Material Type

Recording

Date Range

1994

Fonds

Dr. Hugh Arnold fonds

Description Level

Fonds

Physical Description

1 audio cassette (digital file)

Physical Condition

Excellent

History Biographical

Dr. Arnold donated his papers to the Galt Museum and Archives in September 1993, with the provision that they be available for an independent study project done by University of Lethbridge student Donna Kampen, under the supervision of Professor Bill Baker of the Department of History. Donna Kampen organized Dr. Arnold's papers conducted a series of oral history interviews (8 audio cassettes) with Dr. Arnold.

Acquisition Source

Arnold Dr Hugh A

Scope and Content

The following transcript was prepared by Donna Kampen. A: The more I've been thinking about this, as time has gone on in this review of the events of my life, I feel that, just as I said with regard to St. Michael's Hospital, I feel quite convinced that history very often repeats itself, and what I experienced in the late 1920's and early 1930's when we had a period when the economy was difficult for everybody, and then we came out of that with the advent of the war and so on. How much each particular event was responsible for the changes that occurred, I don't know. I wouldn't attempt to fit those events into any particular waxing and waning of our society, or particularly the economy of our society, but the more I think back on what we've done and reviewed, the more I feel quite sure that we're having a repetition. Its known to the economists of the world that there is a cycle, and I think that we'll see the same thing. When we talk about St. Michael's Hospital—we're having to cut back at this time, and there was a time when we had to cut back on many other things. Then we came out of it. And I think we'll come out of it again. We're on the way out now. There definitely is a cycle, in everything in life. To review the past, is to have a fairly good idea of what might happen in the future. Q: I think for those of us who are interested in history, or who do history, that's why we do it. Its intellectually satisfying to see those patterns, to try to answer the question of why things are as they are. A: That's right. And I think that it gives us some reassurance and some optimism in regard to our lives, and our society. Q I think that optimism isn't misplaced. Even with regard to what's happened in the last five years or so, when our economy seems to have slowed down, optimism isn't misplaced. A: Its interesting, when we contemplate the subject that started us here, the subject of St. Michael's Hospital. You know, The Sisters came into this community and built a beautiful hospital for its time, in this city, and things weren't good economically. We were still in a period of depression as I recall it. Yet they had the faith to come in here and build a hospital, which for the population that we had, of 15,000 people, or maybe even less, they had great faith. Q: Yes. A: And it behooves us to recognize that inevitably, at some point in the future, we're going to have twice as many people, and we're going to need these hospitals, we're going to need people trained in these hospitals, so I think we have to be optimists. Q I do too. A: Now, there's been something sort of hanging in the back of my mind here, some unfinished business. I looked up some dates, and that sort of thing, did I give them to you? Q Yes, you did, the last time we talked, just at the beginning. A: Oh yes. That's right. Q As you're reading through them, (We started back in January) you may see something that you want to expand on, or something that will remind you: "Oh, I was going to get that". A: I'll make a note of those things. Q: Sure. Just write right on the pages, and we'll fill in whatever blanks we find. There's no rush. A: You know, I was reading through them the other night, and really, I think its quite an enjoyable read. You know, I didn't go to any pains to correct your grammar or mine—its just typed exactly the way we said it—but its kind of interesting. I thought, as I was reading it, that if I had just come across this transcription, I would have been interested in it all the way through. Q That's good. Q Last week we talked about Medicare, and I think we pretty well covered everything. There's only one issue that we haven't really covered. I think it was more of an issue back in the 70's, but its still an issue in some of the other provinces, and that's extra billing or balance billing. A: Extra billing. Yes. Q: Do you remember what was the attitude of Doctors in Lethbridge toward that issue? Did you extra bill? A: No. Never did. Q: Uh hum... A: I would have to say as a statement, that there was very little if any extra billing in Lethbridge or the Lethbridge district. Q: That would fit with my personal experience. Those were the years when I was having my children (and you know, when they 're small it seems like you see a doctor far more often that when they get a little bigger), but I never experienced extra billing. I know, though, that it was an issue, particularly in the 70's. A: Yes. You see, you do know what extra billing was... Q Yes, I think so.... A* The Doctor would be paid a certain percentage of the College fee, what was called the college fee in those days. At that time the College of Physicians and Surgeons was responsible for setting the fee schedule. When the government came into the picture with the Alberta Health Plan and subsequently the Medicare Plan when the federal government came into the picture later, you see, the fees were taken over then by the Alberta Medical Association. The fees were specified for