{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027675276752767528, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036900369003690036, 'mean_word_length': 5.235632183908046, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Spines of Steel: A Case of Surgical Enthusiasm in Cold War America

summary: Just as the prevalence of scoliosis began to decline precipitously after World War II, American orthopedic surgeon Dr. Paul R. Harrington devised a new, invasive surgical system whereby implantable prosthetic metal rods and hooks were used to straighten curved backs. By the 1970s, “Harrington rods” had become the gold standard of surgical scoliosis care in the United States, replacing more conventional methods of exercise, bracing, and casting. This article situates the success of Harrington rods within a much larger and historically longer debate about why, when compared to those in other nations, American surgeons appear to be “more aggressive” and “knife-happy.” Using Harrington’s papers and correspondence, I argue that patients played a vital role in the rise of spinal surgery. As such, this article examines not only how surgical enthusiasm has been historically measured, defined, and morally evaluated, but also how scoliosis became classified as a debility in need of surgical management.