I was very happy to see the response in regard to the above title, (and I forgot to add) to a previous email on the Scots in the West Indies). But in relation to the above there is something that should be said. It should not be thought that people who used such titles without having formal training in a hospital or in a university were frauds, fakes or like the snake-oil salesmen. Given the state of medicine at the time, they were adequate. Whether it was making and dispensing potions, effusions of barks, leaves or flowers, or powders of the fore-going, they were drawing on a long tradition of such usage. They, like doctors had to match their potions to symptoms that they observed or elicited from the suffering person concerned. In a time before the aboliton of slavery, if they were adequate or good they did no harm, as the patient would get better or at least get no worse. After, the abolition of slavery, when they had to be paid by their patients, their ability to remain in their practice would have also depended on how well the patient did after treatment. Of course we now know of the Placebo effect. We also know of ethno-botany, and the race by the Pharmaceutical companies to "mine" the traditional remedies, the Pharmacopeia of aboriginal peoples based on herbes, weeds, roots, barks, vines, flowers, buds, funguses and mushrooms, animal skins, insects etc., in the hope of discovering the active chemicals and to synthesise them for medical purposes. We know also that some of these have long ago been synthesized, as in the case of Aspirin, from Willow bark, and more recently of a cancer treatment from the bark of the Yew trees. Much have also been found and synthesised, in some cases, like Kava Kava, the latter had undesireable effects like many other drugs. But others were and are promising, as in the case of papaya for female contraception. And stories are legion about conists/ travellers the world over colonists allowing themselves to be treated by native peoples and recovering completley or at least not getting any worse. It should be remebered that the Germ Theory of Disease was not discovered by Louis Pasteur until 1864, even though van Leeuwebhoek had discovered them with his microscope in 1683. The same goes for viruses. This again is outside the period of 1800-1850. The fact that mosquitos caused malaria and yellow fever was not discovered until the turn of the century. The aetiology diseases in terms of microbes could only develop after 1864. Viruses were not discovered until 1898. While the treatment of wounds by bandaging with certain liquids as dressing was discovered as early as 1536, by one of the fathers of modern medicine Ambroise Pare', by the time of the American civil War bandaged soldiers were dying like flies in the field hospitals. It was observed that soldiers in unsanitary conditions with flies etc. did better with their deep flesh wounds than those in more anti-septic field hospitals, and that these wounds healed faster after fly larvae had developed in them and this st! rategy was adopted and saved many thousands of lives. Penicillin was not disovered until 1928 by Alexander Fleming. Until 1942, it was used to treat mainly military injuries. After the Boston Fire of that year when two hundred people were treated for extensive burns it came into general use. Malaria was long known by the Chinese, East Indians and Egyptians and mentioned in ancient manuscripts. In 1640 that Cinchona bark was used by Huan del Vego to treat it, but this was long used by Peruvian natives to treat fevers. By 1696 Morton gave a detailed description of it, but no-one yet knew what caused it. By 1717, Lancisi linked it to poisonous vapours of swamps or bad air, hence the name Malaria. It was not until between 1880 and 1897 that the parasites were identified, and linked to the mosquito and to the female anopheles in particular, and methods developed to identify the parasite and a treatment with methylene blue proved effective. It was not until between 1928 and 1944 that compounds were synthesized for treatment malaria and eradication of mosquitos. It was not until literally the turn of the century that Walter Reed, was certain that it was the aedes egypti mosquito was the vector of yellow fever. It was not until the 1930's that methods were developed which enabled the identification of a broad range of viruses that caused human disease, although from the time of Pasteur it had been known that some-thing smaller than a bacterium could cause disease. Immunity after infection by a disease was known to the earlt Greeks. The principle of innoculation for with a less virulent strain for immunity, was known by the ancient Chinese, and the latter practiced it. It was observed in Turkey in 1721 and introduced to Britain by the wife of the British Ambassador, but not called vaccination, it was called variolation. Edward Jenner in 1796 used a strain of the cowpox to treat a young boy, after observing that milk-maids appeared to be immune to smallpox after they had gotten cowpox. Jenner used the scrapings of the