ArticleMonash bioethics review2026
Historical perspectives in medical humanities: two views on vaccination during the plague pandemic in Calcutta.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to complicate and rethink histories of non-Western responses to vaccination, as well as to see how a historical perspective may contribute to contemporary discussions of vaccines within the medical humanities. This is done through a case study approach. The focus of this article is a collection of essays written by a Bengali prophet-astrologer and published during the plague pandemic in Calcutta, British India, at the turn of the twentieth century (1899). While one essay in the collection was critical of the plague vaccine, another essay, in a later section of the same collection, celebrated the vaccine and its developer Waldemar M. Haffkine. The first part of the article situates the context of the text's production, as well as the background of the author. In the second part, it analyses the reasons why the plague vaccine was criticised. In the third part, it looks at how the author celebrated the plague vaccine in a later section of the collection. In the fourth section, it attempts to answer why the astrologer changed his view on vaccination. Finally, in the conclusion, it discusses how this case study intervenes historiographically, and how certain themes raised by the source persist today, reiterating the importance of a historical perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.