office calls and various procedures—maternity, surgery, and so on. These fees were laid down by the Alberta Medical Association subsequent to the college. They were laid down. But they were a percentage, 80%, maybe 85% of the college fees, was paid to the doctors. The balance between that 80% or 85% and 100% was sometimes charged to the patient by the doctor. That's what we called extra billing. You know, I recall saying to one of the...let me go back just a bit. The general Manager of MSI, Medical Services Incorporated, (that was a Doctor sponsored pre-paid medical plan). The general manager was a Dr. Smalz, Steve Smaltz, who practiced here in Lethbridge, after coming from Taber. He was asked to, and he did become, the general manger of MSI. He moved to Edmonton. He had an assistant who was a practicing physician, and who joined MSI as an assistant to Dr. Smaltz, and he-let me go back just a little bit again. The President Elect of the Alberta Medical Association, annually, used to go on a tour of the province, and would speak to different medical societies throughout the province. As a guest along with him, he would often invite the president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and also some representatives of MSI, to get the point of view of the economics of the profession. And that, was wrapped up, in part, with our relationship with MSI. I remember the year when I was President¬elect of the Alberta Medical Association. Dr. Frank Christie was the President of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the representative of MSI was an assistant to Dr. Smaltz. He came along, at the invitation of the President. Q Uh hum... A: I remember talking to the MSI Doctor, to the effect that it seemed to me that MSI was (and this—I don't know if we should even print it—). But its riveted in my memory, speaking to him on one occasion when we were on our tour, and telling him that I thought that extra billing was a cancer in the economic milieu of medicine as it related between the Doctor and the patient And he corrected me. He said that it isn't a cancer, but it might be an acute infection which could be controlled and cured. A cancer was too strong, because a cancer maybe couldn't be cured. Q: Ah.. A: I never forgot what he said. It was a problem that didn't cause too much of a problem with most people, but did cause problems for some. Both with Doctors and patients. I never forgot that. And I changed my attitude towards extra billing to some degree, but I never did extra bill, and I did not at that time or at any other time believe that it should be practiced. But that didn't mean that I didn't agree that some physicians felt justified, and if they so felt, they should charge it—do it. Q So you would defend their right to extra bill, even though you didn't agree with it. A: I didn't agree with it, but I would defend the right of Doctors to so practice. Q: I think if its handled properly between the doctor or the doctor's office and the patient...so that the patient knows up front. A: Exactly. So, extra billing, yes, if a Doctor so decided. In practice, in Lethbridge, there was very little of it, so far as I know. Q And now, I don't think there's any at all. A: Well they can't! The federal government has said that if you extra bill, we will not share the finances with the provinces. You see, health is a shared cost. Q Yes. A: The federal government says: "OK, if you extra bill—we don't think it should be practiced, so we cut off your share of the money." So the provincial government says: "Okay. You better behave, or we're not going to get paid, so no extra billing". This was an arrangement arrived at by the provincial government and the practicing doctors. Arranged through the Alberta Medical Association subsequent to the College having, as I said before, been the party which dealt with the government. Maybe I haven't made that clear enough. The College of Physicians and Surgeons was responsible at one time for financial arrangements between government and Doctors. That made way for—the Alberta Medical Association took over that function. Q Originally, it was the College that set the fees. A: Yes. Q: So before there was even MSI, the College set the fee. They said to Doctors, for an office visit, this is what you should be charging. And Doctors were free to charge more or less if they so chose? A: Yes. As I recall, the answer is yes, that's true. But during the years that I was associated with the Alberta Medical Association, that arrangement was transferred from between the government and the College to the government and the Association. Q: And that's still the case now. A: As I understand it, yes, it is. Q: The fees for different procedures are worked out between the AMA and the government, Alberta Health care? A: Well, let's put it this way. I don't think that the fees are negotiated or arrived at after consultation between the government and the AMA. I don't think that's correct. Q: Uh hum... A: I think that the AMA set their fees. This is very touchy. Because If you say that its the Association and the government who set the fees, that's not true. This is very touchy, very sensitive. The doctors are touchy as to who has the say in setting their fees. Q Well, as they should be. A: Exactly. At this point in time, there is a move, or at least a projected method of determining or setting the value of the doctor's service. They are discussing it at this time, and have been discussing it for years. What they are attempting to do is to establish a relative value schedule for fees. Relative value—what does that mean? Well, I think it means that if one procedure has