Health and Human Values

This lesson was developed for undergraduate students in the HNRS 250, many of whom are STEM students being introduced to humanistic scholarship. Over the course of two class sessions, students will learn to analyze primary sources then use them to make an argument. The first session, an active learning-based session introduces students to primary sources related to models of disease from the 1860s to 1920s. Through document analysis, students practice critical thinking and work individually and then collaboratively to compare sources around disease. This exercise is facilitated by the instructor and archivist, who guide students with contextual questions about the content, intended audience, purpose, and author of their documents. In the second session students will use the sources to debate from the perspective of the different models of disease as to why their approach is better for protecting the public’s health today. 

• Students will assess and analyze primary and secondary sources to identify ideas of disease causality in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and how diverse historical actors interpreted their implications for individuals and society.
• Students will be exposed to using textual and visual historical primary sources. 
• Students will analyze primary sources.
• Students will collaborate with their peers in their analysis of primary sources. 
• Students will develop skills to critically examine, interpret, and evaluate historical evidence. 
• Students will annotate and summarize sources. 
• Students will compare the perspectives of the sources. 

Materials included publications and selections from the Library of Congress digital collections and secondary sources, which included:

• Arizona Department of Health Services. (n.d.) "A History of the Arizona State Public Health Laboratory." 
• Baldwin, Peter. (2021). "Dangers that Lurk in a Kiss: Quarantining the American Mouth 1890-1920." Journal of Social History. (UA access)
• Bynum, William. (2020). "Epidemiology: The History of Disease and Epidemics" (Part I, pre-20th century)
• Kiechle, Melanie. (2019). "Introduction: What's That Smell?" Smell Detectives: An Olfactory History of Nineteenth-Century America. (UA access)
• Nash, Linda. (2006). "Placing Health and Disease." Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease and Knowledge. (UA access)

Session 1

Part 1: Introduction to Special Collections (15 minutes)

Introduce students to Special Collections and archives. Provide an overview of what Special Collections holds and how to search for materials online through finding aids, the library catalog, and digital collections. Provide an overview of primary and secondary sources and how to analyze and contextualize a source. 

Part 2: Exercise (15 minutes)

Using a worksheet of questions, in groups of two, students will look at 2 sources. As a group, students will reflect on what they learned and inferred about the sources. Students will be assigned an additional subset of documents in preparation for the debate in session 2.

Students will read the news sources ahead of the class session. 

• Source 1: "The Utility and Futility of Boards of Health," San Francisco Examiner, May 20, 1902.
• Source 2: "Contagion of Phthisis," Arizona Republican, December 24, 1895. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.

Students will use the remaining time in class to continue analyzing the additional sources in preparation for the debate argument. 

Additional sources for students to analyze before Session 2

Primary Sources on Miasma, Filth Theory of Disease and Anti-Contagionism 

• "The Utility and Futility of Boards of Health," San Francisco Examiner, May 20, 1902.
• "Contagion of Phthisis," Arizona Republican, December 24, 1895. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “Miasma,” The Shasta Courier. June 30, 1866. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “Heat and Disease,” Tucson Citizen. April 15, 1902. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “Our Climate,” Arizona Sentinel. May 30, 1874. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “How to Disinfect,” Arizona Republican. May 14, 1893. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “Need of Sanitation,” Phoenix Weekly Herald. October 6, 1898. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.

Primary Sources on Germ Theory, the New Public Health, and Contagionism 

• “Observations,” The Courier, April 22, 1899. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• “A Menace to the Public Health Needing Attention,” The Pacific Commercial Advertiser, December 14, 1900. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• Borland, Elmer B. "MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF THE SPITTING HABIT." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association XXXV, no. 16 (1900): 999-001.  
• Tighe, J. and Warner, J. H. (2001). “The gospel of germs: Microbes, strangers, and habits of the home, 1880-1925.” In Major problems in the history of American medicine and public health: documents and essays (J. Tighe and J. H. Warner, Eds.).
• “Kissing: A Dangerous Habit,” The Austin Weekly Statesman. November 23, 1893. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.
• Charles V Chapin (1902) “Dirt Disease and the Health Officer” Public Health Papers and Reports Presented at the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association. In Major problems in the history of American medicine and public health: documents and essays (J. Tighe and J. H. Warner, Eds.).
• Warner, & Tighe, J. A. (2001). Major Problems in the History of American Medicine and Public Health: Documents and Essays. Houghton Mifflin. 
• “Must We Quarantine the Lips Against Love?”. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. August 18, 1907. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress.

Session 2:  

Part 1: Debate (60 minutes) 

Review main themes and issues raised by secondary sources and primary sources. Students will argue from the perspective of their disease model (Miasma, Germ, Undecided). Students will be randomly pre-assigned to a group. Using the historical perspective, the information and language from the sources, students will draw on examples from their sources to help make their argument. Each model will make a case on why their approach is better for protecting the public’s health today. The Undecided group will deliberate on the theories and after hearing arguments from both groups will help decide the winning theory and why it wins. 

The students will be debating the question: Which explanation of disease- miasma/filth theory or contagion/germ theory best promotes a balanced approach to public health- one that balances the protection of the public’s health with preservation of individual liberties? 

• 20 minutes for students to develop their arguments using their sources. 
• 5 minutes for each of the 2 groups to argue their perspective. (10 minutes total) 
• 5 minutes for the groups to prepare for their rebuttal 
• 5 minutes for the rebuttals 
• 10 minutes for the Undecided group to cross examine the 2 groups. 
• 10 minutes for the Undecided group to explain why it was the winning theory. 
• 10 minutes for Instructors commentary 

Part 2: Reflection (10 minutes) 

Students will reflect on what they have learned about analyzing and contextualizing primary sources and how historical sources are still relevant to health issues today.  

• What perspectives are missing? What voices are we not hearing from? Where can you go to look for additional sources? 
• Which approach most effectively balances the promotion of public health while preserving individual liberty? 
• How does this resonate with your own experiences with the pandemic? How do ideologies, historical events and thinking continue to influence events today?