Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to P Prioreschi.
After reviewing the notions of Paracelsus concerning medicine and his ideas about knowledge and science, the author discusses his contributions to medicine and science. He also discusses the reasons for his popularity. The general conclusion is that Paracelsian medicine represented a return to the supernaturalistic healing practices of the past.
Although since the publication of the De motu Cordis in 1628 the majority of historians have considered William Harvey the discoverer of the blood circulation, a minority of authors have tried to show that the laurels belong instead to Andrea Cesalpino (c.1520-1603). Over the years,an endless number of points and opinions on the two sides of the question have been advanced and debated; the consensus today, however, is that Harvey deserves the credit and that Cesalpino's contribution was negligible. In an attempt to clarify the issue, the author has translated de novo, from the original Latin, all the passages of Cesalpinoconcerning the circulation and has reviewed the criticisms leveled at his ideas on the subject. The results are surprising on two accounts: first, the conclusion seems inescapable that this author, several decades before Harvey, had a clear general understanding of the circulation of the blood;second, the dismissal of Cesalpino's contribution was (and is) based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations.These, in turn, were the result, for the most part, of two factors: a) critics often did not read all the pertinent passages(possibly because his Latin prose is tedious and sometimes unclear); b) some passages were inaccurately translated. As for who discovered the circulation, it depends on how we define "discovery".
The author reviews the causes of the rebirth of human dissection in the Middle Ages after a hiatus of 1500 years, that is, after the practice was abandoned in the time following Herophilus of Alexandria in the third century BC. It is concluded that three main factors determined the rebirth: the removal of obstacles (i.e., the devaluation of the body), the stimulus to proceed (i.e., the resuming of the slow progress of medicine toward the scientific mode), and the different value attributed to cadavers of different people, that is, the correspondence between life deeds and the importance of the cadaver (which made the corpses of executed criminals available and pedagogical dissection possible).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The author, in an attempt to clarify whether the rise of alternative medicine is a phenomenon characteristic of our time or whether it existed in the past as well, has identified at least three alternative medicines, which developed in ancient Rome, ancient India and in the medieval Islamic world. The circumstances leading to the development of alternative medicine in the past and in our time are discussed and compared.
In an effort to develop a method to ascertain whether ancient physicians used certain drugs because of their efficacy or for other reasons (random process, tradition, etc.), the authors have devised a statistical test (Efficacy Quotient-EQ) to evaluate ancient therapeutic data quantitatively. They have applied the Efficacy Quotient to clarify whether the Hippocratic physician used poppy (opium) in the treatment of pain because he had recognized that it had analgesic properties or whether he used it as he used others plants devoid of such properties. The authors conclude that the analgesic properties of poppy were not recognized at the time. The appropriateness of using the Efficacy Quotient for the.
The author discusses two points of Galenic medicine that have long interested medical historians: why did Galen describe a non-existent arterial rete mirabile at the base of the human brain and was Galen the first to discover the pulmonary circulation. After reviewing the evidence, it is concluded that Galen mistook the venous rete mirabile at the base of the human brain for an arterial one and that he indeed described the passage of blood from the right to the left ventricle although he did not discover the pulmonary circulation.
In an attempt to clarify the quaestio disputata concerning the identify of the founder of the Methodist School and the chronology of its foundation, the author reviews the pertinent primary and secondary literature. In spite of the acceptance on the part of some of Edelstein's opinion that the School was founded by Thessalus of tralles during the first century A.D., it is concluded that the traditional view, that it was founded by Themison of Laodicea toward the end of the Republic, is correct.
The Hippocratic Oath is to be considered a code of conduct for all physicians and not a Pythagorean manifesto, in spite of the view of Edelstein. In fact, it can be shown that the prohibitions and requirements on which the Pythagorean hypothesis rests (the prohibition against helping suicide, inducing abortion, performing surgery, and having sex with patients or with members of their household and the rules of confidentiality and collegiality) do not necessarily link the Hippocratic Oath to the Pythagoreans. Edelstein affirms that only the Pythagoreans condemned suicide, whereas it can be shown that Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans, and several authors in antiquity opposed it. Similarly, induced abortion was by no means universally accepted in antiquity. Soranus, for example, clearly states that many physicians opposed it in all cases. The passage of the oath concerning surgery can be shown to refer only to lithotomy (as others have underlined). As for sexual relations with patients or members of their household (male or female), the existence of laws against promiscuity (homo- or heterosexual), and other evidence, indicates that it was usually condemned. Finally, confidentiality and collegiality were virtues that the Pythagoreans were not alone in upholding. In addition, many of the principles upheld by the Oath are found in other documents unrelated to the Pythagoreans.
The author discusses the validity of the claim that, in Antiquity, effective contraceptives and abortifacients were available, were widely used, and their use was responsible for the decline of population in certain periods. After reviewing the maneuvers and drugs used for those purposes, the author concludes that ancient physicians did not have at their disposal effective contraceptives and abortifacients other than those that acted mechanically. In view of the danger associated with the mechanical induction of abortion, the ineffectiveness of pharmacological agents, and the limitations of mechanical contraceptives, it is concluded that drugs and other means of inducing abortion and contraception had a very limited impact on population in Antiquity.
The authors review the evidence concerning the antagonism between Cos and Cnidus and the alleged differences between their medical theories. They conclude that, most probably, the theoretical differences were negligible and the antagonism limited to professional competition between two groups of physicians sharing a common medical paradigm.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Focusing mostly on medicine, the author discusses evidence of the use of the experimental method in antiquity, particularly in the Western world. Instead of progressing toward a scientific revolution, however, the experimental method was abandoned after Galen. It is concluded that this was due to the shift of emphasis from physical to spiritual concerns fostered by Christianity.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
To compare the treatment of skull trauma in Egyptian and Hippocratic medicine, the author reviews the pertinent passages of the Smith Papyrus and of the Hippocratic Corpus. By examining the treatment of similar cases reported in the two documents, it is concluded that the Egyptian physician, with his more conservative approach, pursued a more effective and less dangerous course of action than the Hippocratic physician, who would aggressively intervene with trephination and scraping of the bone.