a value what's the next procedure-what's its value in term of the first. Q They are looking for a correlation between the two? A: Yes. The length of time the procedure takes, what is the procedure, what's the responsibility, what's the training necessary to do it, and so on. This would constitute a relative value fee schedule, which is in the process of evolution at this time. But, its not yet accepted. Q I think that the way lay persons like myself get the wrong impression is when we read in the newspapers: "Doctors accept 5% cut". We assume that the fees for each procedure have gone down by 5%. Or "Doctors agree to 2.3% increase". Is that not the way it works? I just assumed that if normal any obstetrician charges Alberta Health care for pre natal care, the delivery and the immediate post natal care, oh, say $600, that when I read in the newspapers: "Doctors agree to 5% cut", that that fee would be reduced to $570. Am I wrong there? A: Well, I'll start out by saying I don't know. Q: Oh. A: Its a good question. I say I don't know because what do we mean when we say we'll take a 5% cut? What do we mean? I'm not sure I know myself. Probably it means that the government will contribute 5% less to the profession for the total pie. The whole pie. They don't cut a piece off the pie and throw it out. They take the whole pie and say: "We're going to make it a little smaller"~5% smaller. Q What happens, though, if the pie is only 95% of what it used to be, and each doctor continues to see the same number of patients and does the same number of procedures, is the pie not going to run out 95% of the way into the fiscal year? A: Well, this would depend entirely on what happens to the fee schedule as determined by the Association. They will determine where the cuts will occur, the medical profession. Q Okay... A: The government—they're are perfectly honest and aboveboard. They say: You've got to cut by 5%~so where do you want to cut?" Q. I see. A: So the profession will sit down and try to determine how they will cut this pie to make it smaller. And they'll try to anticipate any inequities which are apparent or liable to occur. You see, when you start looking at this sort of thing you have to determine: Okay, where's the bulk of the cost of the practice of medicine to the government coming from? I don't know, but I would guess office calls. So I guess that maybe the price of an office call would be cut from maybe $20 to $ 15. I don't know. But its one way, for instance, of arriving at something which will be equitable for the rural doctor and the city doctor. Q But it seems to me that there will be situations where some doctors will be in growing practices due to population shifts and logistics and where they establish their practice. And other doctors who are retiring gradually--! think many doctors who are approaching retirement age begin to gradually cut their practices back—no new patients, for example. It think its quite unusual for a doctor to go from working 12 hours a day to zero. Its often a more gradual process. So there would be that to take into consideration too. Something like a 5% cut, or a pie that's 5% smaller—its going to be pretty tricky to administer that. A Yes. The government, when they announce a 5% cut-they don't tell you where to cut it. They're quite fair actually. The profession decides. The profession understands the situation and accepts it. Q: Well, I don't think any of us has much choice. A: Well, doctors are good citizens, and we recognize what's going on, and the government tells the Association, the profession in Edmonton: "You figure it out." And they do. They've got their economists and so on. They will arrive at something that's going to be equitable across the board for most doctors. Q Yes. A: Sure they will. Q Yes. That makes sense. But I'm sure that most people who aren't in the profession are under the same impression as I was. We all know that for each procedure of office call, a visit in the hospital or a surgical procedure or whatever, that the doctor bills the government for a certain amount. And that amount is basically set. I don't know what the charge is for an office call. And I think there's a problem with that. But whatever it is... A: And it all depends whether its the first call in six months, or the first call in a year, or a repeat call. Repeat calls every month, or six weeks, or two months is going to be less that one every six months. The profession has their groups, their committees that sit down and dicker to establish these amounts. The one thing is (and this is not for publication or repeat) the one thing that I've heard said of this business of cutting back by 5% is that the doctor will say: "Okay. I'm cutting down my total charge for whatever services I provide, but in order to keep my total income up to where it was before, I'll just have my patients come back and see me a little more of ten." Now, this is something which can be said. And I'm not convinced that it might not be true. But in very few cases. Very rare. Q: Well, I'm sure there will be a few cases like that. But I think the vast majority won't think that way. A: Yes. Physicians, by and large, are the same as the average persons in our society. They're concerned just as much as we all are that we have to do something in order to make ends meet. Q I think I agree with you. There may be a few out there who will feel that way, and who will do that. But. A: You see, you'll always find a "chiseler". Always. In any profession. Q And there's nothing that anyone can do about that. A: Is that on the tape? Q Yes, but don't worry about it. No one will read this but me. A: I