often not touching on the organ/body-part harvesting aspect at all. Nonetheless, it's an important, and worthwhile read, although if you're familiar with the literature you'll be skimming most of it to get to the more substantial parts.
challenging
informative
sad
slow-paced
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced