This book combines new research data with findings from present-day health surveys to examine the history of ill health and its outcomes, whether recovery or death, in Europe and North America from the 17th century to the present. Some forecasts about future sickness rates and trends are included.

The life expectancy of British workers rose dramatically during the nineteenth century, a period when workingmen routinely began to consult doctors. While rates of sickness fell, the length of episodes of disease and injury became more protracted. Instead of dying at relatively young ages, workingmen survived longer and experienced more sickness. In Sick, Not Dead, James C. Riley traces these developments and examines the arrangements made for providing medical care to workers. Drawing on the work attendance and sick visit records of British friendly societies, Riley explores how these organizations provided workingmen with access to doctors and regulated compensation for wages lost due to sickness. He finds in this period the roots of today's doctor-patient relationship. In the 1870s, when a small number of patients could choose among a relatively large number of doctors, patients demanded and got frequent and convenient consultations for low fees. But in the 1890s, working people sacrificed their advantage: as the number of patients increased, they began accepting their doctors' excuses for care they previously had rejected as inattentive or deficient. In the 1910s and 1920s, the doctors improved their own organization and used it to seize control of the fee schedule. Using the extensive claims records of the societies, Riley also explores the regional patterns of sickness in Britain from 1870 to 1910 and addresses the question of how policies that promoted lower mortality affected rates and duration of sickness.

A riveting first-hand account of a physician who's suddenly a dying patient, In Shock "searches for a glimmer of hope in life’s darkest moments, and finds it.” —The Washington Post Dr. Rana Awdish never imagined that an emergency trip to the hospital would result in hemorrhaging nearly all of her blood volume and losing her unborn first child. But after her first visit, Dr. Awdish spent months fighting for her life, enduring consecutive major surgeries and experiencing multiple overlapping organ failures. At each step of the recovery process, Awdish was faced with something even more unexpected: repeated cavalier behavior from her fellow physicians—indifference following human loss, disregard for anguish and suffering, and an exacting emotional distance. Hauntingly perceptive and beautifully written, In Shock allows the reader to transform alongside Awidsh and watch what she discovers in our carefully-cultivated, yet often misguided, standard of care. Awdish comes to understand the fatal flaws in her profession and in her own past actions as a physician while achieving, through unflinching presence, a crystalline vision of a new and better possibility for us all. As Dr. Awdish finds herself up against the same self-protective partitions she was trained to construct as a medical student and physician, she artfully illuminates the dysfunction of disconnection. Shatteringly personal, and yet wholly universal, she offers a brave road map for anyone navigating illness while presenting physicians with a new paradigm and rationale for embracing the emotional bond between doctor and patient.

At the core of this book are three central contentions: That medical welfare became the totemic function of the Old Poor Law in its last few decades; that the poor themselves were able to negotiate this medical welfare rather than simply being subject to it; and that being doctored and institutionalised became part of the norm for the sick poor by the 1820s, in a way that had not been the case in the 1750s. Exploring the lives and medical experiences of the poor largely in their own words, Sickness, medical welfare and the English poor offers a comprehensive reinterpretation of the so-called crisis of the Old Poor Law from the later eighteenth century. The sick poor became an insistent presence in the lives of officials and parishes and the (largely positive) way that communities responded to their dire needs must cause us to rethink the role and character of the poor law.