milk-maids sores. Later vaccines were developed by Pasteur in 1880's. By 1898, Bordet set the science of immunology on firm foundations. So there is no reason to disrespect or suspect the abilities of those who gave themselves the title of Doctor of Physic and Surgery in the BWI up to 1850. If they were using Jenner's method of innoculation they would have been among the best doctors of the time. I only hope that they did not do surgery that was more sophisticated than an amputation or two. And thank goodness that the process of child-birth was left in the hands of experienced older females, because even in this (1800-1850 period and after, until the germ theory was accepted, and steps taken to diminish germs as with Lister's methods), in the most advanced countries, with well-trained doctors, more deaths were caused by dirty hands than anything else. Cheers! Richard

""Richard Allicock"" <richwyn@idirect.com> wrote in message news:01f101c321be$ad55f3a0$16049ad8@oemcomputer... > I was very happy to see the response in regard to the above title, (and I forgot to add) to a previous email on the Scots in the West Indies). But in relation to the above there is something that should be said. It should not be thought that people who used such titles without having formal training in a hospital or in a university were frauds, fakes or like the snake-oil salesmen. > > Given the state of medicine at the time, they were adequate. Whether it was making and dispensing potions, effusions of barks, leaves or flowers, or powders of the fore-going, they were drawing on a long tradition of such usage. They, like doctors had to match their potions to symptoms that they observed or elicited from the suffering person concerned. In a time before the aboliton of slavery, if they were adequate or good they did no harm, as the patient would get better or at least get no worse. After, the abolition of slavery, when they had to be paid by their patients, their ability to remain in their practice would have also depended on how well the patient did after treatment. > > snip (details of diseases) > > So there is no reason to disrespect or suspect the abilities of those who gave themselves the title of Doctor of Physic and Surgery in the BWI up to 1850. If they were using Jenner's method of innoculation they would have been among the best doctors of the time. > While the above is undoubtedly true, I would add a note of caution. From "The Horrors of Slavery" by Robert Wedderburn, 1824: "He [James Wedderburn, Robert's father] adopted the medical profession; and in Jamaica he was Doctor and Man-Midwife, and turned an honest penny by drugging and physicing the poor blacks, where those that were cured, he had the credit for, and for those he killed, the fault was laid to their own obstinacy." From Iain McCalman's introduction to "The Horrors of Slavery" in the 1991 edition: "..... And, above all, Thistlewood's [1] precise, unemotional record of his frequent fornications confirms Wedderburn's claims about the sexually predatory character of many Jamaican slaveholders. Supporting evidence of the generality of this trend comes from no less an authority than Wedderburn's own father, Dr. James Wedderburn, who told his friend and neighbour Thistlewood 'that of those who have long been on this island ... 4/5ths die of the venereal disease, one way or the other, occasioned by it'. The diaries further confirm Robert's claims in Horrors of Slavery that his father practised as a doctor and male midwife 'drugging and physicing poor blacks'...." [1] For those with a strong stomach, Thistlewood's diaries, "In Miserable Slavery: Thomas Thistlewood in Jamaica 1750-1786", Douglas Hall, are an excellent resource. The author had to be very selective in compiling this work as there are more than 10,000 pages in the originals (which I spent a few days poring over in the Lincoln archives, Hall must have spent months deciphering the whole lot). It describes in great detail the work and techniques of the bona fide doctors mentioned by Richard, as well as that of the more questionable practitioners. It includes many matter-of-fact accounts of slave punishments, and some of the methods used. Absolutely horrific - think of the worst thing you can imagine, read this book, and you will still be shocked. Peter www.wedderburn.ws The Wedderburn Pages & G.H.O.S.T. Glossary - Genealogy: Help with Old Scottish terms

Hi. Just to add a little imformation to the medical dicsussion. I come from a long line of doctors (I'm not one though) in the UK, BWI and Canada. The proper training for doctors in the new world was limited to a very few places and both the New World and Old World med schools were very expensive. It was common-place to apprentice to a doctor for a year or two and then you could set up your own practise. The flaw in that method was you could only be as good as the doctor who taught you and the medical profession did not begin to be controlled until the late 19th century, although country doctors were still apprenticed until around the turn of the century. Jim