Dinah Birch’s recent review of Claire Tomalin’s biography of Charles Dickens celebrates the “exuberant variety” and “multiplicity” of his life. He reinvented himself constantly – child labourer, solicitors’ clerk, journalist, editor, actor, philanthropist, social reformer, and a novelist who like Chaucer and Shakespeare, came to represent his age. Birch could easily have defined Dickens in terms of the professions he rejected – he was urged to enter Parliament, and, if you consider the attention Tomalin pays in her book to Dickens’ interest in health and medicine, a medical career may have beckoned. Certainly there is an established critical interest in Dickens and medicine (a colleague attended a conference on the subject earlier this year). Dickens’s fondness for the doctor might also be demonstrated by the fact that his pen spares the profession the biting social commentary reserved for lawyers and civil servants in his fiction. There is no medical equivalent of the Circumlocution Office, and no medical negligence claim equivalent to Jarndyce vs Jarndyce. more…