Transcripts For CSPAN3 20170408

As i mentioned, over two hundred thousand people could be here on a day during world war ii. The station had to be closed because it was full. Some of the benches needed to be removed then. It was still a primarily the largest waiting room certainly, in the city and the crossroads of the world, it was once dubbed by the press. Interesting to go through this building, particularly world war ii and the changes that were made. For example, the announcers voice was changed to a female voice, under the theory that a female voice would be sweeter and softer and more appropriate during wartime. We have a quote from one of the porters who says that he was bribed frequently or attempted to bribe frequently to put people in a wheelchair so he could take them to the head of the line. The lines were so long, he extended quite a way through the building. Watch the entire tour of Union Station at 6 p. M. And 10 p. M. Eastern sunday on american artifacts. This is american cspan3. V only on join us tomorrow at 10 a. M. Eastern for a ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of americas entry into world war i. The united as world war i Centennial Commission hosted the program from the were memorial in kansas city, missouri. The ceremony includes a dramatic retelling of the american debate about whether to join the global conflict. President Woodrow Wilson signed the declaration of war against germany on april 7, 1917. More than 100,000 died. Thats tomorrow on american. Istory tv, here on cspan3 recently, American History tv was at the american historical Associations Annual meeting in denver, colorado. We spoke with professors, authors, and graduate students about the research. This interview is about an hour and 20 minutes. We are with susan r, a medical professor susan lederer. Deathd attitudes about change in the United States after world war ii . Lederer there was a growing interest in the increasing costs of the funeral industry. Great concern about Funeral Directors who unscrupulously took advantage of people during their time of need. In response to this exultation, there was a trend toward simple and the formation of socalled memorial societies that offered workingclass families a much cheaper cost associated with the death of their loved ones. And another change was the enormous attention to the possibility that blindness could be cured by cornea transplants in the 1940s. Thousands of americans volunteered their corneas after their deaths in the effort to restore the site of a blind person. Among many of these individuals, they thought if i am giving my corneas when i am dead, why not the rest of me . So, there was increasing interest and you see it in the archives of medical schools my eyes are going to be stanford. At what about the rest of my body . You see the establishment for the first time organized, donor programs at virtually every American Medical School in the United States. Was their Public Resistance to this . It seems like a new concept with cornea transplants . Matthew a lot of people have focused on the cultural resistance. What i find more interesting is the cultural acceptance and the extraordinary lengths people will go to in the hope that they will have restoration of function or restoration of appearance. I am much more struck by their willingness to try almost every almost anything in the hope of being made whole once again or having restored function. Again, a lot of my work focuses on archives of medical schools, and so, i have seen hundreds of letters from americans who write theyay to a surgeon, and and to me they are really tragic and poignant letters. They will say, i lost my foot in a street car accident. I would do anything to have my foot restored to me. They were not really doing limb transplants, but just the prospect that people were willing to be experimented on. Many people have emphasized the resistance. What i find remarkable is the willingness to try something new in the hope of a better outcome. Is something new for people to have medical schools come to them and say, after death, i want to donate my body. Professor lederer that is the standard in the United States, but a small cohort of people donate their bodies to medical science. A very small percentage. As early as the 1880s, some americans, physicians, agnostics or freethinkers, unitarians who wanted to continue their utility to society after death, for example, tried to donate their bodies to science. And what they encountered was resistance from the anatomists. Sicknatomists preferred bodies that had no relatives or histories. S. Ll the john doe professor lederer thats right. Stateslied on laws that had passed that made the bodies of the unclaimed or indigent available. Even the people were trying to donate their bodies, medical schools didnt they were afraid of lawsuits or a relative or, you their mind know, they just did not want to be bothered by that. They much preferred anonymous bodies. Tell us about the logistics for Organ Transplants to be more common across the country . Professor lederer i need to tell you the conventional story and the story that i am somewhat more interested in. The conventional story about when Organ Transplantation began is in the 19 the 1950s with the first kidney transplant between two identical twins in a massachusetts hospital in 1954. It takes off from their. To overlookis American Investment in the repair of the body, its function. R appearance thyroid gland. The, youhe heyday of know, sort of the glands. The idea that internal secretions in the body are very important of the regulation or function or growth. In my work, i was very struck by the willingness, again, of men and women to undergo ovarian transplants and testicular transplants in the 1920s. This is before the isolation of testosterone and estrogen. But again, in an effort on the part of women, the chance to have a child, and on the part of men, you know, to be rejuvenated. What was it about world war ii that sort of propel was it the medical advances that propelled be acceptance of Organ Transplants or donations . Professor lederer i think there were significant medical advances that came out of the americansny ordinary believed they would be contributing