Took advantage of people during their time of need. In response to this exultation, this exploitation there was a , trend toward simple burial 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 sight 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 eyebanked at stanford. What about the rest of my body . You see the establishment for the first time organized, systematic body 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 . 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 in, say to a surgeon, and they 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. Bill so, this 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. The anatomists preferred sick bodies that had no relatives or histories. Bill the john does. Professor lederer thats right. They relied on laws that states 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 changing their mind or, you know, they just did not want to be bothered by that. They much preferred anonymous bodies. Bill 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. Again, that is to overlook American Investment in the repair of the body, its function or appearance. I include the thyroid gland. This is the heyday of the, you 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. Bill 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 war and many ordinary americans believed they would be contributing to medical research by donating their organs. To me, the two chief advances were penicillin, the wonder 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. World war i, there was a very few number of blood transfusions performed, even though it was obviously a very bloody war. In world war ii, 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 cross conducted drives to send american men overseas and in various theaters of war. Bill when were the blood drives in the United States . When did that start to be accepted by the general public . Professor lederer i would say during world war ii. Before that, 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. There were innovations that allow blood to be stored for a longer time, and also for god to also for blood to be separated into plasma and for blood to be separated into plasma and red blood cells. Blood drives, 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. Bill while hospitals are during the first types of transplants . Professor lederer mass general, Harvard Medical School is a center for kidney transplants. There are centers, for example, at tulane university. Here in denver, a very significant transplant surgeon began his career at the 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 in the possibility of transplanting kidneys and then in the 1960s, heart and lungs. And livers. Bill 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, an 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. Bill how has the ama or other 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 the 20th century is people are not relying on donors, but paying of the 20th century is people are not relying on donors, but paying people for their organs. Because of the concern of poor people selling their organs to the rich, Congress Passed the national Organ Transplantation act which outlaws the sale of organs and the possibility of a Kidney Exchange that would match people with recipients. And as part of the act, the federal government sponsored 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 on age in some cases, that were intended to provide a more equitable distribution. Bill thats United States. 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 in 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. But the middleman can greatly 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. And then the moral problem for 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. Professor lederer i think i 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 papers of american surgeons. You know, just a flurry who Joseph Murray who performed the first transplants in 1954, and received a nobel 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. Bill have you ever have the opportunity to witness a transplant or an autopsy at a medical school . Professor lederer i have not witnessed a transplant. I have witnessed autopsies and i have been in the dissecting room when medical students are learning anatomical dissection. Bill weve been talking about organs, natural organs as we move into the 21st century 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 where are those organs going to come from . There is the hope that artificial organs so far, i think it has been fairly limited. There has been great interest in the idea that you can use in xenotransplantation. The idea that you can use a guerrilla heart or kidney. But theres the concern that wealthy people will get the human organs and people were and the poor 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 needs a skin transplant because they have been badly burned, they may bring a puppy to the Doctors 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 . Professor lederer it is hard to 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. And there are doctors who want to be able to address the real needs of their patients. Bill susan lederer, thanks for being with us here on American History tv. Professor lederer thank you. You are watching American History tv. 48 hours of programming every weekend on cspan 3. Cspan us on twitter history for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. April 2, 1917, Jeannette Rankin of montana was sworn in as the first woman elected to the u. S. Congress. The centennial, here is a brief look at her life and career. The story of women in Congress Begins with Jeannette Rankin elected to the house in 1916 from montana. Shes elected to the house four years before women had the right to vote nationally. In a way, she is really a bridge from the suffrage fullent to women attaining rights. She was active in a National Womens suffrage organization. She helped women get the right to vote not only in montana but a couple of states west of the mississippi. Shese runs in 1916, elected to one of montanas two atlarge districts. And part of her platform is that she is a pacifist. While shes sworn into the house on april 2, 1917. Intoouse has come extraordinary session because the president that night, woodrow wilson, delivers a message to Congress Asking for a declaration of war against germany. The u. S. Entry into world war i. And rankin, when that vote is held, is one of a group of about 50 members who votes against u. S. Intervention in world war i. She served a term in the house. She was on the womens suffrage committee. The public lands committee, which was an important assignment for woman from montana. Beingo much o f the land held by the federal government. It was an important position. She serves only a term in the house and she tries to run for senate from montana. She does not get the republican nomination, but she runs as an independent. An uphill battle, she gets 1 5 of the votes. Then she goes back to private life and she is involved in womens rights issues, shes a driving force behind the shepherd towner maternity in infancy act, which the house passes in 1921. And then shes also involve in International Peace organizations. 940, sheward to 1 runs for congress again and she runs on a platform to keep the u. S. Out of the war in europe. 8, she faced on december 1941, with a tremendous vote. This is the day after pearl harbor. Houses come to the chamber, addressed a joint session of congress. President roosevelt yesterday, december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. The senate goes back to its chamber. And very quickly unanimously passes a war resolution and the house begins debating and the house members know that Jeannette Rankin is a pacifist, and she is going to vote or conscious. So, we have some oral history of people in the in chamber who recall members going up to rankin and asking her to vote present. Dont vote no. But she votes or conscious and opposes the war. She is the lone vote against u. S. Entry in world war ii with the declaration of war against japan. That ended her political career. She goes back into private life. And but shes a force in the Antiwar Movement really for another couple decades. But a remarkable career. In 2004, we commissioned a new portrait of jeannette reagan. Rankin. She was a person that was so important in the expansion of rights and representation in congress. When we commissioned it, we wanted to show what is was like to come into congress as a first woman when women do not have the right to vote nationally. 1917 when is 1916 she enters congress, there is a lot of newspaper coverage of it. Because she is something of a novelty, there is a lot of newspaper coverage of what she is wearing. So, we know exactly which was wearing, and so the portrait shows are in that navy blue dress. We know she was wearing a big hat. We know exactly what the Washington Post said. The portrait has her in those clothes holding the Washington Post. She is wearing that hat and she is placed in the portrait just outside the chamber doors. If we were to enter into that space with her, she would just about turned to her right and enter the chamber. At which point, she would take off her hat, because hats were not worn in the chamber, even though the was much discussion, as a woman, should she wear a hat, because that is formal attire. Or is she not a woman but a member of congress and therefore should not wear it . They decide she is a member of congress more than she is her gender millinarily. She takes it off. All of the things we wanted to put in the portrait as well as the real sort of sense of the fact that she was in the house but much more a creature of her other interests as well pacifism, suffrage. All of the issues that were important to her. It was a somewhat lonely spot, to be the only woman and also to be taking the stance of conscience that put her very much at odds with other people. Next