ABSTRACT
In a passage on the treatment of pneumonia, Osler quoted van Helmont's remark that 'a bloody Moloch presides in the chairs of medicine'. This paper explores Helmont's use of 'Moloch' as a term of abuse against the bloodletting of traditional Galenist physicians and his vigorous opposition to the use of bleeding in treating diseases. The possible reasons for Helmont's opposition to the practice of bloodletting are discussed, leading to the conclusion that it arose from his theories of the origin of diseases, reinforced by some observations of its malign effects on a patient who had been bled excessively. The question of whether Helmont knew of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood is explored and the conclusion reached that, if he did, he ignored it completely. Helmont believed that 'pure' and 'impure' blood coexisted in disease and could be affected selectively by bloodletting which, in effect, concentrated the 'impure' at the expense of the 'pure' blood to the great detriment of the patient.
Subject(s)
Bloodletting/history , Bloodletting/methods , Philosophy, Medical/history , Pneumonia/therapy , History, 17th Century , History, 18th Century , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , HumansABSTRACT
Around the year 1643, Joan Baptista van Helmont, a Flemish chemist, alchemist and physician who had devised what he claimed to be a new form of medicine, proposed a 'challenge' to traditional Galenic physicians to compare treatment of fever by traditional methods and by a regime which did not involve bloodletting and purging. Two groups of patients were to be treated and 'casting of lots' was to be used - in some way not specified in detail - to decide who received which treatment. This 'challenge' has been regarded as the first proposal for the use of randomisation in a clinical trial. This paper explains the background to the challenge and discusses what can be deduced from Helmont's text about the details of how he proposed that the 'trial' was to be carried out. It concludes that internal evidence in Helmont's writings makes it certain that no such 'trial' was ever conducted. It seems that the 'challenge' was probably a rhetorical device to support Helmont's vehement criticism of traditional Galenic medicine and its practitioners, and, in particular, toemphasise his absolute opposition to the use of bloodletting as a medicaltreatment. An appendix includes a short summary of Helmont's theories of the origins of disease and transcriptions of the passages of Helmont's Latin text translated in the article.
Subject(s)
Fever/history , Medicine/methods , Philosophy, Medical/history , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/history , Bloodletting/history , Bloodletting/statistics & numerical data , Cathartics/history , Cathartics/therapeutic use , Communication , Fever/therapy , History, 17th Century , Humans , Research DesignSubject(s)
Anatomy, Artistic/history , Atlases as Topic , Uterus/anatomy & histology , Female , History, 18th Century , Humans , London , PregnancySubject(s)
Literature, Modern/history , Mining/history , Occupational Diseases/history , Germany , History, 16th Century , HumansSubject(s)
Books, Illustrated/history , Herbal Medicine/history , Translations , France , History, 16th Century , History, AncientABSTRACT
The paper reviews what is known of Peter Lowe's surgical education, practice and activities before he obtained the Royal Charter in the last year of the sixteenth century, founding what became the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. It attempts to separate probable fact from accumulated fiction then discusses briefly Lowe's possible contributions to the contents of the Charter.
