History of Medicine Meaning

Twenty years ago when I was in medical school, there was no course on the history of medicine; only a little bit of it was sketched out at the beginning of each textbook. I remember that I was quite interested in it, but the teacher often skipped over it. This time I read the book "History of Medicine", which is like a remedial course. Perhaps for ordinary clinicians, it may not be necessary to know the origin of their own learning; if you are concerned about the process of human civilization, you should have some understanding. Zhitang Weng talk about "my miscellaneous studies", specifically listed as a; "corner of the study" also has a "history of medicine" a cloud: "medical or biological instincts, such as dogs and cats lick their own creation is also, but the development of the art of the living, whether it is by magic or prescription, in short, is one of the characteristics of human culture, although with a club Edge with the invention, but the significance is very different, China said Chi You made five soldiers, and Shen Nong tasted medicine to identify the nature of the human emperor can be seen." Humanitarianism is largely implemented in the history of medicine, although not all can not be summarized, this is not inevitably flowing into empty talk.

The author of this book's view, and the words of the Zhou's quoted: "medicine with the first expression of human suffering and the first desire to alleviate this pain and was born, due to the initial need to explain the phenomena occurring in the human body and the human mind as the subject of the first diligent exploration and become science. Its supreme object is the relief of human suffering and the promotion of individual physical and racial improvement." We can thus see precisely that medicine is different from science in general, and the history of medicine is different from the history of science in general. David? The Origins of Western Science by Lindbergh said that as far as the history of science is concerned, "We need a conception of science that is broad and inclusive rather than narrow and exclusive." When it comes to the history of medicine, the scope should be even broader, even to include non-science. This is the nature of medicine and the main theme of this History of Medicine.

Medicine became a science later; after it became a science, it continued to fulfill its previous purpose; if it left this purpose, medicine would not be established; however, science is not only a means for medicine. As the author puts it: "The origin of scientific medicine coincided with the onset of Greek philosophy, when for the first time in history we see an attempt to establish a philosophical system based on discursive reflection that could explain natural phenomena and establish the laws of nature.

Before this period, medicine was in the situation of instinctive medicine, empirical medicine, magic medicine, monastic or religious medicine, etc." The several primitive methods of medical treatment described were also intended to relieve human suffering; and we therefore recognize that these pre-scientific or non-scientific medicines are not inconsistent with scientific medicine. Incidentally, the origin of scientific medicine is mentioned here, which for a time contained many non-scientific elements, such as the famous Hippocrates; it was not until after the Renaissance, on the basis of anatomy, physiology, etc., that medicine really developed into a science. The science itself has changed dramatically since then.

The original History of Medicine was last updated in 1947; the Chinese translation is based on this version. It is impossible to document the various developments in medicine that have taken place since then, and it would be an understatement to describe them as rapid advances, not to mention major inventions such as organ transplants and in vitro fertilization. Taking my old profession as an example, based on what I learned more than 20 years ago, I already find the contents of the chapter on "Stomatology and Dentistry" in the "Twentieth Century" to be outdated; and all my own knowledge is also lagging far behind the present level. It is perhaps too lenient to say that "knowledge ages"; in the case of an applied science such as medicine, when the body of knowledge is updated, personal knowledge remains the same as it was before, and is tantamount to no knowledge at all.

Another regrettable aspect of the book, which has nothing to do with the original, is that the translator has deleted Chapter 7, "The History of Chinese Medicine," on the grounds that it is "too brief, and there are fallacies. In fact, even if there is really a flaw, it is probably also interesting to know how traditional Chinese medicine is viewed according to the above view of the history of medicine. History is not only about what is recorded, but also about the concepts that go into it.

While we have talked about the origins of medicine, the benefits of this book are mainly in the aspect of "origin". Not only can we know how the present scientific medicine has evolved, but we can also understand the difference between scientific medicine and non-scientific medicine. Among all the sciences, the one that has the closest relationship with human beings is medicine, but I am afraid that nowadays the knowledge of medicine is the least popularized among the people. Not to mention the general public, even the intellectuals are the same. I have never written about current affairs, so I don't need to talk about it; this time I have read the History of Medicine, but I have a little understanding of it.

I said that there is a general lack of medical knowledge, in fact, we do not understand only scientific medicine, if we talk about non-scientific medicine, really know a lot, all kinds of ideas are y rooted, and the book of instinctive medicine, empirical medicine, magical medicine, monks, or religious medicine, etc., one by one, all of them are able to match up. These are just some old ideas, and their ills are not limited to health care and treatment, but are the cause of many of today's social problems. From the point of view of the history of medicine, the above things have a certain value, not only because they have the same purpose as scientific medicine, but also because they appeared before scientific medicine. To emphasize any one of these aspects alone is a biased view. In other words, it is important to treat history historically as well as realistically. After the birth of medical science, pre-medical science was non-scientific by its very nature, although its original purpose cannot be ignored and its effects since then need not be erased.

The author concludes his book by saying: "Unless one is blind, one can never lose sight of the historical fact that before or after the beginning of modern scientific medicine, there have been many great and gifted therapists, who were not scientific, but who were able to soothe the patient with their talents and suggestive powers, to encourage him, and to make him confident of recovery, and thus powerfully influence the treatment of the disease. They were not men of science, but they were able by their talents and power of suggestion to soothe the patient, to encourage him, to give him confidence in his recovery, and thus to influence powerfully the process of healing. It is equally obvious that there are many brilliant scientists who are only very ordinary healers." This is a reminder to the medical profession not to lose sight of the fundamental goal of healing the sick and saving lives, and in a world where science-based medicine reigns supreme, it is not far off the mark. Western history has taught us similar lessons. However, the context is different from each other; for us, on the other hand, I am afraid that we should not ignore.