![]() ![]() ![]() The individualism and anti-regulatory climate of the Jacksonian Era, combined with the democratization of medicine as espoused by Thomsonians and others, contributed to the wholesale collapse of medical regulation in the first half of the 19th century. These challengers included the followers of Samuel Thomson's populist herbal approach to medicine Samuel Hahnemann's homeopathic philosophy and various “eclectic” practitioners blending elements of all strands of medicine. The significance of these medical philosophies, whose adherents were often characterized as sectarian or “irregular” practitioners in the 1800s, was their subsequent success in establishing strong challenges to traditional medicine. Such a philosophy struck many people as an appealing alternative to traditional treatments predicated upon “bleeding, blistering, purging, vomiting and sweating,” especially since the perceptive patient sensed the wisdom behind the adage of the doctor taking the fee while nature made the cure. These alternative approaches rejected the “heroic” philosophy of medicine often characterized by harsh treatments (e.g., bloodletting, purgatives) in favor of minimalist approaches based often upon herbal treatments, diet and fresh air. Concurrent to this anti-intellectual trend, others began to explore alternative methods for understanding the laws of nature, founding philosophies and professions that would ultimately find their place alongside mainstream medicine. ![]() Such a proposal found a receptive climate during the Jacksonian Era (1828–1840) when the long political shadow of President Andrew Jackson inculcated a reverence for the wisdom of the common man and cast a skeptical eye on experts and authorities who they deemed more likely to protect their own interests than those of the average citizen. In the first decades of the 19th century, inadequate knowledge of the science underpinning medicine helped promote a notion that popular knowledge was perhaps as accurate as that of experts. Increasingly, however, a burgeoning number of medical schools offered another means for presenting a credible alternative to this model. At the dawn of the 19th century, the practice of medicine remained largely an empirical and experiential art, often passed on through an apprenticeship model of training. Furthermore, in the overwhelmingly rural America of that time, this decentralized approach represented the only practical model for oversight. As such, direct experiences with, and supervision by, an experienced physician represented a reasonable attempt to ensure a modicum of expertise. The questionable diagnostic and therapeutic value of almost all medicine at the time meant the profession was truly more akin to an art than a science. 1 This regulatory model predicated upon localized control by non-governmental bodies comprised of a physician's peers made sense for many reasons. Such legislation was largely exclusionary as it used medical societies to control entry into the profession. After the Revolutionary War, individual states perpetuated the common practice of colonial authorities to invest their respective medical societies with the authority to regulate the practice of medicine. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |