The Great Tonsil Massacre uses creative non fiction to recount a public-health initiative that took place in Rochester, New York in 1920 and 1921. The narrative explores the motives of the industrialists and professionals who established two tonsil/adenoid clinics designed to benefit children whose families were subsisting on very limited incomes. At a second level, it examines some of the reasons that may have discouraged other citizens from publicly questioning the project, even though serious risks and inflated claims were involved. Finally, it follows the tensions that arise in the O'Connell family, whose members are directly affected by proponents' claims. Kate and Michael O'Connell, Timmy's mother and father, have already suffered through a botched public health event when their story opens. Memories of that event, and her and Michael's implication in it, plague Kate. Michael, a firm believer in the medical miracles he has witnessed in the early 20th century, wants what is best for his son's future. At present the family can afford to sign Timmy and his younger sister Molly up for the operation, but Michael's job security is tenuous. Timmy, whose physical development lags behind his peers', wants to catch up, but he is afraid of undergoing the operation. Molly adores her big brother and will follow him anywhere. Conflicts within the family and among Timmy's schoolmates escalate, causing the characters to reassess their first conclusions. An epilogue to the story examines the factual events as they were recorded in contemporaneous documents: meeting minutes, government reports, and newspaper articles. An appendix includes photographs of the actual clinical sites and of some of the activities that occurred in them. The narrative also focuses on the social conditions and class-based attitudes that existed in this mid-sized manufacturing city in the early 1920s. In addition, the book addresses three questions that have persisted into the twenty-first century: 1. Can a comprehensive healthcare plan, no matter how well intentioned it may be, fit every citizen's need?; 2. Should citizens accept the pronouncements of health care professionals without question?; 3. Should parents who resist having their children immunized against communicable diseases be compelled to submit for the protection of the majority?