A successful attempt to bring" history "closer to the reader emotionally as well
Probably the most important publication for the anniversary is the story just published by Johanna Bleker and Volker Hess the Charité, which, in addition to its scientific importance, also works out its hybrid position between general health care and use by the university. It's just shame that this story ends with the construction of the Berlin Wall in summer 1961. The team from the Institute for the History of Medicine shows so much keen political sense that it would have been exciting to hear about the tricky conditions in GDR times and after the fall of 1989.
From the patient's perspective
The Charité had to fulfill many functions since 1710: Pest house , Military hospital, training center for military doctors, poor hospital, municipal hospital and university clinic. The “process of the university gradually taking over the hospital” began at the beginning of the 19th century, when medicine at the university, founded in 1810, slowly settled in the hospital wards of the Charité. The Medical Faculty existed parallel to the Charité, with its small clinics and often famous professors. A curiosity that lasted long time. It was not until 1950 that all the facilities of the Faculty and Charité were merged and an administrative structure was created that eliminated the historically determined coexistence of the Faculty and Charité. The impetus for new beginning was provided by the fact that the university's clinics and the Charité were destroyed at the end of the war, as they were located near the government buildings around Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichstag. It was not until May 2, 1945 that Soviet soldiers drove out the last SS units that had holed up on the hospital grounds. That is also an exciting story.
The authors tell lot of stories anyway. They hang up the presentation of the historical epochs on medical history and thus try, quite successfully, to bring "history" closer to the reader emotionally. Based on the medical histories, the reader not only learns something about patients in their time, but also lot about the change in medical conceptions and the progress of science and of course, because it is about the Charité, about its building history, organization and the changing state and urban responsibilities.
A successful attempt to bring" history "closer to the reader emotionally as well
Probably the most important publication for the anniversary is the story just published by Johanna Bleker and Volker Hess the Charité, which, in addition to its scientific importance, also works out its hybrid position between general health care and use by the university. It's just shame that this story ends with the construction of the Berlin Wall in summer 1961. The team from the Institute for the History of Medicine shows so much keen political sense that it would have been exciting to hear about the tricky conditions in GDR times and after the fall of 1989.
From the patient's perspective
The Charité had to fulfill many functions since 1710: Pest house , Military hospital, training center for military doctors, poor hospital, municipal hospital and university clinic. The “process of the university gradually taking over the hospital” began at the beginning of the 19th century, when medicine at the university, founded in 1810, slowly settled in the hospital wards of the Charité. The Medical Faculty existed parallel to the Charité, with its small clinics and often famous professors. A curiosity that lasted long time. It was not until 1950 that all the facilities of the Faculty and Charité were merged and an administrative structure was created that eliminated the historically determined coexistence of the Faculty and Charité. The impetus for new beginning was provided by the fact that the university's clinics and the Charité were destroyed at the end of the war, as they were located near the government buildings around Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichstag. It was not until May 2, 1945 that Soviet soldiers drove out the last SS units that had holed up on the hospital grounds. That is also an exciting story.
The authors tell lot of stories anyway. They hang up the presentation of the historical epochs on medical history and thus try, quite successfully, to bring "history" closer to the reader emotionally. Based on the medical histories, the reader not only learns something about patients in their time, but also lot about the change in medical conceptions and the progress of science and of course, because it is about the Charité, about its building history, organization and the changing state and urban responsibilities.
Volker Hess, for example, uses the example of feverish apprentice shoemaker to explain the change in the theory of fever - no longer the increased pulse rate, but the temperature became the main symptom - and on the occasion also comes across the gradual use of the sickrooms for training of medical students speaking. Or: Thomas Beddies, Marion Hulverscheidt and Gerhard Baader use child with “croup” to describe the development of paediatrics into an independent subject with its own clinic. Udo Schagen and Sabine Schleiermacher explain the Nazi racial policy based on patient who is forced to have an abortion and sterilization and deal with the attitude of university teachers towards the regime. Not fame of the Charité. Little resistance, little courage, lot of adjustment and half-willing participation, for example when removing the - previously valued - Jewish colleagues from office.
SED made the decisions
Particularly noteworthy for readers from the West or younger people from the East are three digressions about the structure of the SED in the Charité (Andreas Malycha), the tasks of the union and about the work of the Stasi (both by Jutta Begenau). Around 14 percent of the 5,000 Charité employees were organized in the SED, 95 percent in the Free German Trade Union Federation, the FDGB. The medical faculty, including the Charité, formed its own, many-sided party organization. The party tipped the scales not only on personnel issues. Even professional decisions required the approval of the party leadership; Attempts to involve the faculty more politically, on the other hand, do not seem to have been particularly successful. In any case, Malycha paints an almost friendly picture: "At the Charité, the SED was not homogeneous, but diverse structure of people who had to act in their roles as party and society members and who rarely matched both roles."
< p> Norbert JachertzJohanna Bleker, Volker Hess (ed.): The Charité. History (s) of hospital. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2010, 299 pages, hardback, 69.80 euros
5
0
Do you want a website?