Running head: JOHN SNOW ON COMMUNICABLE DISEASES 1 JOHN SNOW ON COMMUNICABLE DISEASES 3 John Snow on Communicable Diseases Brenda Rouse HCA415: Community & Public Health (HCK1711A) Instructor: Kristin Akerele April 3, 2017 John Snow on Communicable Diseases John Snow was a skilled physician, born in 1813, and made a significant contribution to the appropriate use of chloroform in the then society, and a significant discovery on the control of the spread of cholera in London, where he ended up being a doctor after acquiring his M.D degree. Notably, as a teenager, he began an apprenticeship program in medicine under a famous doctor in New Castle. Although he went ahead to make progress in medicine by himself, he had acquired significant insight in practice from his interaction with the doctor. His research on communicable diseases that earned him quite the reputation as he had to grapple with the challenge of getting people to buy into his idea and adopt ways that would effectively reduce the rate of transmission of the disease. Research Barriers Unlike the modern society, research in the earlier centuries was not entirely funded by the government, and only those who were very interested in making significant milestones in the health sector would dare conduct the different study. For example, there had been limited efforts by the government to find the possible causes of diarrhea, which had left thousands dead in Europe in the early nineteenth century. Nonetheless, lack of such support did not deter John Snow from focusing on an issue that he felt were of importance to the society. Further, there was limited technology to analyze the different aspects of patients such as their blood components to ascertain the existence of anomalies that could have been the cause of diseases. Consequently, the conditions of research were so poor that only the resilient health researchers could end up with tangible evidence of the possibility of pathogens being the cause of infections. How John Snow Overcame the Barriers With limited funding to the study of the communicable disease, John Snow had to ensure that he spent his resources wisely and only where necessary. Following the second outbreak of cholera in London in the year 1848, Snow made the inference that there were limited chances that the disease spread from the gas resulting from sewers and waste disposal sites (Brody, Rip, Vinten-Johansen, Paneth, & Rachman, 2000). Previous research had indicated such sights as producing gasses through which the disease was transmitted. Consequently, Snow employed analytical skills purely in the early stages of his research. He made deductions based on the information he gathered from the patients, and the observations he made of the patients who came to him for treatment. Since the availability of resources was the primary research barrier to his work, he made use of what he had to come up with possible solutions to the outbre ...

1. Running head: JOHN SNOW ON COMMUNICABLE
DISEASES 1
JOHN SNOW ON COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
3
John Snow on Communicable Diseases
Brenda Rouse
HCA415: Community & Public Health (HCK1711A)
Instructor: Kristin Akerele
April 3, 2017
John Snow on Communicable Diseases
John Snow was a skilled physician, born in 1813, and made a
significant contribution to the appropriate use of chloroform in
the then society, and a significant discovery on the control of
the spread of cholera in London, where he ended up being a
doctor after acquiring his M.D degree. Notably, as a teenager,
he began an apprenticeship program in medicine under a famous
doctor in New Castle. Although he went ahead to make progress
in medicine by himself, he had acquired significant insight in
practice from his interaction with the doctor. His research on
communicable diseases that earned him quite the reputation as
he had to grapple with the challenge of getting people to buy

2. into his idea and adopt ways that would effectively reduce the
rate of transmission of the disease.
Research Barriers
Unlike the modern society, research in the earlier centuries was
not entirely funded by the government, and only those who were
very interested in making significant milestones in the health
sector would dare conduct the different study. For example,
there had been limited efforts by the government to find the
possible causes of diarrhea, which had left thousands dead in
Europe in the early nineteenth century. Nonetheless, lack of
such support did not deter John Snow from focusing on an issue
that he felt were of importance to the society. Further, there was
limited technology to analyze the different aspects of patients
such as their blood components to ascertain the existence of
anomalies that could have been the cause of diseases.
Consequently, the conditions of research were so poor that only
the resilient health researchers could end up with tangible
evidence of the possibility of pathogens being the cause of
infections.
How John Snow Overcame the Barriers
With limited funding to the study of the communicable disease,
John Snow had to ensure that he spent his resources wisely and
only where necessary. Following the second outbreak of cholera
in London in the year 1848, Snow made the inference that there
were limited chances that the disease spread from the gas
resulting from sewers and waste disposal sites (Brody, Rip,
Vinten-Johansen, Paneth, & Rachman, 2000). Previous research
had indicated such sights as producing gasses through which the
disease was transmitted. Consequently, Snow employed
analytical skills purely in the early stages of his research. He
made deductions based on the information he gathered from the
patients, and the observations he made of the patients who came
to him for treatment. Since the availability of resources was the
primary research barrier to his work, he made use of what he
had to come up with possible solutions to the outbreak by
tracking the epicenter of the outbreaks.

