11 months ago

Albemarle Tradewinds June 2016 Final Web Optimized

June 2016

Medicines And Medical

Medicines And Medical Procedures During The War Between The States By: Dr. Dave and Gary Riggs From the stench of petrifying flesh wafting through unsanitary and crowded camps to the unglamorous illnesses of syphilis ( so often contracted from illicit females in large cities such as New York where so many pure young cadets were attending West Point a United States Military Academy) and dysentery, our modern disgust toward the uncivil war medical practices is generally justified. However while “advanced” or “hygienic” may not be terms attributed to medicine in the nineteenth century, modern hospital practices and treatment methods owe much to the legacy of the uncivil war medicine. Of the approximately 620,000 soldiers who died in that northern aggression war, two-thirds of these deaths were not the result of enemy fire but of a force stronger than any army of men: disease. Combating disease as well treating the legions of wounded soldiers pushed Americans south and north to rethink their theories on health and develop efficient practices to care for the sick and wounded. At the beginning of Lincoln’s War medical equipment and knowledge were hardly up to the challenges posed by the wounds, infections and diseases which plagued millions on both sides. Illness like dysentery, typhoid fever, pneumonia, mumps, measles and tuberculosis spread among the poorly sanitized camps, falling men already weakened by fierce fighting and meager diet. Armies initially struggle to efficiently tend to and transport their wounded, inadvertently sacrificing more lives to mere disorganization. For medical practitioners in the field during the war of northern aggression, germ theory, antiseptic(clean) medical practices, advanced equipment, and organized hospitalization systems were virtually unknown. Medical training was just emerging out of the “heroic era” a time where physicians advocated bloodletting, purging, blistering (or a combination of all three) to rebalance the humors of the body and remedy the sick. Physicians were also often encouraged to treat diseases like syphilis with mercury, a toxic treatment, to say the least. These aggressive remedies of the heroic era of medicine were often worse than patients diseases; those who overcame illness during the war owed their recoveries less to the ingenuity of contemporary than to grit and change. Luck was a rarity in camps where poor sanitation, bad hygiene, diet bred disease, infection and death. The wounded and sick suffered from the haphazard hospitalization systems that existed at the start of Lincolns War. As battles ended, wounded were rushed down railroad lines to nearby cities and towns, where doctors and nurses coped with the onslaught of dying men in makeshift hospitals. These hospitals saw a great influx of wounded from both sides and the wounded and dying filled the available facilities to the brim. The Fairfax Seminary, for example, opened its doors twenty years prior to the war with only fourteen students, but it housed an overwhelming 1,700 sick and wounded soldiers during the course of the war. Part 2 next month Now available at: Circle II Restaurant - Elizabeth City Tony’s Pizza - Elizabeth City Downtown Cafe and Soda Shop - Edenton All of our clients get their own QR code for free when purchasing an ad. Carol’s - Robersonville coming soon: other locations from Windsor to Durham. $10 per copy 36 Albemarle Tradewinds June 2016

Judge Jerry Tillett Another view: Tillett story gained traction on slippery facts By: Neil W. Scarborough “Not to oppose error is to approve it. Not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confront evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.” — Pope Felix III Continued from last month Steven Michael Editors Note: This is a story provided by the We wish to make citizens aware of an attempt by a tight group of unelected people to overturn the will of the citizens by removing an elected judge. Part 2 is too long to print in this magazine but we reccomend checking it out on the Right before printing this month’s issue the state supreme court intervened in this case. On page 39 is the latest in this interesting story. Rather than apologize and wish the group a good night, however, the officer made a veiled threat, telling Tillett’s son “we’ll be looking for you.” Bear in mind that Tillett’s son and his girlfriend had driven to MexiCali’s and were still dressed in church clothes. Tillett’s son has no criminal record of any kind. Tillett’s involvement stemmed not from anything his son did that night butfrom what the officers did. Contrary to the storyteller’s version, Tillett didn’t call the meeting with Britt and KDH officials; the town’s attorney, Dan Merrell, did. Regardless, everything was caught on tape, right? According to the story, during the meeting in Tillett’s chambers on April 15, 2010 Britt told Tillett that the events of April 4th were caught “on tape” and that the good judge could review it himself, to which Tillett retorted, “tapes can be altered.” Most readers likely took the account of this exchange as equivalent to an admission by Tillett that his son had broken the law and that Tillett knew it, which is precisely what the storyteller intended. This time the storyteller hasn’t simply omitted facts; he has twisted them in an effort to manipulate the reader. The story reads as if the righteous police chief, finding himself assailed by the angry judge, remains steadfast in his commitment to the truth and, backed into a corner, directs the judge to view “the tape,” which doesn’t lie, after all. The truth is that Tillett and the Chief knew the tape didn’t show any criminal conduct by the occupants of the car; of issue was the conduct of the officers; and specifically, what they said, hence, Tillett’s dismissive attitude was about the value of the tape. He was conveying that his son’s account of what happened that night was all he needed and, in any event, he already knew the comments made by the officer weren’t recorded because the town’s attorney, Dan Merrell, had already listened to the tape and informed Tillett of the fact. What’s more, the inappropriate comments the officers made to Tillett’s son weren’t even the reason for the meeting. Tillett and other judicial officials had received numerous complaints about the conduct of KDH police officers prior to April 2010. And on this occasion, the officers hadn’t failed to live up to their reputation: They stopped the car Tillett’s son was in without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (the minimal, threshold standards permitting law enforcement officers to make a stop), then held the occupants of the car for nearly 30 minutes while they awaited arrival of a “K-9 unit,” which is also illegal. The unprofessional and inappropriate comments to Tillett’s son and the other occupants were merely the icing on the proverbial cake. So then why were we told such a story? We were told this story precisely because it is a good story. It is, in fact, just a clever “red herring” — a shiny object intended to catch the reader’s attention and distract her from the problems with the story. I say it’s a clever use of the tactic because in this case it pulls double duty: It distracts the reader from the critical fact that more than a year elapsed between the date of Tillett’s son’s encounter with KDH police and the date Tillett ordered KDH personnel records to be delivered to his office. And it also conveniently serves as the reason for Tillett’s purported beef with Britt and the KDH police department. Again, the storyteller would have us believe that Tillett began a personal crusade against Britt in retaliation for KDH officers daring to stop his son. But the fact that more than a year passed between the incident involving Tillett’s son and the date Tillett ordered the release of the personnel records undermines the idea that there was any connection between the two events. Without the incident, however, the storyteller loses Tillett’s supposed motive for going after KDH. So what does the storyteller do? He then downplays the time lapse and mischaracterizes the facts concerning the stop and the April 15 meeting so that it gives the impression of impropriety on Tillett’s part. (The reason Tillett ordered personnel files to be provided to him stems from events about which a book could be written. It’s covered in depth in a separate article that will follow this one.) But who would concoct such a story and why? Enter Steve Michael and the State Bar, which we will explore in the second installment. Though I deeply respect Judge Tillett and would like to think I would have written this article for that reason alone, I feel honor-bound to inform the reader that I regularly practice in this district, and I both know and on occasion appear in Tillett’s court. Albemarle Tradewinds June 2016 37