Childhood's Deadly Scourge Analysis

Evelynn Hammonds’ book, Childhood’s Deadly Scourge, details the control campaign initiated in New York City against diphtheria. This novel acknowledges that historical narratives often anoint scientific medicine as the sole reason for disease control but argues the necessity of both the contributions of scientific and social factors in diphtheria’s control efforts. Through the progression of her novel, Hammonds’ central argument “contend[s] that diphtheria was not controlled in any direct or straightforward way by the introduction of bacteriological knowledge” (Hammonds 7). In this way, Childhood’s Deadly Scourge deviates from the idea that the collection of accurate knowledge produces the desired outcome. The book includes a thorough analysis

Hannaway primarily claims that Hammonds’ “strength is her ability both to explain the science and to appraise how public health measures are constrained by social and political context” (Hannaway 2). The review continues to express positive sentiment in terms of Hammonds’ ability to detail the chronological progress of medical knowledge through in the context of social and political factors. Hannaway extends her praise to the idea that Childhood’s Deadly Scourge offers important considerations in terms of immigration and child health (Hannaway). While I agree with Hannaway’s opinion on Hammonds’ ability to balance scientific progress with social and political determinants, particularly with Hammonds’ inclusion of news reports and medical responses to antitoxin (Hammonds 88), I disagree with the extension of Childhood’s Deadly Scourge to immigration and child health. This book incorporates sweeping generalizations in an attempt to include the issues of immigration and child health, with Hammonds stereotyping immigrants and normalizing childhood experiences in New York City (Hammonds 183, 198-199). While Hammonds’ piece warrants praise for its skillful articulation of scientific progress in a time period dominated by social and political factors, one should express caution in generalizing Hammonds’ analysis to illustrate these social and political