to medical research by donating their organs. Advancese two chief the wonderllin, drug, but its not until the 1940s that its remarkable antibiotic capability is discovered and it really transforms medical pot medical practice. The other, i would say, is blood transfusion. The transfusion first gained popularity in the united date in the early 20th century. A veryar i, there was few number of blood transfusions wasormed, even though it obviously a very bloody war. But in world war two, the u. S. Military really geared up world war ii, the u. S. Military really geared up. They have the drive for written and the red drives to send american men overseas and in various theaters of war. Driveshen were the blood in the United States . When did that start to be accepted by the general public . Professor lederer i would say during world war ii. , you had individuals sometimes there would be a radio announcement that there was a train wreck and they would need a lot of transfusions, and people would come to the hospital. Innovations that allow blood to be stored for a longer time, and also for god to be separated into plasma and for blood to be separated into plasma and red blood cells. Drives,mass of blood the blood for britain program, where again, more than 20,000 americans donated blood that was going to be sent to aid the british people during the war. While hospitals are during the first types of transplants . Professor lederer mass general, hard medical school is a center for kidney transplants. There are centers, for example, at tulane university. Here in denver, a very significant transplant surgeon at theis Career University of colorado, and later moved to the university of pittsburgh. Minnesota. California at stanford. So, these were all places where surgical departments began to invest i the possibility of transplanting kidneys and then in the 1960s, heart and lungs. And livers. What types of ethical issues have you seen in your studies of this field that have come up over the issue of donating ones organs . Professor lederer well, i think one of the main concerns i see over the course of the 20thcentury has to do with the equitable distribution of organs, and the idea that was very unsatisfactory to many people that if you were rich you could get a lifesaving organ, but if you were poor, you would not have access. So, there were efforts to try to ensure that even a poor person, and indigent person and indigent person would have access if they needed it to stay alive, and that remains a concern throughout the 1950s and the 1960s, the 1970s, and 1980s. There was great concern that wealthy foreigners, for example, were coming to places like pittsburgh or the mayo clinic and they were somehow taking organs from americans who needed them, you know, that were in. Or other has the ama organizations may be logistics or the operations so that there is a level of fairness in that regard . How do they avoid the superrich or whoever coming in to that in front of the line . Professor lederer well, one of the other concerns you see over the course of the 20 effect he is people are not relying on donors, but paying of the 20th century is that people are not relying on donors, but their organs. For because of the concern of poor tople selling their organs the rich, Congress Passed the national Organ Transplantation sale ofh outlaws the organs and the possibility of a Kidney Exchange that would match people with recipients. And as part of the act, the sponsoredvernment organ procurement organizations that were regional that had rules for, you know, who would have a list of priority, and organ list for they would go systematically based on need, based on their ability to, you know, have a good outcome, based cases, that were intended to provide a more equitable distribution. States. E state united what about the other countries in the world . Is selling of organs a problem in other places . Professor lederer well, there remained trafficking in organs and other parts of the world. Bill really . Professor lederer yes. I think in most countries, it is illegal, but we know it goes on. There are certain villages, for example, in india, where many people have a scar because they have sold their kidney. And one of the concerns is in such a system, you know, 100 seems like a trifling amount, but it might be a big amount to a villager, to an impoverished person. Can greatlyleman raise the price of that organ. And there have been concerns about socalled transplant tourism where people go to other countries, like china, for example, have access to an organ that has not come voluntarily. It is clear they are not voluntarily obtained organs. Problem for moral some American Physicians is, what do you do . How do you provide care for your patient, when you know you have gone out of the system, gone to a foreign country, may be purchased an organ or got an organ from a prisoner . That has been discussed in the literature. Bill lets talk about the primary sources and resources you go to to keep an eye on this field, to study this field. I think ilederer already mentioned, i do rely on archives at medical schools. In the case of body donation, in the departments of anatomy. I also used to the archival of american surgeons. You know, just a flurry who performed the first transplants a nobel and received prize for his work has an extensive archive and one of the frustrations for me is there is a 75year embargo on the use of these papers. I cant see them until 2050. Have you ever have the opportunity to witness a transplant or an autopsy at a medical school . I have notederer witnessed a transplant. I have witnessed autopsies and i have been in the dissecting room when medical students are learning anatomical dissection. Weve been talking about organs, natural organs as we move into 21st entry medicine with artificial organs and other things that may be medical solutions to current problems, what sort of bioethical issues do you see as confronting the u. S. In the years to come . Professor lederer the thing that everyone points to is the number of indications for organ transplant has risen geometrically, but the supply has remained flat. Where are those organs going to come from question mark there is the hope