BMAT Essay Marking Thread

“The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease” - Voltaire
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that medicine does in fact do more than just amuse the patient. To what extent do you think Voltaire is correct?

The author proposes that the real role of doctors is to provide 'amusement', whether in the form of support or compassion, leaving nature to heal the disease. In effect, he proposes that time is ultimately the best healer.

This is, however, clearly untrue in many cases. For example, merely amusing a patient who had tension pneumothorax can do nothing to solve the problem. In such a case, time does not heal, but in fact ends up harming the patient with each passing second. Medical intervention would be essential in such a case, regardless of the doctor's skills at 'amusing'.

The trends of increasing life expectancy also do not support such a statement. Despite the increase in life expectancies, it is unlikely that doctors have become significantly better at 'amusing' patients. Rather, it is more likely that medical breakthroughs such as vaccinations and antibiotics have effected such changes in the past century. The quality of life of those with diabetes, for example, have undoubtedly improved due to the invention of synthetic insulin rather than 'amusement' on the part of doctors. In such cases, medicine has turned previously crippling conditions into manageable or even curable ones - a feat unmatched by nature.

Nevertheless, there is some truth to Voltaire's statement. For example, there has yet to be a cure found for the common flu. For now, doctors can only advise rest and fluids whilst the body fights the infection. In addition, Voltaire's statement might be better understood from a contemporary perspective. In his time, germ theory and a proper concept of hygiene were yet to be widely accepted. In that period, the role of doctors could very well have been more 'amusing' the patient than curing him - balancing the humours could in most cases do little but act as a placebo for the patient. Thus, it is understandable why the author might make such a statement. On the whole ,however, I believe that in the modern world, with all its medical advancements and new interventions, such a statement is very much outdated.

Thanks in advance for any comments

Title: It is ridiculous to treat the living body as mechanism

The statement implies that the living body should not be treated as a mechanism. A mechanism consists of predictable, uniform steps but the human body does not because its function can be affected by outside factors. For example, every case of coronary heart disease will not be identical because there may different contributing factors, such as smoking and diet. However, it is apparent that the disease will follow a similar general pattern in all sufferers, such as symptoms or changes occurring in the arteries on a molecular level. This is what makes the disease distinct from others.
The idea of disease following a set pattern to some degree is what informs evidence based medicine in order to provide the "gold standard" in treatment. This is vital in high pressure situations where a patient's life is at risk as there would be little time to consider every individual aspect of the patient's condition. However, it is important to realise the effects of factors such as co-morbidities on a patient's condition. For example, treating a laceration on a patient with haemophilia would require more care than usual.
Although treating the body as a mechanism can be useful in certain situations, it can be harmful if the patient is regarded as a machine rather than a rational being. The effects of medical intervention on a patient's living situation, such as the ability to cope with chemotherapy whilst caring for a baby, cannot be ignored, but would be of no relevance if the body were solely a mechanism. In light of this apparent contradiction, although the living body is not a mechanism, treating it as such is not ridiculous, provided that it does not harm the patient.

Any feedback would be much appreciated, guys!

“The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease” - Voltaire
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that medicine does in fact do more than just amuse the patient. To what extent do you think Voltaire is correct?

Voltaire simply states that medicine does not cure disease. In fact, doctors provide comfort and hospitality to patients whilst their own immune system tackles the disease. A hospital is more of a “Hotel” for the sick. A quick joke is shared by a doctor to a patient, which may or may not be amusing, but it is a mere distraction for an injection to be placed, lasting a second which could potentially be troublesome for the patient.

However, medicine is more than a bystander to a healing mechanism. Although ultimately our bodies defend against illness, doctors provide the stimulus needed – in the form of drugs. The art of medicine involves gruesome clinical trials and medical research spanning many years. The drug VAMP developed by Frei and Freirich helped prolong many lives which might have died without it. Also, amputation and surgery are aspects of medicine carried out by doctors, and leaving it for nature alone would not have “cured” the disease. Doctors do not only “amuse” the patient by offering comfort and calming down anxiety, but they all collaborate and provide the cures which patients’ lives truly depend upon.

To an extent, Voltaire is correct. Medicine is the art of healing. Patient-doctor relationships are vital to understanding, diagnosing and treating diseases. However, medicine is also a science. Patient contact is only part of what is offered from medicine. Vigorous hypothesis testing and clinical trials are initiated to provide or speed up a cure in which nature alone would not have achieved. So in conclusion, we should not be arguing on whether medicine is an art or a science, but rather amalgamate the two aspects together – infusing five star patient care with top class, life changing research which can potentially save millions.




Any genuine marks will be pos repped! THANKYOU!!

have you by any chance read 'A biography of cancer' - saw the reference to Frei and Freirich and it reminded me of the book if not I would definitely recommend

Hii, would someone mind marking this for me? In particular, is it long enough? Is the religion thing too controversial? Thanks so much in advance!

