These days almost every mail brings an appeal from a worthy charitable organization, warning us that there are only a few days left in the year to make sure our gift will qualify for a tax deduction on our 2016 return.
The cynic might claim that people need the incentive of a tax deduction to be persuaded to share their wealth with those less fortunate. But the spirit of generosity surrounding the Christmas season has been around long before there was an income tax. As rabbi Peter J. Rubinstein pointed out in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, giving has long been regarded as a “healing counterpoint to the darker sides of human nature.” In the decade of the 1850s, receipts of the nation’s churches and voluntary Protestant societies were greater than the receipts of the federal government!
In her recent blog post, my friend Annie Haddad discusses one of the organizations supported by the Seabury Tredwells, a wealthy New York merchant family, I confess I was somewhat surprised by the choice of charities and amazed that it was founded very early—1823—by a woman and administered entirely by women. Curious? Read the post here.
Because we can’t possibly give to all who ask for our help. many of us simply choose a favorite charity and concentrate our giving. My charity of choice is Shriners’ Hospitals for Children, a network of 22 pediatric hospitals in North America that provides state-of-the-art treatment for orthopaedic conditions, spinal cord injuries, burns, and cleft lip/palette, regardless of the family’s ability to pay. They are also involved in research and in training physicians and therapists. The scope of their work is really remarkable.
As a child, I was hospitalized for months to correct an orthopedic problem. It was not a Shriners Hospital, but this medical intervention kept me from a lifetime of disability. I have therefore, a deep appreciation of this wonderful organization that transforms children’s lives. You can read more about it here. mlk
Closing in on the shampoo aisle of my neighborhood drugstore, I spied this display of anti-bacterial soap. Now that flu season approaches, we are constantly reminded to wash our hands often. Hospitals have wall dispensers of hand sanitizers for the use of visitors, and patients are encouraged to remind their doctors and nurses to sanitize their hands before they permit themselves to be touched. Even five-year-olds know about “germs,” which is more than can be said for 19th-century physicians. I couldn’t help but think of the following from my book An Old Merchant’s House: Life at Home in New York City, 1835-65.
With the availability of general anesthesia, surgical procedures that had not been possible earlier began to be performed. But of course doctors, lacking a knowledge of microorganisms, saw no reason to provide a sterile environment, and patients frequently died of postoperative infection as a result. Infection after surgery was simply taken as a matter of course. In 1864 John Ward was invited by his mentor and professor , Dr. Peters, to observe the removal of the breast of a Mrs. Loper. The operation took place in the upstairs bedroom of the patient’s home on Forty-Fourth Street. There were no surgical gowns or masks or gloves then, no imperative to sterilize instruments or to scrub hands and nails. . . .
Chapter 14, “Domestic Dramas,” tells about medical treatment during the 19th century. See what readers are saying. (You have to scroll down a bit on the page to get to the reviews.)