• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why did the discoveries of the Renaissance make little practical difference to medical treatment in the period c1500-c1700?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why did the discoveries of the Renaissance make little practical difference to medical treatment in the period c1500-c1700? (12 marks - 18 minutes) 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. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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 Humours'. Galen stated that an illness 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illness, they were more likely to not work at all - yet medical students continued to be taught these inefficient and outdated methods in universities.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 church and the reduced demand for change from the people. ?? ?? ?? ?? History - Medicine and treatment through the ages ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

The strength of this answer is that it has a sharp focus on the period and does give quite a range of accurate and correct reasons why treatments were not improved. It could be improved with more explanation at the end of each paragraph and some information about the treatment for disease. ***

Marked by teacher Kate Forbes 03/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Did Medicine Improve In the Middle Ages?

    4 star(s)

    Instead, students of medicine studied the works of Hippocrates and Galen and didn't perform experiments of their own account. The influence of Christianity greatly reduced the progression of medical understanding. Human dissection was prohibited and to disagree with Hippocrates and Galen was seen as heretical, for which the punishment was death.

  2. How and why did castles change over time?

    This castle was a great improvement from the round keep. These castles had two or three curtain walls more than 6 metres thick. The inner walls were higher than the outer wall so men on all walls could fire at the enemy.

  1. Why was the Roman Army so Successful? Rome was one ...

    They also had weapons called artilleries. Artilleries were huge weapons such as the Ballista and catapulta. The Ballista fired huge arrows which were very harmful. The catapulta, was usually loaded with huge boulders, or pot of oil which were set on fire.

  2. Describe the political, social and religious situation of Palestine during the first century AD ...

    ones Jesus criticised were practising the religion in a showy way - doing it for attention and to win praise (hypocrites). Half of the Jewish ruling council (the Sanhedrin) were Pharisees and they voted for Jesus' death. They disliked other religions and tried to keep away from them and be purely Jewish (the name Pharisee means separate one).

  1. Medicine Through Time Timeline

    The patient was only having an in-growing toenail removed (non-life threatening). It took the backing of Queen Victoria for chloroform and Simpson to gain worldwide publicity. 1847 Ignaz Semmelweiss orders his students to wash their hands before surgery (but only after they had been in the morgue).

  2. How and why did castles change from 1066 to 1550?

    society with respect for law and order and the authority of the government. Fortified manor houses were used to show wealth and power of nobles and to show that England was more settled ? little risk of rebellion but were also defensive if needed.

  1. How Did Hong Kong Fall so Quickly to the Japanese in WWII

    There were around 1000 troops from the Hong Kong Defence Forces, but most of them were inexperienced and unfit for war as well. When the Japanese arrived at Hong Kong, the British expected an invasion of 5,000 soldiers. The actual number of Japanese soldiers in the invasion was around 60,000.

  2. The History of Bradford. How Undercliffe Cemetery display the values of the Victorians.

    While gathering my evidence of the Victorian value?s I came across a source in form of an image that in some aspects supports as well as contradicts the way the cemetery has portrayed social status and social class. A painting by J.Ritchie which was produced in 1858 that goes by

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work