3. His analysis bore fruit particularly as it had the opportunity to
assess the initial victims of the outbreak and track the
transmission from one victim to the other. He led an
investigation that culminated in the determination of the
possible causes of the disease, upon which future research on
the issue was based. He may have lacked enough support from
others within the medical profession, but the chances are that
his apprenticeship experience and observation of principles in
the medical profession may have provided enough insight on
how he would effectively investigate the outbreak and develop
solutions with limited need for financial resources.
Contribution to the Society
Notably, cholera was a killer disease in the early nineteenth
century, and its outbreak spelled doom for the society that
suffered from the disease (Colwell, 2004). There was no cure
for it as all the other conventional treatments for digestive
related issues would not work against it. The medical
practitioners would try and treat the symptoms of the disease
and, in some cases, the patients would recover since they would
receive enough hydration following the dehydrate effects if
cholera. However, they did not address the primary issue of the
spread of the disease, which implies that they only solved the
problem halfway. Snow’s research addressed the issue of the
spread, and those that followed his advice experienced a
decrease in the rate of contracting cholera and a reduced number
of deaths in the European community.
Therefore, the contribution of the research findings ended up
reducing the death rate in the society and a consequent insight
on how best the society would deal with diseases that appeared
to spread in a similar manner (Ashbolt, 2004). His argument
that the presence of digestion related issues as the first
symptoms of the disease indicated that it was spread via the
digestive tract proceeded to become a basis of analysis for
future researchers. Therefore, in addition to providing a
solution to a disturbing issue in the community, Snow provided
a basis for future investigation of health issues.

4. Specifically, the research was helpful to the community at the
time since there were no alternative studies or medications that
would effectively cure cholera. The technology was still in its
formative stages and, although the medical fraternity had gained
an appreciation of the existence of germs two centuries earlier,
it was yet to understand the possibility of the organisms causing
diseases to human beings (Hempel, 2006). Therefore, there were
limited studies aimed at establishing the location of such
organisms in the environment. On the contrary, the society had
accepted that the disease spread through foul found in waste, its
outbreak spelled doom for the nation, and all they could do was
treat the symptoms and hope that they did not cost them their
lives. Such despondency and lack of alternative approaches to
research implied that only those with excellent analytical skills
would find alternative angles from which to conduct studies on
the prevalence of cholera.
The lack of technology and government support further
complicated the research process, which ended up being an
additional factor to the lack of insight on the issue. As earlier
stated, unless the scholar was entirely motivated to study the
communicable diseases, there were limited chances that he or
she would spend time in the field, using his or her resources to
find a solution to the issue. Consequently, John Snow’s findings
were helpful to the society as they laid to rest to the issue by
providing a reliable solution upon which the society would
depend until there were enough resources to sponsor alternative
research that would find a cure to the problem. Therefore, a
precautionary approach was the most efficient in protecting the
society from the adversities that accompanied the outbreaks.
The solution Snow provided was certain in solving the cholera
crisis and would be employed early enough in the event of a
subsequent outbreak. It would be effective in preventing mass
casualties in the future much to the extent that the 1848
outbreak was the last severe cholera outbreak in London.
References

