18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Innovation in medicine: Ignaz the reviled and Egas the regaled.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In our current climate of rapid technological progress, it seems counterintuitive to think that modern science can learn anything of ethical value from the dark recesses of the nineteenth century or earlier. However, this happens to be quite true, with plenty of knowledge and wisdom to be gleaned by studying our scientific predecessors. Presently, our journals are flooded with original concepts and potential breakthroughs, a continuous stream of ideas pushing the frontiers of knowledge ever forward. Some ideas flourish while others flounder; but what sets the two apart? The distinguishing feature between success and failure within this context is the ability to discern the appropriate time to accept an innovation with open arms, versus when to take a more cautious approach. And the primary arbiters for whether an idea will catch on or not are the professional audience. I illustrate this concept by comparing the initial reception of two innovative ideas from Medicine's past: sterile technique, and prefrontal lobotomy. Sterile technique was first introduced by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and was initially ridiculed and rejected, with Semmelweis eventually dying in exile. Conversely, lobotomy was accepted and lauded and its inventor, Dr. Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize for his "discovery". This begs the question: why was a technique with the potential to save millions of lives initially rejected, whereas paradoxically, one that compromised and sometimes destroyed lives, accepted? Here I explore and analyze the potential reasons why, suggest how we can learn from these mistakes of the past and apply new insight to some current ethical dilemmas.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Med Health Care Philos
          Medicine, health care, and philosophy
          Springer Nature
          1572-8633
          1386-7423
          Jun 2016
          : 19
          : 2
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Epigenetics Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Howard University, 520 W St. NW, 431 Mudd Building, Washington, DC, 20059, USA. antonei.csoka@howard.edu.
          Article
          10.1007/s11019-015-9678-x
          10.1007/s11019-015-9678-x
          26666438
          387b0290-0e62-4d46-859f-cb7733af0e99
          History

          Clinical ethics,Drugs and drug industry,History of health ethics,Iatrogenesis,Lobotomy,Maternal mortality,Puerperal fever

          Comments

          Comment on this article