Charles Duguid
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STATE LIBRARY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA J. D. SOMERVILLE ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION OH 561/31 Full transcript of an interview with CHARLES DUGUID On 1 April 1973 By Janet Robertson Recording available on CD Access for research: Unrestricted Right to photocopy: Copies may be made for research and study Right to quote or publish: Publication only with written permission from the State Library OH 561/31 CHARLES DUGUID NOTES TO THE TRANSCRIPT This transcript was created by the J. D. Somerville Oral History Collection of the State Library. It conforms to the Somerville Collection's policies for transcription which are explained below. Readers of this oral history transcript should bear in mind that it is a record of the spoken word and reflects the informal, conversational style that is inherent in such historical sources. The State Library is not responsible for the factual accuracy of the interview, nor for the views expressed therein. As with any historical source, these are for the reader to judge. It is the Somerville Collection's policy to produce a transcript that is, so far as possible, a verbatim transcript that preserves the interviewee's manner of speaking and the conversational style of the interview. Certain conventions of transcription have been applied (ie. the omission of meaningless noises, false starts and a percentage of the interviewee's crutch words). Where the interviewee has had the opportunity to read the transcript, their suggested alterations have been incorporated in the text (see below). On the whole, the document can be regarded as a raw transcript. Abbreviations: The interviewee’s alterations may be identified by their initials in insertions in the transcript. Punctuation: Square bracket [ ] indicate material in the transcript that does not occur on the original tape recording. This is usually words, phrases or sentences which the interviewee has inserted to clarify or correct meaning. These are not necessarily differentiated from insertions the interviewer or by Somerville Collection staff which are either minor (a linking word for clarification) or clearly editorial. Relatively insignificant word substitutions or additions by the interviewee as well as minor deletions of words or phrases are often not indicated in the interest of readability. Extensive additional material supplied by the interviewee is usually placed in footnotes at the bottom of the relevant page rather than in square brackets within the text. A series of dots, .... .... .... .... indicates an untranscribable word or phrase. Sentences that were left unfinished in the normal manner of conversation are shown ending in three dashes, - - -. Spelling: Wherever possible the spelling of proper names and unusual terms has been verified. A parenthesised question mark (?) indicates a word that it has not been possible to verify to date. Typeface: The interviewer's questions are shown in bold print. Discrepancies between transcript and tape: This proofread transcript represents the authoritative version of this oral history interview. Researchers using the original tape recording of this interview are cautioned to check this transcript for corrections, additions or deletions which have been made by the interviewer or the interviewee but which will not occur on the tape. See the Punctuation section above.) Minor discrepancies of grammar and sentence structure made in the interest of readability can be ignored but significant changes such as deletion of information or correction of fact should be, respectively, duplicated or acknowledged when the tape recorded version of this interview is used for broadcast or any other form of audio publication. 2 J.D. SOMERVILLE ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION, MORTLOCK LIBRARY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIANA: INTERVIEW NO. OH 561/31 Interview of Dr Charles Duguid by Janet Robertson, recorded in Adelaide for broadcast on ABC Radio 5CL on 1st April 1973 as part of the series ‘Now in retirement’. (Poor recording quality: speech is muffled) TAPE 1 SIDE A The biggest impact made on me at the university was not the class work, but the fact that in our final year we had to do maternity work in the slums. For the first time, I think, in my life, although I’d seen poverty, I had never seen I never realised that human nature could sink to such depths in poverty and squalor as I saw in the slums of Glasgow. I was sent to see an Irish itinerant woman. She was in a single room house with a washhouse at the back. The delivery was quite easy. Next day, when I went to see her, the bed was there and the baby but not the mother. So I walked round to the back of the house and there she was washing up the things in the washtub. I said, ‘Mrs O’Reilly, you know very well you should be resting in bed.’ In a very Irish voice, she said, ‘Doctor, you needn’t worry – I only took the room for two nights and when the wash is dry I’ll be back on the road.’ I went back the next day and she was back on the road. By the time you finished your medical degrees you took a position within the university, didn’t you? I was invited by the pioneer surgeon, Sir William McEwin [?], to be his house surgeon. I went on from that to be his hospital university assistant until 1911. Well, you were pretty well established in the university, then. What made you resign and come to Australia? Well, that’s very interesting. I had been pretty strenuous at school, and then I had to do that double course of Arts and Medicine in quick time. I was tired, and I got the offer of a round trip to Australia in 1911 I took it as ship’s surgeon bringing Lord Denman and his wife and staff to Australia as Governor-General Elect, and I met on board the Australian lass that became my wife. But I could see quite well that the opportunities in Australia were far greater than at home. The challenge here 3 was infinitely greater than at home, and one had a better opportunity of starting without sinking a fortune in getting a start. That’s why I came. You must have seen tremendous changes in medical practice. What then would you say, briefly, are the main ones? Well, that’s interesting, because, looking back on things, take the medical side, take the question of drugs. When we started in the beginning of the century, drugs were not refined. They were what we call primitive or crude drugs, such as digitalis and opium. The active principle of the drugs had not been discovered by then, and the question of the very famous drugs that control specific diseases what they call specific drugs didn’t come to light till ’22. That was insulin. That was the first of our specific drugs, for the control of diabetes. Now, antibiotics weren’t known about then. Penicillin and the sulphur drugs didn’t come to light till the 1940s. It may seem remarkable that we had to wait, but there you are. But since then there has been a flood of anti-specific drugs. Today, tuberculosis has been largely controlled by these drugs, and sufferers from mental illness have very definitely been able to continue in their daily job without having to go into a hospital, mental hospital. That is all of terrific importance. I think another big change was when nations insisted on public health. At the same time, they were able to convince people of the efficacy of a special injection that would prevent the diseases going further I’m thinking of diphtheria and things like that – these things were all wiped out. Now, killer childhood infectious diseases used to be commonplace; today they’re very rare. What about, then, surgical practice. Is there Ah! as much change in that? Yes, well, in the surgical practice I suppose there’s been terrific change. When I was graduated, nobody would have ever dreamt in their wildest dreams of open heart surgery, let alone kidney and cardiac transplants. I would say one of the biggest developments in surgery in recent years in the last twenty-five years, possibly is the fact that the general surgeon has been replaced very largely not entirely, but 4 very largely by the specialist surgeon who does very intensive study in limited fields. That has come to stay. Anaesthetics are linked with surgery, and the development in the art of anaesthesia has been colossal. In the old days in Scotland, you put a person to sleep with chloroform in an open mask; in England, ether in a closed circuit. Today, you’ll find without going into the actual theatre you have an injection into your vein and you’re asleep before you know. I would like to mention a thing that I consider of tremendous importance, and that’s the question of general practitioners. I have no doubt in my mind that the intelligent, well-trained, conscientious general practitioner is the one member of the medical profession that can never be done without, and it’s about time some people began to realise that. Do you see any signs of that happening, that they will be more encouraged, perhaps, than they are now? Well, for the sake of the public, I hope so. And during your long life you’ve had contacts and you’ve made friendships with a great variety of people, not only medical friends. Can you talk about some of them? Because you knew Gilbert Murray, didn’t you? Gilbert Murray, I was proud to say, I certainly – I regard him as one of my greatest friends. He was chairman to me in 1937, when I spoke at the Royal Empire Society on Aborigines of Australia and their future.