Voyager Interstellar Mission

Amputations During the Civil War

Amputations During the Civil War Amputations became widespread during the Civil War  and the removal of a limb was the most common surgical procedure in battlefield hospitals. Its often assumed that amputations were performed so often  because surgeons at the time were unskilled and simply resorted to procedures bordering on butchery. Yet most Civil War surgeons were fairly well-trained, and the medical books of the era detail precisely how amputations could be performed and when it was appropriate. So its not as if the surgeons were removing limbs out of ignorance. Surgeons had to resort to such a drastic measure because a new type of bullet came into widespread use in the war. In many cases, the only way to try to save a wounded soldiers life was to amputate a shattered limb. The poet Walt Whitman, who had been working as a journalist in New York City, traveled from his home in Brooklyn to the battlefront in Virginia in December 1862, following the Battle of Fredericksburg. He was shocked by a gruesome sight he recorded in his diary: â€Å"Spent a good part of the day in a large brick mansion on the banks of the Rappahannock, used as a hospital since the battle – seems to have received only the worst cases. Outdoors, at the foot of a tree, I notice a heap of amputated feet, legs, arms, hands, c., a full load for a one-horse cart.† What Whitman saw in Virginia was a common sight at Civil War hospitals. If a soldier had been struck in the arm or leg, the bullet tended to shatter the bone, creating horrendous wounds. The wounds were certain to become infected, and often the only way to save the patients life was to amputate the limb. Destructive New Technology: The Minià © Ball In the 1840s an officer in the French Army, Claude-Etienne Minià ©, invented a new bullet. It was different than the traditional round musket ball as it had a conical shape. Minià ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s new bullet had a hollow base at the bottom, which would be forced to expand by gases released by the igniting gunpowder when the rifle was fired. While expanding, the lead bullet fit snugly into the rifled grooves in the gun’s barrel, and would thus be much more accurate than earlier musket balls. The bullet would be rotating when it came from the barrel of the rifle, and the spinning action gave it increased accuracy. The new bullet, which was commonly called the Minià © ball by the time of the Civil War, was extremely destructive. The version which was commonly used throughout the Civil War was cast in lead and was .58 caliber, which was larger than most bullets used today. The Minià © Ball Was Feared When the Minià © ball struck a human body, it did enormous damage. Doctors treating wounded soldiers were often perplexed by the damage caused. A medical textbook published a decade after the Civil War, A System of Surgery by William Todd Helmuth, went into considerable detail describing the effects of Minià © balls: The effects are truly terrible; bones are ground almost to powder, muscles, ligaments, and tendons torn away, and the parts otherwise so mutilated, that loss of life, certainly of limb, is almost an inevitable consequence. None but those who have had occasion to witness the effects produced upon the body by these missiles, projected from the appropriate gun, can have any idea of the horrible laceration that ensues. The wound is often from four to eight times as large as the diameter of the base of the ball, and the laceration so terrible that mortification [gangrene] almost inevitably results. Civil War Surgery Was Performed Under Crude Conditions Civil War amputations were performed with medical knives and saws, on operating tables which were often simply wooden planks or doors which had been taken off their hinges. And while the operations may seem crude by today’s standards, the surgeons tended to follow accepted procedures spelled out in the medical textbooks of the day. Surgeons generally used anesthesia, which would be applied by holding a sponge soaked in chloroform over the patient’s face. Many soldiers who underwent amputations did eventually die due to infections. Doctors at the time had little understanding of bacteria and how it is transmitted. The same surgical tools might be used on many patients without being cleaned. And the improvised hospitals were commonly set up in barns or stables. There are numerous stories of wounded Civil War soldiers begging doctors not to amputate arms or legs. As doctors had a reputation for being quick to resort to amputation, soldiers often referred to the Army surgeons as butchers. In fairness to the doctors, when they were dealing with dozens or even hundreds of patients, and when faced with the gruesome damage of the Minià © ball, amputation often seemed like the only practical option.

Discuss the view presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing Essay - 1

Discuss the view presented by Nasim and Sushil (2011) that managing change invariably involves managing paradoxes and in partic - Essay Example However, the most critical aspect of the adoption of such change is its management. The management of change in organizational culture poses multiple challenges for any organization. There are various scholars who have embarked on describing different concepts related to organizational culture. Sushil and Nasim highlighted that managing organizational culture involves the management of paradoxes, and more specifically the paradox of continuity and change. This paper will develop a critical argument from the idea posited by these two scholars. It has become evident that change is inevitable. Organizations face the urgency of adopting change, although the course of change presents new complexities. Apparently, only a third of all ventures aimed at fostering change are likely to succeed. The failure of two thirds of all projects seeking to foster change emphasizes the urgency of new strategies for managing change. However, different scholars have posited opinions on whether managing cha nge is a possibility (Collin, 2004:560). One school of thought opines that through management, it is possible to exert a form of control on organizational culture. A different group of scholars has highlighted that organizational culture change can only occur under certain conditions that act as preconditions for the change. The third school of thought is pessimistic concerning the potential of controlling cultural change through management. For these scholars, managing cultural change in an organization is an unlikely venture. Nasim and Sushil (2011:186) highlighted the numerous paradoxes that have been used by different scholars to describe organizational change. The term paradoxes in this context denote the contradictions surrounding organizational change. One of the described paradoxes is the arising debate on whether cultural change in an organization takes place in an orderly preplanned manner or just emerges depending on the prevailing environmental conditions. The planned vi ew of cultural change introduces the ideology that cultural change occurs in episodes that involve a shift from a fixed state to the next. However, this ideology has received a challenge from the perceived dynamism of change as defined by prevailing conditions. Other scholars view change as an incremental process that takes place under the orchestration of the executives in an organization. On the other hand, other scholars describe cultural change as a radical event (Currie and Brown, 2003:572). An additional paradox revolves around the focus of cultural change. Whereas some theorists view cultural change as a narrowed focus either on the context or process, there is the argument that cultural change occurs in a holistic approach that views all aspects comprehensively. In addition, there is a prevalent ideology that organizational culture change takes place on a macro scale. However, a counter opinion highlights that the organizational change occurs on a micro scale, which highligh ts a focus on individual perceptions. There is a surging debate on whether organizations should adopt an epistemological approach in reorganizing the management practices or whether they should shift focus to exploitation and exploration (Nasim, and Sushil, 2011:188). Beer and Nohria described the contradictions between the theoretical archetypes E and A that seek to explore the reasons behind organizational ch