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking

Write an essay in which you address the following points:

In science, how is the illusion of knowledge an enemy of knowledge? Can you argue that ignorance itself an enemy of knowledge? By what criteria could you assess the comparative impact of these two, to determine which is the greater enemy of scientific knowledge?


The illusion of knowledge makes people and society believe they know best. This is much more difficult to dislodge than ignorance. It can be sewn into people's ideas and conciense from a young age, making it very difficult to remove. An example that could be used is religion; this collective illusion of miracles and afterlife is integrated into human society, and found all around the world. People are so transfixed by the idea of a God, even strong evidence against it struggles to dislodge their beliefs. Another example is found within science, where the illusion of knowledge acted as a barrier against the 'truth'; the development and dismantling of phlogiston. For hundred of years chemists tried to fit their theories around the illusion of the element phlogiston, released on burning. Attempts to stop the fascination with the obsolete chemical were very difficult, as the scientific community was so invested in the idea. Therefore, the illusion of knowledge not only resists the spread of scientific knowledge, but also it's initial discovery; these two things are key to success of science.

Ignorance is a problem as it offers no platform for scientists to work off. In many cases, science is not working to discover, but to disprove. By this argument, you could say that the illusion of knowledge is actually very useful to science - it gives a grounding to work from and find niches of incorrect ideas, until a new idea or theory can be formed. In comparison, ignorance seems more dangerous, as it implies a lack of interest and less motivation to find the truth. This is sciences real enemy.

To define the impact of both ignorance and illusion of knowledge, we need to assess which one prohibits growth and development the most. Although ignorance is a cleaner template for science to attach (rather than illusions of intelligence) it is also equally open to the previously discussed pseudo-science. Consequently, ignorance not only provides no basis for future experiments, but is also easily plagued by illusions.
On the other hand, you will often find what science thought of as knowledge is soon disproved, and now has become an illusion itself. Yet, no one can deny that the initial Benzene structure was a step towards the now widely accepted model, and without it, we would never have been able to develop the various aromatic medicines and materials.
I would argue ignorance is the first step before the illusion, and you can rarely go straight from ignorance to truth. Therefore, I would argue, that although the illusion of knowledge is difficult to dislodge from society's collective ideas, it is more difficult to get people, scientists included, thinking about new ideas at all, when there is nowhere to start. By this criteria, the worst enemy of science is ignorance.

Hi, another essay, would greatly appreciate if someone could give a comment or a mark (:


The statement “A little learning is a dangerous thing” implies that it is not safe to harness just a fraction of knowledge, instead suggesting that we should be thorough in our understanding of knowledge for a certain skill or topic in order for it to be safe to apply in reality.

A little bit of learning and knowing a little bit of knowledge in a specific area may not always be a bad thing, or even dangerous. For example, an individual may not fully understand the mechanism of anaphylaxis in the case of a severe allergy reaction, nor understand the science behind how epinephrine works to relax the airway muscles, thereby preventing constriction of the airway and suffocation. However, through prior reading in first-aid books or watching documentaries, the same individual might possess the knowledge required to use an epi-pen, ultimately saving the life of someone suffering a severe allergic reaction without understanding the science and mechanisms behind the condition. Similarly, in the case of an air-crash survival situation, a person who has a bad infection may be able to save his own life through the little knowledge that antibiotics are the most effective treatment against bacterial infections, even if he may not know the proper broad or narrow spectrum antibiotic to administer. This would put him in a position where he stands a greater chance of survival and not succumbing to the infection as opposed to where he has absolutely no knowledge of how to treat a bacterial infection. Thus, a little bit of learning, combined with common sense may go a long way to alleviating a bad situation.

Conversely, carrying out a little bit of learning and applying this to real world scenarios may act as a double-edged sword. In certain situations, it may be very dangerous for an individual to carry out a medical procedure without full understanding and proper training. For example, in the case of a dislocated arm, an individual who was treating the patient might have learnt from movies that you have to maneuver the arm back into its socket. However, without proper training and understanding the technique to do so, it may result in more damage to the dislocated arm in terms of the further tearing of already strained tendons. To quote another example, a person who has watched a surgical procedure on a documentary may be clouded by the belief that they have sufficient knowledge to mimic this procedure on a real patient. This would prove to be very dangerous, as a person who has gained limited knowledge off a documentary would by no means be able to carry out a cardiac bypass.

To conclude, on one hand, it may prove useful to carry out a little learning in specific areas, which could mean the difference between life and death if applied properly in the real world scenario. However, it must be noted that this must be done with enough rationality and common sense, coupled with risk assessment, for it could otherwise prove to be dangerous should a little learning and the obtaining of limited knowledge be clouded by the illusion of thorough learning from the perception of the individual.