This multidisciplinary volume considers the role of both public health and mental health policies and practices in the prevention of mass atrocity, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The authors address atrocity prevention through the framework of primary (pre-conflict), secondary (mid-conflict), and tertiary (post-conflict) settings. They examine the ways in which public health and mental health scholars and practitioners currently orient their research and interventions and the ways in which we can adapt frameworks, methods, tools, and practice toward a more sophisticated and truly interdisciplinary understanding and application of atrocity prevention. The book brings together diverse fields of study by global north and global south authors in diverse contexts. It culminates in a narrative that demonstrates the state of the current fields on intersecting themes within public health, mental health, and mass atrocity prevention and the future potential directions in which these intersections could go. Such discussions will serve to influence both policy makers and practitioners in these fields toward developing, adapting, and testing frames and tools for atrocity prevention. Multidisciplinary perspectives are represented among editors and authors, including law, political science, international studies, public health, mental health, philosophy, clinical psychology, social psychology, history, and peace studies.

This multidisciplinary volume considers the role of both public health and mental health policies and practices in the prevention of mass atrocity, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The authors address atrocity prevention through the framework of primary (pre-conflict), secondary (mid-conflict), and tertiary (post-conflict) settings. They examine the ways in which public health and mental health scholars and practitioners currently orient their research and interventions and the ways in which we can adapt frameworks, methods, tools, and practice toward a more sophisticated and truly interdisciplinary understanding and application of atrocity prevention. The book brings together diverse fields of study by global north and global south authors in diverse contexts. It culminates in a narrative that demonstrates the state of the current fields on intersecting themes within public health, mental health, and mass atrocity prevention and the future potential directions in which these intersections could go. Such discussions will serve to influence both policy makers and practitioners in these fields toward developing, adapting, and testing frames and tools for atrocity prevention. Multidisciplinary perspectives are represented among editors and authors, including law, political science, international studies, public health, mental health, philosophy, clinical psychology, social psychology, history, and peace studies.

At the turn of the century gynecology had achieved independence from surgery in most medical schools; although gynecologists were surgeons, their interests were turning toward nonsurgical aspects of their specialty. In 1900, merely two years after the Curies' discovery, radium was first used as a treatment for carcinoma of the cervix. In that day cervical cancer claimed more women's lives than any other malignancy and was described by Wil liam P. Graves, the second professor of gynecology at Harvard as follows: 'Cancer of the cervix may rightly be termed of all tumors one of the most deadly and most ghastly. It kills by slow torture, causing in later stages months of agonizing pain and producing a discharge of such a foul and nauseating character as to repel proper medical assistance. Nurses declined to care for these cases, while many public hospitals closed their wards to them as patients. ' In late twentieth century parlance the dramatic results of radium therapy would indeed have been called a 'breakthrough'? and radium techniques, later combined with external irradiation, were devel oped by gynecologists, no longer just surgeons. Pathology was the basic science of gynecology and gynecologists with a special interest in pathology served as pathologist to the departments of gynecology. As late as 1970 six months of the three-year residency program in obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard were devoted to formal training in pathology."

At the turn of the century gynecology had achieved independence from surgery in most medical schools; although gynecologists were surgeons, their interests were turning toward nonsurgical aspects of their specialty. In 1900, merely two years after the Curies' discovery, radium was first used as a treatment for carcinoma of the cervix. In that day cervical cancer claimed more women's lives than any other malignancy and was described by Wil liam P. Graves, the second professor of gynecology at Harvard as follows: 'Cancer of the cervix may rightly be termed of all tumors one of the most deadly and most ghastly. It kills by slow torture, causing in later stages months of agonizing pain and producing a discharge of such a foul and nauseating character as to repel proper medical assistance. Nurses declined to care for these cases, while many public hospitals closed their wards to them as patients. ' In late twentieth century parlance the dramatic results of radium therapy would indeed have been called a 'breakthrough'? and radium techniques, later combined with external irradiation, were devel oped by gynecologists, no longer just surgeons. Pathology was the basic science of gynecology and gynecologists with a special interest in pathology served as pathologist to the departments of gynecology. As late as 1970 six months of the three-year residency program in obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard were devoted to formal training in pathology."