5. Ashbolt, Nicholas John. "Microbial contamination of drinking
water and disease outcomes in developing
regions." Toxicology 198.1 (2004): 229-238.
Brody, H., Rip, M. R., Vinten-Johansen, P., Paneth, N., &
Rachman, S. (2000). Map-making and myth-making in Broad
Street: the London cholera epidemic, 1854. The
Lancet, 356(9223), 64-68.
Colwell, R. R. (2004). Infectious disease and environment:
cholera as a paradigm for waterborne disease. International
Microbiology, 7(4), 285-289.
Hempel, S. (2006). The strange case of the Broad Street pump:
John Snow and the mystery of cholera. Berkeley, LA:
University of California Press.
- Week 3 - Assignment 2
Course:HCA415 HCA415: Community & Public Health
(HCK1711A)
Kristin Akerele4/8/2017 6:15:44 PM
View markup for B_Rouse HCA 415 Week 3 Assignment 2.docx
Great job on the assignment, Brenda! You do a great job
discussing Snow's contributions and why they were important,
but more is needed on the climate at the time and his personal
beliefs. Thank you!
( 1.28 / 1.50) Describe your selected person’s experience
Proficient - Described their person's experience. Some minor
details are missing.
Comments:
Good job describing the experience of your public health
professional, however, some of the key details in the person's
background were not mentioned. Remember, the focus is public
health so you needed to mention what key elements were
connected with this person that changed the face of public
health.

6. ( 0.96 / 1.50) Analyzes the climate of the time period in terms
of political, socioeconomic, environmental and technological
context in which this person worked
Below Expectations - Attempts to analyze the climate of the
time period but does not include any of the required elements of
political, socioeconomic, environmental and technological
context in which this person worked. Or many of the relevant
details are missing or incorrect.
Comments:
While you mentioned some of the climate of the time, you did
not include the four elements required: political,
socioeconomic, environmental, and technological context.
( 0.96 / 1.50) Examines the personal beliefs of the person that
prompted their work
Below Expectations -Attempts to examine the personal beliefs
of the person that prompted their work. Many relevant details
are missing.
Comments:
You attempted to examine the personal beliefs of the individual;
however, you basically recapped their experiences.
Furthermore, you needed to connect the personal beliefs to their
work. Personal beliefs are internal morals and values that
inspired the person to do their work.
( 1.28 / 1.50) Examines how this individual overcame any
adversities to succeed in his/her task
Proficient - Examines how this individual overcame any
adversities to succeed in his/her task. Some minor details are
missing.
Comments:
Good job looking at the adversities of the time but you did not
connect it to the individual's work and how he/she had to
overcome them.
( 1.50 / 1.50) Describes the final outcome of this individual’s
contribution to community and/or public health
Distinguished -Effectively describes the final outcome of this
individual's contribution to community and/or public health.

7. Comments:
Fantastic job describing the final outcome of this individual's
contribution to public health. You provided a solid description
of what he/she did to improve population health.
( 1.50 / 1.50) Explains what his/her contribution did for overall
community and/or public health at the time.
Distinguished - Fully explains what his/her contribution did for
overall community and/or public health at the time.
Comments:
Fantastic job explaining what this person's contribution did for
the public's health at the time it occurred. You provided a solid
explanation of how it changed population health.
( 1.50 / 1.50) Explains why this contribution was so important
at that particular point in history
Distinguished -Effectively explains why this contribution was
so important at that particular point in history.
Comments:
Fantastic job explaining why this particular contribution was so
important at that time in history. You were able to explain what
the contribution was, its importance in overall community
health, and why it was so important at the time.
( 1.25 / 1.25) Critical Thinking: Evidence
Distinguished - Employs persuasive and applicable information
from credible sources to develop an ample analysis or synthesis
of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized thoroughly.
Comments:
Great job! Your selection of scholarly sources adds credibility
to your analysis. Your examples are relevant and move your
argument forward.
( 1.25 / 1.25) Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
Distinguished - Clearly and comprehensively explains the issue
to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary
for a full understanding.
Comments:
Great job! Your explanation demonstrates your understanding of
the issue. Your examples support your argument.

8. ( 0.50 / 0.50) PowerPoint Presentation: Sequencing and
Organization
Distinguished - Information is exceptionally organized and
there is a clear, logical progression of ideas.
( 0.50 / 0.50) Written Communication: Control of Syntax and
Mechanics
Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and
organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and
grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to
understand.
Comments:
Great work! The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct
and add to the readability of your paper.
( 0.44 / 0.50) Written Communication: APA Formatting
Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper.
However, layout contains a few minor errors.
( 0.25 / 0.25) Written Communication: Page Requirement
Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the
required number of correctly formatted pages.
( 0.22 / 0.25) Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Proficient - Uses the required number of scholarly sources to
support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and
cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Overall Score: 13.39 / 15.00
Overall Grade: 13.39