John Buchan's race through life, chased by his only foe-illness.

This article examines John Buchan's experience of gastric illness, dyspepsia and duodenal ulcers within the medical context of his life during the first half of the twentieth century. In tracing some of the different and changing approaches to gastric illness over the intervening decades, it compares the medical knowledge and practices of that period with medical knowledge and treatment today. The article's low key empirical intersectional examination, too, touches on both ethics and justice. Its importance lies not only in its discussion on past and present medicine, but also in its scrutiny of Buchan's extraordinarily dutiful approach to his active and varied careers, often marred for him by sudden onsets of illness. Buchan's coping mechanisms, including mental and physical endurance, are spotlighted in his life and in some of his works, frequently written when he was in pain, or recuperating from illness. Both his fiction and non-fiction had multiple purposes: to support his extended family; to help his country; to help his fellow countrymen escape into adventure during war; and to help himself escape from pain.

Vivisection through the eyes of Wilkie Collins, HG Wells and John Galsworthy.

The article argues that, unlike Collins' adamantly negative view towards vivisection in the latter half of the nineteenth century and approaching the end of his writing career and life, Wells and Galsworthy's changing opinions responded to medical advances, reflected the dynamics of public opinion, and their own knowledge and experience at their time of writing. With its primary focus on Galsworthy, the study also explores the reactions of contemporary critics, readers, scientists and medical practitioners to these depictions of vivisection. Above all, the article argues that popular writers, particularly before modern multimedia, greatly influenced public attitudes towards changes in society, including medical research by vivisection. The ultimate change of heart towards vivisection by Nobel Prize winner Galsworthy, an indirect and eminent beneficiary of vivisection, the article concludes, would have boosted public acceptance and the cause of modern medicine.