Osler, Racism, Historiography, and Medical Biography

The Star’s coverage of Persaud et al.1 states the paper has been “rigorously fact-checked.” This claim is false. One glaringly anachronistic statement is "[Osler] was an active member of the American Medical Association when -- after a contentious debate -- it rejected membership applications from qualified racialized physicians."1 The cited reference shows this US debate occurred in 1870 (NB, Osler was still a medical student in Canada).
Historians collect available and relevant data on a topic, determine what seems credible, analyze this in the context of its totality, and then develop a narrative that best fits the data. Focusing on a few outlying observations is improper technique. The authors fail to contextualize or address presentism, the uncritical evaluation of ideas or events through a lens of present-day values.
The authors’ lack of understanding of medical biographies promotes unwarranted sensationalism. As explained by Barron Lerner: “For decades, physicians wrote much of the history of medicine, often ‘great man’ histories that celebrated their colleagues' accomplishments as part of a celebratory historical narrative. Beginning in the 1970s, social historians challenged this type of scholarship, arguing that it was Whiggish, omitted the flaws of the medical profession, left patients out of the story, and ignored issues of gender, race, and class.”2 The authors focus on Harvey Cushing changing a word in a quote. His book was published in 1925 at the height of medical hagiography. Cushing regularly omitted unflattering materials.
Michael Bliss, a meticulous social historian, spent several years reviewing essentially all of Osler’s writings and other relevant historical data. If his Osler biography3 documented and then “downplayed” a couple of racist statements and characterized them as offhand remarks, his judgement was likely fair and sound. Bliss never shied away from criticism in his biographies, as evidenced by his rather scathing assessments of Frederick Banting4 and his partner Charles Best.5 The preface to his Osler biography states that he planned to do some “icon bashing” and that the only “warts” he discovered were on Osler’s hands (i.e., from dissecting tuberculous bodies without gloves). If Michael Bliss, who wrote “Try as I might, I could not find a cause to justify the death of Osler’s reputation,”3 did not see racism, it is presumptuous and arrogant for three non-medical historians with rudimentary knowledge of Osler to conclude he was by cherry-picking a few statements that do not otherwise fit into an overwhelming pattern of admirable behavior and contributions. While fighting racism is important, a statement about statues of “once-revered individuals who participated in racist crimes” being used in the same sentence as “Osler” is unwarranted and unjust. While scurrilous charges based upon weak historical evidence make headlines, such a tactic is an inappropriate way to promote a just cause!