GCSE History-Medicine

Watch this thread
average_human
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Can anyone give me tips on how to improve this history essay

During the Renaissance period, there was relative progress in medical discovery in the area of anatomy. However, the progress of medicine in this area was limited due to the same treatments being used for diseases as in the Middle Ages, and it can be said that overall there was little progress in medicine during the Renaissance period.
One reason why it can be argued why there was little progress in medicine during the Renaissance is because there was no progress in treatments. The idea of the 4 humours remained an accepted idea. This was the theory that humours existed as liquids within the body and were identified as blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. The treatments that had previously been used on patients (bloodletting and leeching) continued to be used. The evidence shows that treatments used in the Renaissance were dangerous, as not only is there the risk of losing too much blood, which leads to a dangerous drop in blood pressure and even cardiac arrest, but people who are already sick take their chances with infection or anaemia. These practices were widely used in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years ago, which shows that there were no new treatments in the Renaissance, and therefore no progress.
One reason why it can be argued that there was progress in medicine during the Renaissance is because there was lots of progress in the area of anatomy. William Harvey was very important in making new discoveries; he explained that the heart was like a pump, and blood flows/circulates around the body. As a consequence, it meant that Galen’s theory was proved wrong, as according to Galen’s incorrect theory, the blood did not return to the liver or the heart. Harvey's discovery also proved that the heart didn't 'burn' blood, but that it circulated the body instead. This makes the discovery significant because it showed the error in the treatment of bloodletting, the error being letting blood out of the body would lead to excess blood loss, which would be hard for the body to replace, and in turn lead to all sorts of complications. Although it can be argued that this was a significant medical discovery, it can’t be disputed that this didn’t lead to anything during the Renaissance, in the sense that it didn’t lead to the quality of treatments improving, such alternative treatments to bleeding (which was highly dangerous), Harvey’s was just a discovery and it wasn’t until years after that all medical professionals believed Harvey’s theory over Galen’s, and used it to change treatments. Therefore, this wasn’t really progress in medicine during Renaissance.
Overall, despite the Renaissance bringing about new attitudes towards medicine, I would agree that there was still a lack of progress in medicine in the Renaissance. The small amount of progress there was was limited to a small area of medicine (anatomy), and there was no progress in medical treatments, with hundreds of years old methods being used. Even William Harvey himself still prescribed bleeding to his patients, which shows how there was a lack of progress during the Renaissance period. There was still poor quality of medical treatments, with patients still being subjected highly dangerous treatments. Therefore, it simply can’t be argued that there was significant progress in medicine in the Renaissance.
0
reply
ryan.s0le
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by average_human)
Can anyone give me tips on how to improve this history essay

During the Renaissance period, there was relative progress in medical discovery in the area of anatomy. However, the progress of medicine in this area was limited due to the same treatments being used for diseases as in the Middle Ages, and it can be said that overall there was little progress in medicine during the Renaissance period.
One reason why it can be argued why there was little progress in medicine during the Renaissance is because there was no progress in treatments. The idea of the 4 humours remained an accepted idea. This was the theory that humours existed as liquids within the body and were identified as blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. The treatments that had previously been used on patients (bloodletting and leeching) continued to be used. The evidence shows that treatments used in the Renaissance were dangerous, as not only is there the risk of losing too much blood, which leads to a dangerous drop in blood pressure and even cardiac arrest, but people who are already sick take their chances with infection or anaemia. These practices were widely used in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years ago, which shows that there were no new treatments in the Renaissance, and therefore no progress.
One reason why it can be argued that there was progress in medicine during the Renaissance is because there was lots of progress in the area of anatomy. William Harvey was very important in making new discoveries; he explained that the heart was like a pump, and blood flows/circulates around the body. As a consequence, it meant that Galen’s theory was proved wrong, as according to Galen’s incorrect theory, the blood did not return to the liver or the heart. Harvey's discovery also proved that the heart didn't 'burn' blood, but that it circulated the body instead. This makes the discovery significant because it showed the error in the treatment of bloodletting, the error being letting blood out of the body would lead to excess blood loss, which would be hard for the body to replace, and in turn lead to all sorts of complications. Although it can be argued that this was a significant medical discovery, it can’t be disputed that this didn’t lead to anything during the Renaissance, in the sense that it didn’t lead to the quality of treatments improving, such alternative treatments to bleeding (which was highly dangerous), Harvey’s was just a discovery and it wasn’t until years after that all medical professionals believed Harvey’s theory over Galen’s, and used it to change treatments. Therefore, this wasn’t really progress in medicine during Renaissance.
Overall, despite the Renaissance bringing about new attitudes towards medicine, I would agree that there was still a lack of progress in medicine in the Renaissance. The small amount of progress there was was limited to a small area of medicine (anatomy), and there was no progress in medical treatments, with hundreds of years old methods being used. Even William Harvey himself still prescribed bleeding to his patients, which shows how there was a lack of progress during the Renaissance period. There was still poor quality of medical treatments, with patients still being subjected highly dangerous treatments. Therefore, it simply can’t be argued that there was significant progress in medicine in the Renaissance.
It's good. One thing I'd say is not to spare details, for example, when talking about the four humours just put the name 'Hippocrates' there, the small facts etc will get you marks. Also you can look at it from another angle, for example, what didn't they know then that would've had a greater effect on the progress of medicine? My history teacher tended to tell me to do three paragraphs proving a point and then a conclusion. So maybe a third paragraph on the lack of knowledge of germs, as that was discovered by Pasteur at a later date?
Just a thought. I hope this helps.
0
reply
average_human
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by ryan.s0le)
It's good. One thing I'd say is not to spare details, for example, when talking about the four humours just put the name 'Hippocrates' there, the small facts etc will get you marks. Also you can look at it from another angle, for example, what didn't they know then that would've had a greater effect on the progress of medicine? My history teacher tended to tell me to do three paragraphs proving a point and then a conclusion. So maybe a third paragraph on the lack of knowledge of germs, as that was discovered by Pasteur at a later date?
Just a thought. I hope this helps.
thanks this helped a lot
0
reply
ryan.s0le
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by average_human)
thanks this helped a lot
One more thing I just remembered is when you're writing a point or conclusion or something, my teacher told us to use powerful words. For example:
'It was vital...'
'Imperative'
etc.
I'm not doing History at A-level, but I got an 8 at GCSE (just so you know I'm not talking outta my ass)
Good luck with everything!
1
reply
shakila23
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 5 months ago
#5
What would you exactly say about the Hippocrates when talking about the Four Humours?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (21)
27.63%
As I expected (23)
30.26%
Harder (28)
36.84%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (4)
5.26%

Watched Threads

View All