Prevention and Treatment for TB at Arequipa Sanatorium :: Tuberculosis Health Medical Essays

Prevention and Treatment for TB at Arequipa Sanatorium Arequipa Sanatorium and its pottery for tuberculosis treatment was founded in 1911 in the town of Fairfax, Marin County in the Northern Bay Area of California. 1 It was from the fountain a private enterprise initiated by Dr. Philip King Brown. On October 22, 1913, a twenty-one year old housewife weighing 111 pounds, was admitted to Arequipa for coughing on exertion. When she was discharged home on February 28, 1914, she had worked at Arequipa Pottery over one hundred five hours, and had earned four dollars and five cents for it. She never gained more than three pounds and was believably discharged more for her lack of ability to work, than for being cured. A month earlier, the nurse Superintendent at Arequipa had written a letter to the Associated Charities of San Francisco, adage that unless (the woman) is able to earn her way in the pottery, I doubt that we volition be able to maintain her at the Sanitarium any longer . 2This materialization womans experience with sanatorium treatment at Arequipa, underscores a contradiction in the treatment of tuberculosis in the young Era. Arequipa doer Place of Rest, and while enforced rest was fundamental to Browns regimen, he also considered work to be therapeutic. Requiring work from patients helped solve the trouble of how women of modest means could avoid destitution from their illness. It also helped Brown financially support his enterprise. The contradiction of using both rest and work as treatment at Arequipa provides a window into the complexity of health and well-disposed reform in the Progressive Era.In The Tuberculosis Movement, Michael Teller notes that in the mid 1800s the notion of the hereditary origin of TB darkened every(prenominal) hope of prevention or cure.3 In her 1996 cultural history excited Lives, Katherine Ott, argues that the acceptance of TB after Kochs discovery of the tubercule bacillus in 1882, transformed consumptio n into the specific and more clearly defined diagnosing of tuberculosis. In fact, sufferers and the public experienced these two conditions as two set off but related diseases.4 Prevention and treatment of tuberculosis in the Progressive Era, included both older ideas of the disease as hereditary and the refreshed understanding that the disease was infectious. Without effective medical treatment and without a modern understanding of the dormant and active phases of the disease, eugenic ideas about pre-disposition to TB coexisted with limited and mechanical ideas about infection control.