Really? Care to show a 17th century textbook that would cover epidemiology? Or some data on life expectancy with diabetes back then... As a bonus question, discuss the impact of antibiotics and surgery on *that*. While we are at it, as you certainly know, antibiotics do not work for viral infections. Are you saying that there had been no meaningful changes regarding those? BTW, where do you put anti- and aseptic methods? Yes, they do fit as "technology that makes surgery safer", but they sure as hell have applications well beyond that. Sigh...
We aren't more clever than we used to be in 1600, but we definitely have learnt a lot since then. Including, BTW, mathematical statistics and data analysis. How much of that gets learnt by students in medical schools is a different question, of course...
Posted Aug 17, 2012 12:59 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
[Link]
Not to speak about vaccines, grafts, prosthesis, vitamins, micro-surgery, anti-retro-viral medicines, X-rays, analgesics or monitoring equipment. Saying that nothing but antibiotics and surgery techniques has changed from an era where amputation was the most common surgery (and the tourniquet had not even been invented, figure that) shows a high level of self-delusion.
And, as item #6 explains, we actually are smarter than in 1600; at least we don't have all that lead around us any more.
Medical procedures
Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:17 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
[Link]
Smarter than in the last century, which is what #6 is about. See also http://www.rachel.org/files/document/Lead_Poisoning_in_Historical_Perspective.pdf
Medical procedures
Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:40 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
[Link]
Not only last century; please read the pdf you cite and not only the abstract, specifically the section about the preindustrial and industrial ages.