know doctors who are "chiselers", you know. Q: (Laughs) I think there are a few in any profession. A: Yes. The economy of the situation can be resolved. And the medical profession, I'm sure, have arrived at that decision to cut back the 5% without too many difficulties at all. Q Yes. I'm puzzled by the very firm stance that the nurses are taking. They are simply refusing to entertain the notion at all at this time. Mind you, from their point of view, they have a contract. A: I don't know the answer to that. I think that there are militants in every walk of life, every profession. Q Its interesting though, what's happening in Alberta, when we read about the move toward medicare in the U.S., I think to myself—well, I think that our health care is infinitely superior to theirs. A: No question. Q: I mean yes, they've got the Mayo Clinic, and the DeBakeys and all the rest of it, but on the other hand, everybody in Canada gets high quality medical care. A: No question. Q: But, I'm confident that they've looked long and hard at the Canadian system in trying to develop one for themselves, and its interesting--! don't think the Canadian system has gone very wrong at all. A: I think we've got the very best, the very best—at this time—in the world. Q Better than the British system... A: Yes. You've got portability, you've got choice of doctors, you've basically got everything. We're well provided for, I think, and I would hat to see it changed. Q: How do you feel about the private clinics in Calgary? The eye.. A: Yes, the ophthalmology clinic. Q Yes. A: Of course, its been in existence for quite a long time. Q Yes. A: The appeal of that particular operation, or that particular delivery of care, is the advantage to people who can afford it. As I understand it. Rather than waiting your turn to go into General Hospital and having a local ophthalmologist do your cataract, you can go in and get it done right away. But you pay for it. Q. Yes, that's my understanding too. A: But, its two tier medicine. But if that's what society wants, well I don't care. Let them pay for it. But if you want your cataract done in Lethbridge, it can be done, but the waiting period is not generally dangerous, the wait is not dangerous, unless there are complications developing. Q But I think here in Lethbridge if there were complications developing, arrangements would be made to get you in sooner. A: Exactly. But it is two tier medicine, no question about it. And I think if a fellow wants to pay $ 1000 or $2000 to have his eyes operated on, then he can do it, providing I don't have to wait to the point where I'm risking a complication. Q: Well, I don't have any problems with situations like—you know Duncan Brown? A: Sure. Q: He had his own little clinic here where he did cosmetic surgery—and billed a facility fee. I don't have a problem with that. But I'm a little uncomfortable when a procedure is medically necessary. I think we should be able to get that procedure performed in order of need, rather than in order of bank account A: Well, if a fellow has worked hard, diligently, and at age 65 or 70 he develops a cataract, why shouldn't he be able to spend his money the way he wants? He's saved it, he's worked for it. Q. Um hum... A: He's not taking anything away from the other patients. I think that we are beginning to look at the dollar sign a little closer, and not be quite as free and open with our tax dollars. Q: I think so, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think the public has a right to demand that their tax dollar be spent wisely, and I think that there is a perception that the government hasn't always spent the health care tax dollar wisely. A: I think that's probably true. Take hospitals for instance since we're on the subject. Q Yes. A: Why did we really have to build new hospitals in Milk River and Cardston and Magrath, Fort MacLeod, Coaldale, Pincher Creek, and so on. Why did we have to do that? Was it a matter of convenience to the local people? There probably was a factor of politics. The people want a hospital in this community so they got one. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it. Q: No, but I think we realize that that wasn't the most efficient way to use the health care dollars. A: I think that's true. Q: Even right here in Lethbridge, with the Municipal or Regional Hospital. They could have been I think more "cooperative" for lack of a better word in deciding which hospitals would be more effective in doing certain procedures. I didn't Slink we had to have two general hospitals within two or three blocks of each other. Yet, I didn't raise any particular complaints about them carrying on the way they did. Yet, as I say, the economics of the hospitals, it seems to me that we could have been more efficient. But I've told you before, that from the time this hospital was vacated, we never had enough beds for the long term ill. Never. And as result, we've had the plugging of the acute beds as a result of people who are long term ill taking up these beds. So its been just a terrible backing up of facilities. Q: Yes. Certainly it didn't make sense for Lethbridge Regional Hospital to have operating rooms unused, while St. Michael's was still operating. A: I guess so. But the maternity concept, the surgical concept, abdominal surgery, specialized surgery, orthopedics. But you come to the point where you have to make changes. But you know, I think we are over governed. You have so many levels of government. You have the local government, the provincial government, the federal government We are governed to death, actually. But that's the way we want it. Q: But you know, I