what are the pros and cons of using fiction, drama and essays to study
medical history and what do these sources convey that more fact-bases
sources cannot?
I recollect that A J Cronin was a GP
It seems fairly obvious that people who know about their subject, and
wrote about it while it was current, are a pretty good primary source.
Of secondary value would be people who did not really know the
subject, but wrote about it anyway.
The least reliable stuff is 'reconstruction' - where somebody reinvents the past.
The trouble with 'official facts' is that they are often sparse, very
often misleading. For example I know of two people who died of cancer,
yet the autopsy report was 'liver failure'.
In essence, you are asking what is the difference between Qualitative
and Quantitative research.
I sincerely hope that you discard 'reconstruction', unless you can
find its contemporary sources. Centre for Medical History, University of Exeter, UK::
'Fiction in the archives? Sources for the Social history of infanticide', 'The use of historical study in medical research', Family Practice, 13,
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/medhist/staff/jackson/publications.phpHOME |
Fact vs Fiction « Mia’s Saving Grace::
Knowing his parents’ medical history might help him deal with a condition George her birth mother’s name, which George might use to trace her genealogy.
http://miassavinggrace.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/what-if-you-were-an-idiot/HOME |
 Microsoft Unleashes Visual Studio .NET
 IBM's iPhrase Buy Adds to WebSphere
|
use of fiction to study medical history 
PRINT
Add to favorites