Commercialising everyday distress: neurasthenia and traditional Chinese medicine in colonial Hong Kong, 1950s to 1980s

The persistent use of neurasthenia in Asia, an out-dated diagnostic category in modern psychiatry, has confounded many psychiatrists from the 1960s. This paper attempts to understand the prevalence of neurasthenia among the lay public in post-World War II Hong Kong. It examines the social history of psychiatry and focuses on the roles of traditional Chinese medicine in shaping public perceptions and responses towards neurasthenia. This research reveals that, when psychiatrists discarded the term as an ineffective label in the 1950s, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies of Chinese medicine seized on the chance to reinvent themselves as experts in neurasthenia. By commericialising everyday distress, they provided affordable, accessible and culturally familiar healing options to the Chinese public. A case study of neurasthenia, therefore, is not simply about changing disease categories but an important example to illustrate the tensions between traditional medicine and Western psychiatry in Asia.

[The review of the monograph "Ambroise Paré. The first surgeon of the Kingdom" by E. E. Berger]

The review considers the approach placing famous French surgeon A. Paré into more general European context of European Renaissance of XVI century and into local context of intellectual life of Paris of this period. The refutation of widespread in history of medicine opinion about strict separation of university medicine from artisan surgery in Medieval Europe is discussed.

History of Medicine: Health, Medicine and Disease in the Eighteenth Century

This article surveys anglophone scholarship in the history of medicine over the past decade or so. It selectively identifies and critically evaluates key themes and trends in the field. It discusses the emergence of the discipline from a period of directional crisis to more recent emphasis on a pluralistic and 'bigger-picture' agenda, on comparative, cross-disciplinary and multicultural approaches, and on the reorientation and (putative) broadening out of medical history towards wider public engagement and closer interface with medical humanities.