Why did the discoveries of the Renaissance make little
practical difference to medical treatment in the period
c1500 -c1700?
The discoveries of the Renaissance did not make a significant contribution to the
improvement of medical treatment for many reasons.
The first of these reasons is that the discoveries made during these times were
primarily about anatomy – not treatment. Vesalius dissected bodies in order to
prove that many of the works that Galen – the renowned ancient Greek who had
formed the basis for modern medical teachings – had produced, were in fact
wrong. This included the discovery that the jaw is comprised of one single bone –
not the two that Galen had said.
William Harvey focused on the distribution of blood arou nd the body. He
discovered that blood flows only one way around the body, and that blood is
reused and not constantly produced by the liver as Galen had suggested. He used
many complex diagrams which when combined with the invention of the printing
press – became quickly distributed throughout the world in the form of a book
entitled ‘An anatomical account of the motion of the heart and blood in animals'.
These would late form key elements in helping to identify effective drugs and cures,
but during the Renaissance they were met with opposition and took over 40 years
before they became accepted ideas in medical schools.
Many people were also afraid to cure themselves – illnesses were created by God
to punish you or test your loyalty. Attempting to get rid of these would be going
against God, at a time when the Church wielded significant power and had the
backing of the crown. If at all, they preferred to trust in ‘wise women’ or ‘curies’ of
their villages, who themselves were instantly suspicious of using new methods
over tried-and-trusted ones. As such, while people attempted to understand the
human body, there was very little demand for advancing cures.
This was different in cities, where revolutions were taking place. Inventions such as
the microscope and the mechanical pump greatly increased our understanding of
the body, but were not powerful or advanced enough to be useful in correct
diagnosis or treatment (E.G. Microscopes could not detect bacteria or viruses and as
such left scientists in the dark ab out the real cause of disease. )
Training methods continued to be based on the work of Galen, and by extension,
Hippocrates. These were very old methods dating from Ancient Greece, which relied
on ‘The Theory of the Four Humo urs’. Galen stated that an illn ess should be treated
with an opposite humour (E.G. cold drinks when suffering from sunstroke). While
these did occasionally reduce the effects of an illness, they were more likely to not
work at all – yet medical students continued to be taught these inefficient and
outdated methods in universities.
In conclusion, while the Renaissance did greatly improve our ability to understand
the anatomy and buildup of the human body, it did little to change treatment. This
was primarily due to the power of the chur ch and the reduced demand for change
from the people.