think the thoughtful, reflective opinions of people like yourself are so valuable. You are able to see things with a perspective. Not just the view of "the 90fs"or the "80's" but who able to see the cycles. Those opinions are valuable to the people who are making the decisions. A: Yes. Q. What do you think of the events of the past six months? Do you think that its just fat being trimmed, or have some of the cuts gone into the flesh? A: I think perhaps this is true. The tendency is to overdo, one way or the other. But the way we have gone—I'm still philosophizing... Q That's fine...so am I. A: The way we have gone, all of my life-take for instance my wife. As the past president of the Victorian Order of Nurses in Lethbridge, Alberta and Canada. The Victorian Order of Nurses was conceived, and conducted its business on a voluntary basis. And it was basically a home nursing program. And they came in with Home Care in Lethbridge. Q. Uh hum... A: And across Canada, what, about 20 years ago? The provincial government has a health unit, and they conceived that home care was a program that should come under the government. What do they do? In Lethbridge they buy the old CPR station, they rebuild, they add to the amount of space, they take over a ski house that's just a block away from where the station is. They buy it, and get it all fixed up, only for home care! But they've still got this great big station. And of course, the number of people hire is significant. Here we had a voluntary organization that's been doing this! And all of a sudden, the voluntary organization is out of business! Q Well yes. They couldn't compete with the government No voluntary organization has those kind of resources. A: That's true! So what's happened? Q: So the voluntary organization that was doing the job, and spending money very efficiently, is out of business. A: That's right. They got their financing from the Community Chest. Q: I know. A: So, its just...our society has done it. Our city council, our representative on the health group. And they decide they're going to take over home care, and they just doit And how many health units are there in the province? twelve? Fifteen? Q. I don't know. A lot. A: And every six months or so they have a meeting in Edmonton. They all come together. Do you know how much it costs for that? Q: A horrendous amount of money. A: The question is...I guess its just been a matter of government growing and growing and growing, and I've complained in public about being over governed, and we are over governed. We're told by everyone who is in a public position what we should do, and when—we're directed as to when we should get our flu shots and so on...In Lethbridge we're governed by city council, the provincial government, the house of commons, the senate in Ottawa—that's four levels of government. How can we pay for it all? I'm not complaining about the way I'm governed, but I'm complaining about too much government! Q: I think most people would agree with you. A: Absolutely. I think so too. Q For example, I'm not sure that the senate, at present plays any useful role. A: It doesn't! Not at all! Its a repository for old hacks! Q And what sort of purpose does the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors serve. What do we need them for? Its just pomp and circumstance and vast amounts of money being spent. A: That's right, (laughs) Q I think we've touched all the bases, but there's one thing I'd like to ask you. what makes you angry? What upsets you—makes you grit your teeth? A: You mean in my work, my profession? Q: In you life, your society, in what you see... I'm thinking that a hundred years from now, or even two hundred, a historian opens up these boxes and ...think about that...if you had a find like that from the 1700's. That's a question I think the historian would want answered. A: Good question. Q: I try to keep that historian of the future in my mind as we do this. A: What things did I not like. Q What made you angry? A: I guess the very subject we've been discussing. Government, in some respects has been a source of annoyance. I'm not sure that its made me angry, because I'm not sure that I know what's better. We all know that the so called democratic mode of government is very inefficient and costly, but its the best we've been able to evolve, so I'm not sure I want to replace it with a new thing. My profession...made me angry? Q This conversation won't be published, and I'll give you final cut on the paper I do. A: I think I want to think about this question. I'll write it down to be sure. Q: Okay. A: What makes me angry. Q: Maybe you could ask Islay. She probably knows what has made you angry. A: That's one reason why I'm writing it down. I want to go home and speak to her about it. She might be more objective about it. Yes, I'm inclined to think that things that made me angry 10,15,20 and certainly 30 or 40 years ago don't make me angry anymore, this is the advantage of the aging process, I guess, (laughs) Q: Oh, I'm sure. A: Its interesting. Its a good question. You know? Q Sure. A: I've done some things that I shouldn't have done. And there are things I should have done that I didn't do. Q. I think that holds true for everybody. A: And yet, in the Good Book, in Phillipians, in the fourth chapter, it says something that ...."forget what has happened in the past, and anticipate the future". Q: Yes. A: I've found that to be a very good piece of Scripture. Its difficult to do, of course. Q And yet, you and I know, because we both have an interest in history, that we don't want the past forgotten. A: (Laughs) This is true. But we can get sort of