ABSTRACT
Only one treatise devoted to medical history taking (anamnesis) has come down to us from antiquity: Medical questions by Rufus Ephesius (from about 80 to about 150 AD). The work was rediscovered, published and translated from Greek into French by Daremberg and Ruelle in the 19th century. The word 'anamnesis' for history taking only came into use halfway through the 19th century in German-speaking countries and in the Netherlands. The term was not used in this sense by physicians in antiquity. In contrast to several authors of the Corpus Hippocraticum (5th to 1st century BC), Rufus attached great importance to the interview with the patient and in particular to questions concerning the patient's lifestyle prior to the illness. In this respect, his opinions are remarkably close to modern views.
Subject(s)
History of Medicine , Medical History Taking , History, Ancient , Humans , Medicine in Literature , Netherlands , Terminology as TopicABSTRACT
The Hippocratic oath derives its name from the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates. It has been embraced as a code of conduct by the medical profession throughout the ages, and is used by medical faculties as an explicit moment of reflection during graduation ceremonies. Although this oath is primarily of ceremonial value, it was felt that the text needed revision as it no longer reflected the current ethical norms in the Netherlands. The new Dutch oath drawn up in 2003 has a dual function: it is symbolic in that it represents the end of a doctor's training, but it is also intended to trigger the discussion of moral issues during the medical studies.
Subject(s)
Hippocratic Oath , Bioethics , Humans , NetherlandsABSTRACT
If the activities attributed to Asclepius in the tablets of Epidaurus are compared with Aelius Aristides' report of the god's miracle working upon him, the reader is struck by one considerable difference: in Epidaurus the god operates directly. He does surgery while the patient is dreaming; he heals without intermediaries. In Aelius Aristides' dreams, however, the god gives insight and advice, as well as a feeling of belonging to a therapeutic community. But he heals no less in Pergamum in the second century AD than he did in Epidaurus in the fourth century BC. A second difference seems to be related. Whereas in Epidaurus doctors are rarely mentioned--they seem to belong to a different domain and do not seem to practise within the temple precincts--in Aristides' Pergamum the god acts only indirectly, in dreams and visions, which consequently are interpreted with the help of skilled doctors and members of the temple staff. The god appears 'to have learned medicine', as Ludwig Edelstein called it. In this paper I intend to look for an answer to the question: what is the role of (Hippocratic) medicine in Aelius Aristides' Sacred Tales? How are the two rationales, of (Hippocratic) medicine and of the Asclepius cult, related? There are apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. How are they dealt with? Did the god acquire a medical education indeed? Is a balance ever struck between Hippocratic and temple medicine?