that artificial organs so far, i think it has been fairly limited. There has been great interest in xina, the idea that you can use transplantation. Can use ahat you guerrilla heart or kidney. But theres the concern that wealthy people will get the human organs and people were will get the less acceptable organs. But i will say, going back to my interest in the early 20th century, americans have been experimenting with animal organs since the late 19th century. Its very striking to me, for example, when somebody means a skin transplant because they have been badly burned, they may doctorsuppy to the office and the skin from the dog will be used to graft onto an injured child or injured adult. Bill do you think the American Public is more accepting of that sort of procedure or those approaches than they were 100 years ago . Is hard toederer it say. Again, i think people who are faced with a catastrophic loss of function or nonhuman appearance, whether they had their face destroyed in a fire or some disease, are willing to go to Great Lengths to be made whole. I think that is a remarkable feature, the willingness to try new things on the part of Many American on the part of Many Americans. , thanks forlederer being with us here on American History tv. Professor lederer thank you. Youre watching American History tv, 48 hours of American History programming every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter to keep up with our schedule and the latest history news. Next week in prime time on at 8 p. M. Nday eastern, from the National Review ideas summit and washington, d. C. , conservatives discussing hollywood, politics, and pop culture. Equality, the choice with men choicesn, those are native populations do not have. Because with oil. If you change the premises, you can Say Something that feels true and beautiful in the world of the movie, but isnt, in fact. Tuesday at 8 p. M. Houston, the former u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york, prebahrain preet bahara. Public education. We have to remember that local ownership of schools has a lot to do with that positive. Upport for schools thursday at 8 p. M. Eastern, a panel on drug prescription crisis in the u. S. , hosted by the university of southern california. They have created maned named things and they make a drug for. Do you have this . Hungry . Ever you know. Everybody is hungry. We have a drug for you and everyone will go, oh, my god, i better go get some testosterone. Friday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia sotomayor talks about her path to the nations highest court. Your curiousyor people go farther. Lead you to experience new things and might lead you to find an interest you never imagined. Next week week at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Even though republicans are a minority in the congress, in the senate, they are a minority with a veto. They have the ability to block legislation, and they have done so on health care reform. Thatfore, it is clear Health Insurance reform cannot be enacted this year. On september 18, the New York Times reported that the republican floor manager on health care, senator bob packwood, told his republican colleagues, and i quote weve killed health care reform. Now weve got to make sure our fingerprints are not on it. And of quotation. They have succeeded in their first objective of killing health care reform. Whether they succeed in making sure their fingerprints are not on it remains to be seen. Did you hear senator packwood health careed reform, we have to make sure our flank imprints are not on it, and do you think thats true . The republicans killed Health Reform . Senator dole he will be a peer in a few minutes. That is true . Senator dole no, the american tople we listened remarkable. There are not enough republicans to kill anything around here. We do the best we can. Are not protected under the endangered species act, but we are looking to expand that to protect minorities like ours. My view is the American People, the majority of the American People said not this year, and we dont want all of this government, we dont want everything else. We are not going to be defensive about that. We responded to the American People. Senator mitchell came up to two blame republicans. That ought to be responded to by some of the media, but we responded to the American People. I am not a bit defensive. Here is paul coverdale. Bob packwood will be appearing a minute. We think that we responded to what they wanted. What they did not want was a big bureaucracy and mandates on small employees, and i think we were successful, including some democrats who joined us. There never was a time in any of this debate when any Democrat Bill had a majority, let alone 60 votes. They never had 50 votes. Afterwords,t on blue on blue. An insiders story on cops catching cops. Charles campisi talks about his officerh a former nypd and author of once a cop. I saw accept courage, bravery, integrity. There is always that cop who q2 up at night. When i was a precinct commander, everyone knew the person or maybe two that you did not trust and the other officers did not trust him or her either. What i did when i went to internal affairs was i brought the Commanding Officers on board and we would meet with them on a regular basis and i would ask them questions like, who in your command are you a little concerned about . Who keeps you up at night . What sunday night and 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans book tv. Cspan where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. And is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Next on the civil war, author and professor timothy on civil wars monuments. American Civil War Museum enrichment, virginia. This is about 15 minutes. Rawls latest and gentlemen, our third speaker is dr. Timothy s. Sedore. He holds a doctorate in english education, a masters in religious studies and masters of divinity and theological studies. So far, we got a museum person, a lawyer, and a you load in. He brings the perspective of a scholar who pays close attention to the power of words. All of the monuments and our collective commemorative landscape have back stories, stories of individuals or groups who