snowed under thinking about why didn't we do this or that or not done it. You know, these are the things that chew away at a man's soul. Q That's actually another thing I wanted to talk to you about. I know that you've been a churchgoer all your life—a committed Christian all your life, and I'd like to know how you feel that commitment has impacted on your profession and on your life. I know that its been an important part of your life, and it should be included here. So if next time we'll talk a bit about that, (and of course about what makes you angry). A: Yes. Q Since next time will be our last session, talk with Islay, and think about anything you would like to have on this tape, that we haven't covered. Keep that yet to be born historian in mind, and think about what he or she would like to know. That's a pretty tall order, I know, but I want both of us to feel comfortable that this tape is as complete as possible. A: Okay. I'll work on that. You know, Its just flashed through my mind that I've been living in a period where we got antibiotics, cortisone, drugs, which have been a flood on the market for everything you could think of...you know, heart drugs, lung drugs. Tuberculosis...we used to put them to be in the sunshine and that was it! Now they've got everything! Q Yes, the scourges of mankind for five thousand years have been tamed, to a large extent, during the period of your practice. A: Yes. Q: And yet you've been here during the first appearance of AIDS< which may turn out to be the worst of all. A: Yes, The worst of all. This is true. But some diseases, like polio have not been completely eliminated, and won't be, in the near future. Its not under control, particularly in the far east. And of course, every time you pick up an article that has anything on malaria, you feel discouraged. They are making wonderful progress with regard to malaria, but there are still strains of malaria infection that are with us. Q I think that historians of 200 years from now are going to see a watershed. Yes, wars, and economic events drive history, but I think they are going to look long and hard at medicine, and how improvements in medical care and people's health in the 20th century drove other changes. I think that what has happened in health care—just think a person born in the 1900's could expect to live to be about 55. A person born in 1950 could expect to live to be 80. That's a huge change in 50 years, compared to the 500 years preceding it. A: This is very true. Mind you, you have to be selective. In certain societies, in certain parts of the world, this is not the case. Q Oh yes. I know that I'm talking about European and North American society for the most part But there have been amazing advances. And your practice spans that period. A: Yes. But I just want to say this. I'm still concerned about the explosion of drugs, the explosion of the use of drugs, the finding or drugs for various purposes. But I'm alarmed about the effects of those drugs. It is true that we have wonderful drugs for many different illnesses and conditions, but how much are we looking at what they're doing, aside from the good? How much bad are they doing? Q. Well, we're creating strains of resistant bacteria. A: This is true! And what's this going to mean to us in 50 years, or 200 years. Where are we going to be? The other thing is—the side effects-far lack of a better term-the side effects of the drugs that we use for various conditions, to the advantage of the control of the condition, but what else are we doing with these drugs? I think that this is a very real challenge, right now, because of the explosion of drugs. You can't look at a medical journal without looking at the full page ads of new drugs. There'll be maybe two or three pages of advertisements for the drugs, and there will be another two pages or so of side effects. So we have to keep that in mind when we think about the new things that are all good. They're not all good. And the challenge is~what about 50 years from now? Shall we just take them out and put them in the garbage? Q You know, I had a patient, I think this was in the fifties. And she was a hypertensive patient. I had just come back from Boston, where I had done some work in cardiology, and they had just come out with a new drug which was a drug which had been developed from some work that had been done on a drug which had come out of India And this drug had the effect of lowering blood pressure. It became available shortly after I had come back from Boston, and I started to prescribe it. and this lady, with hypertension, I prescribed the drug for her. And it wasn't very long, maybe a matter of weeks, when she began to have symptoms of mental disturbances, manic-depressive, depressed, beginning to hear voices, could see or hear things that weren't really there, deluded, and I figured that this lady is just getting older, her circulation is not so good... But you know, I never tumbled, until I had a second patient, who was on the same drug. They were both beginning to show the same signs of mental disturbances! To make a long story short, it was the drug! I stopped the drugs, and stopped the side effects. This was happening with these new drugs. Today, too, you have these side effects, so while its difficult to be critical of new drugs when they do so much good, but we must not lose track of the fact that we're changing the physiology of our bodies with some of these new drugs to the point where we have to be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease. Q I agree.

Access Restrictions

Public Access

Accession No.

19931081174

Collection

Archive

Less detail