Was Civil War Surgery Effective?
Matthew Baker ()
Economics Working Paper Archive at Hunter College from Hunter College Department of Economics
During the U. S. Civil War (1861-65) surgeons performed a vast number of surgical procedures such as amputations, resections, excisions, and bullet extractions. The efficacy of wartime surgery has been the subject of continuing debate since the start of the war. One reason debate continues is the dearth of empirical evidence on the (in)effectiveness of surgery. To shed light on the subject, I analyze a data set created by Dr. Edmund Andrews, a Civil war surgeon with the 1st Illinois Light Artillery. Dr. Andrews’s data can be rendered into an observational data set on surgical intervention and recovery, with controls for wound location and severity. The data also admits instruments for the surgical decision. My analysis suggests that Civil War surgery was effective, and increased the probability of survival of the typical wounded soldier, with average treatment effect of 0.25-0.28.
Keywords: civil war; surgery; treatment effect (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: N31 N41 C21 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea and nep-his
Date: 2016-11-02, Revised 2016-11-02
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://econ.hunter.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sit ... /HunterEconWP444.pdf (application/pdf)
Journal Article: Was Civil War surgery effective? (2018)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:htr:hcecon:444
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Economics Working Paper Archive at Hunter College from Hunter College Department of Economics 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10065. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jonathan Conning ().