Live data from Hacker News

A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

tedgioia.substack.com

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#41
post #3

This is a bit unfair, all doctors were fucking terrible before the late 19th century, and lowered the lifespan of everyone they touched. They also seemed to prescribe mercury for everything. The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. The problem, I guess, is that the confidence and autho…

I’ve heard this repeatedly, is there any proof doctors used to be useless? Why didn’t they work other jobs? Were they simply con artists?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569979/

That's a book review of a readable book that makes the case quite compellingly.

> I recently read George Bernard Shaw's The Doctor's Dilemma and experienced an unexpected sense of insult on behalf of my profession. In this celebrated play, Shaw serially indicts various kinds of late 19th century doctor—the hypocrite, the self publicist, and (most dangerous of all) the blinkered zealot. While I admired the plot construction, I suspected that Shaw had created such character extremes for comic effect. However, having read David Wootton's Bad Medicine, I am now no longer insulted and, on behalf of my profession, feel somewhat grateful to Shaw for his restraint. For, as Wootton painstakingly argues in this short but undoubtedly explosive new book, the history of medicine has been nothing less than a failure and doctors have been the culprits.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#42

This is a bit unfair, all doctors were fucking terrible before the late 19th century, and lowered the lifespan of everyone they touched. They also seemed to prescribe mercury for everything. The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. The problem, I guess, is that the confidence and autho…

I suspect it's rather like economics today. There were likely a fair few practitioners at the periphery that were well aware of just how dangerously wrong the orthodox views were, but they were largely ignored.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#43

This is a bit unfair, all doctors were fucking terrible before the late 19th century, and lowered the lifespan of everyone they touched. They also seemed to prescribe mercury for everything. The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. The problem, I guess, is that the confidence and autho…

[deleted]

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#44
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A doctor whose patient lives on 19 years after removing an arrow from his head does not sound terrible at all, yet that doctor preceded gp's cutoff date by centuries. I'd say that's sufficiently clear disagreement.

Not really, Op says: > The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. Having an arrow in your head qualifies as needing emergency surgery, and it was a situation that they certainly made better.

They don't disagree on the facts, its just one description is an extremely uncharitable and insulting to the skills of our ancestors. There were talented and skilled healers who did the best they could with the knowledge of the time.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#45
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't disagree that medicine has come a long way but I'm going to say that this is a giant disservice to some very great doctors in history. My favorite example is John Bradmore, who saved the life of King Henry V after he was shot in the fucking head with an arrow. Not only was John Bradmore a surgeon, he was also something of metalworker (and in fact, was arrested for making counterfeit coins; he had to be pulled…

But that story with the arrow sounds exactly like the “you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon”. So I don’t see how what you wrote is in disagrement with what GP wrote.

Exceptions also don't make the rule. If out of a 100 doctors there was 1 actually helpful one (and probably not in every scenario), I think you're free to call the service quite terrible in general.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#46

This is a bit unfair, all doctors were fucking terrible before the late 19th century, and lowered the lifespan of everyone they touched. They also seemed to prescribe mercury for everything. The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. The problem, I guess, is that the confidence and autho…

I won't disagree that medicine has come a long way but I'm going to say that this is a giant disservice to some very great doctors in history. My favorite example is John Bradmore, who saved the life of King Henry V after he was shot in the fucking head with an arrow. Not only was John Bradmore a surgeon, he was also something of metalworker (and in fact, was arrested for making counterfeit coins; he had to be pulled…

I often hear the lament about "illegal to perform dissection!" But let's be honest. If you dissect a pig, you could have made all those discoveries about how the heart worked and what lungs were for and which organs connected to what. You didn't need a human subject.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#47
post #18

Nice piece. The guy's name is Georg Friedrich Händel, not Handel. Even if you don't have that letter on your keyboard, you can still find ways to enter it: https://www.confidentgerman.com/how-to-write-umlaut-a-u-o-s-...

No, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to refer to him as Handel.

The reason is he changed his name when he became a British citizen. He chose the anglicized version, George Frideric Handel. Note the spelling of his first and middle names, too.

It was Handel himself who chose to change his name, and he used it in letters and other communications, including his signature, and the inscription on his grave's monument at Westminster Abbey, which he commissioned himself [1].

In Britain, his English name is used consistently: The Handel museum (Handel & Hendrix), Handel House, etc.

You can of course call him by his German name, too; both are fine.

[1] https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/comme...

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, Op says: > The only rational use for a doctor back then was if you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon. It was a situation that they could only make better. Having an arrow in your head qualifies as needing emergency surgery, and it was a situation that they certainly made better.

They don't disagree on the facts, its just one description is an extremely uncharitable and insulting to the skills of our ancestors. There were talented and skilled healers who did the best they could with the knowledge of the time.

Some of them were definitely noble people but they were still bad at it. Sometimes (often?) the cost of progress is measured in bodies.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't disagree that medicine has come a long way but I'm going to say that this is a giant disservice to some very great doctors in history. My favorite example is John Bradmore, who saved the life of King Henry V after he was shot in the fucking head with an arrow. Not only was John Bradmore a surgeon, he was also something of metalworker (and in fact, was arrested for making counterfeit coins; he had to be pulled…

I often hear the lament about "illegal to perform dissection!" But let's be honest. If you dissect a pig, you could have made all those discoveries about how the heart worked and what lungs were for and which organs connected to what. You didn't need a human subject.

How would you KNOW it worked the same as a human heart if you have never seen the insides of a human. This is pre-darwin so the common evolution of mammals is not yet understood.

Re: A doctor who treated Bach and Handel with disastrous results

#50
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't disagree that medicine has come a long way but I'm going to say that this is a giant disservice to some very great doctors in history. My favorite example is John Bradmore, who saved the life of King Henry V after he was shot in the fucking head with an arrow. Not only was John Bradmore a surgeon, he was also something of metalworker (and in fact, was arrested for making counterfeit coins; he had to be pulled…

But that story with the arrow sounds exactly like the “you needed emergency surgery because you were going to die very soon”. So I don’t see how what you wrote is in disagrement with what GP wrote.

In hindsight I was probably too excited to share that particular story. A better example might have been some of the Islamic physicians who were writing treatises and books in the 10th and 11th century. A good review article on a few such treatises (republished on a British charity org site, originally published in Historical Aspects of Pediatric Surgery)[^1] gives an idea of what I assume would be more routine, less everything-on-the-line treatments.

Though, the distinction from what is life threatening and what is routine has not always been so clear as in this modern period, and it has also shifted around, making this point of contention a bit difficult to judge.

[^1]: https://muslimheritage.com/paediatric-urology-1000-years-ago...

Post reply on HN