The tragic story of National Women's Hospital is being traversed again in a new book by medical historian Linda Bryder. The book has proven controversial because it calls into question the Cartwright inquiry, which found that patients at National Women's had been experimented on by Dr Herbert Green. Thirty women died of untreated cancer under Dr Green's care.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I know almost nothing about this important chapter in NZ women's history. Still, I thought it would be good to link to some key documents, and provide a chance for those who know more about it to share their views.
Anne Else provides a summary of events, and a critique of Bryer's book
Linda Bryder is interviewed on National Radio
A link to the 1987 Metro article which revealed the National Women's scandal are here
7 comments:
There is also a rebuttal of Linda Ryder also on Kim Hill by a doctor that was there at the time. I can't say she impressed me much since her line of attack was that Linda was a historian not a doctor and that invalidated what Linda had to say.
I am finding the letters page in the Listener and the Herald interesting places to follow this debate. Re: the writer not being a doctor, a few things seem to suggest she has an imperfect understanding of the medical science when she suggests that he was following standard practice. This might be why the commentator thought it worth mentioning.
Feel free to add links to any interesting stuff! It's interesting that Lynda Ryder has been criticised for not fully understanding the medical issues - wasn't that also her criticism of Sylvia Cartwright?
There is a reasonably lengthy discussion of this issue on the PAS thread, still on the front page, called 'A Real Alternative'. Some good links therein.
Bryder is basically saying that Cartwright was brainwashed by feminist ideology, from what I can make out...
It would be good if you could add the link to the Kim Hill interview with Dr Charlotte Paul. Paul was a medical adviser to Judge Cartwright during the inquiry and she really does know what she's talking about with regard to the medical issues. She wasn't putting Bryder down for not beign a doctor. (Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle weren't doctors either.) Paul was saying, among other things, that Bryder's book showed that she had misunderstood the medical papers and opinions she was quoting (selectively) in support of her case, and in fact had fundamentally misunderstood what Green was doing. In Bryder's reply to original patient Clare Matheson's comments in the Herald, she says she didn't see Matheson's medical file - she was basing her comment about the nature of Matheson's tumour on what a journalist, Jan Corbett, said in a 1990 article!
My concern around Linda Bryder's book is that she didn't interview any of the people involved. The patient called "Ruth" in the Metro article is still alive - and much of the information about her in Bryder's book is incorrect. Bryder relied solely on medical records, articles and other documents as sources.
When so many of the people involved in the experiment and subsequent inquiry are still very much alive, it seems remiss to produce a revised history without comment from any of them.
I can't believe that this dreadful episode is the subject of ignorant revisionism - and by a woman! It all happened less than 25 years ago, so it shouldn't have been that hard to talk to the people involved. What a dated, positivist approach to history, to not interview any of the people involved. It really does make me wonder what the last 40 years of feminism were about.
Post a Comment