EDWARD JENNER: THE HISTORY OF A MEDICAL MYTH

EDWARD JENNER: THE HISTORY OF A MEDICAL MYTH
复制标题

爱德华·詹纳:医学神话的历史

DOI:
10.1017/s0025727300030714
复制
发表时间:
1965
期刊:
影响因子:
1.4
通讯作者:
P. Razzell
P. Razzell
中科院分区:
人文科学3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
P. Razzell

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

编者按:拉泽尔这篇文章的挑衅性标题无疑会让许多读者感到震惊,但历史学家的职责是不把任何事情视为理所当然,并定期对历史的主要假设提出质疑,就像编辑的职责是给偶像破坏者和偶像崇拜者留出空间一样。下面这篇文章是有争议的,编辑认为它的意义非常重要,无论是对医学史还是当前的实践,他已经邀请了利物浦大学的医学博士、FRS教授AW Downie,他是该领域公认的权威,对mr。Razzell的参数。后者声称有权对唐尼教授的批评作出答复,评论和答复将在文章的末尾找到。讨论现在向读者开放,任何进一步的讨论,由唐尼教授或其他人,将在即将出版的《医学史》上发表。编辑只字一句地说,十月号将刊登一篇关于埃塞俄比亚天花的有趣报道,这可能被解读为暗含的反驳。Razzell的情况。尽管在这个紧密的社区长期使用接种,天花的流行肆虐,直到詹纳疫苗在19世纪被引入。如果Razzell先生的文章和随后的辩论不能证明什么,我们就得到了一个生动的证明,即医学史绝不是一门死气沉沉的学科,而是与非常活跃的问题有关。
EDITOR'S NOTE: The provocative title of Mr. Razzell's article will doubtless shock many readers, but it is the duty of the historian to take nothing for granted and to put to the question periodically the major assumptions of history, just as it is an editor's duty to give space to iconclasts as well as to idolists. The following article is frankly controversial and the editor considered its implications so important, both for medical history and current practice, that he has invited Professor AW Downie, MD, FRS, of Liverpool University, an acknowledged authority in this field, to comment onMr. Razzell's arguments. The latter has claimed the right to reply to Professor Downie's criticisms and both comment and reply will be found at the end of the article. Discussion is now open to readers and any further discussion, by Professor Downie or others, will be published in forthcoming issues of Medical History. The editor confines himself to remarking that the October issue will contain an interesting account of smallpox in Ethiopia which may be read as an implicit refutationofMr. Razzell's case. Despite the long-continued use of inoculation in this close community, epidemics of smallpox raged until Jennerian vaccination was introduced in the nineteenth century. If Mr. Razzell's article and the ensuing debate prove nothing else we are given a lively demonstration that medical history is by no means a dead subject but is concerned with issues which are very much alive.