What Mark would you give my Medicine through time essay?
There was little progress in medicine in the Middle Ages. How far do you agree? (16 marks)
- work of barber surgeons
- bloodletting Purging
I agree that there was little progress in the Middle Ages. During this time period, the church had a massive influence over people so there wasn’t a lot of new ideas being made in this time. People had a very limited knowledge of human anatomy and people’s unwilling attitudes to change made it very difficult for new emerging ideas and progress.
In the Middle Ages, Galen held undisputed authority over medicine, his theories becoming known and practiced worldwide. The church who was the most influential organisation approved and even promoted Galen’s ideas which led to his Theories becoming apart of common knowledge in medicine. Even though Galen did help progress in medicine in some ways such as adding knowledge to infectious disease and pharmacology, he made a detrimental impact to medicine in other ways which ultimately hindered progress in an extreme way. Theories of his including, that blood carried the life spirit, the liver produced blood and that the human jaw bone was made up two pieces as well as many more delayed the understanding of the human body. It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way. However these ideas were welcomed and were widely used which discouraged further research in physiology. Even if Galen had good intentions, his misinformation as well as the church’s encouragement completely stopped the flow of progress for a long time and ended up hurting and killing lots of patients.
The most common form of treatment in medieval medicine was phlebotomy otherwise known as bloodletting. This form of treatment was a common practise for a long time which slowed down progress as people were reluctant to try any new treatments that may have arose during these times. People stuck with what they knew and so phlebotomy was used for hundreds of years. Bloodletting consisted of a barber surgeon cutting a vein in someone’s arm or using leeches to suck their blood or to scratch their skin and use hot cups to suck the blood out. People believed that diseases were in blood and if they suck all the infected blood out then they would be cured and left with the good blood. This wasn’t a good idea however and yet again this was due to misinformation and peoples lack of understanding because of the churches power. This often led to people dying as too much blood was taken out of them, or it led to infections due to the lack of hygiene and care which a lot of the time would end up killing the patient. Even with the amount of deaths this form of treatment caused, people still believed it worked and it was still widely accepted as an actual form of treatment well into the renaissance period clearly showing little progress.
Another reason why there was such little progress was people’s attitudes to new ideas. People didn’t really accept anything as truth unless it was approved by the church which led to little progress as the church didn’t accept many ideas and the ones it did has to fit into the teachings of the bible so therefore usually were ineffective. However after the Black Death things did start to change. It became clear to people after the Black Death in 1348 that people died or survived from the plague for no reason at all. Cures either worked or they didn’t - nothing was consistent. This led to physicians to start questioning their practises. Many leading medical theoreticians died during the plague which opened a new path for new ideas. Also people started to turn to practical surgeons. As surgery rose in popularity, more research was done of the human body and more people wanted to learn about anatomy. This resulted in a better understanding. Additionally, dissections which wasn’t allowed on humans due to the church’s belief that you body has to be intact to go to heaven were pursued more often and gained support form public authorities.
Ultimately, I agree with the statement. Whilst some progress was made in understanding the human body, the church’s power and influence over people made it difficult for any breakthroughs to occur. The theories which were used were mostly incorrect and without the ability and knowledge to prove that these theories were ineffective, nothing could be done and progress was difficult to make. People were also very untrusting and didn’t want to be experimented on so physicians stuck to what they had been taught even if they thought the theories and practises were incorrect.
- work of barber surgeons
- bloodletting Purging
I agree that there was little progress in the Middle Ages. During this time period, the church had a massive influence over people so there wasn’t a lot of new ideas being made in this time. People had a very limited knowledge of human anatomy and people’s unwilling attitudes to change made it very difficult for new emerging ideas and progress.
In the Middle Ages, Galen held undisputed authority over medicine, his theories becoming known and practiced worldwide. The church who was the most influential organisation approved and even promoted Galen’s ideas which led to his Theories becoming apart of common knowledge in medicine. Even though Galen did help progress in medicine in some ways such as adding knowledge to infectious disease and pharmacology, he made a detrimental impact to medicine in other ways which ultimately hindered progress in an extreme way. Theories of his including, that blood carried the life spirit, the liver produced blood and that the human jaw bone was made up two pieces as well as many more delayed the understanding of the human body. It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way. However these ideas were welcomed and were widely used which discouraged further research in physiology. Even if Galen had good intentions, his misinformation as well as the church’s encouragement completely stopped the flow of progress for a long time and ended up hurting and killing lots of patients.
The most common form of treatment in medieval medicine was phlebotomy otherwise known as bloodletting. This form of treatment was a common practise for a long time which slowed down progress as people were reluctant to try any new treatments that may have arose during these times. People stuck with what they knew and so phlebotomy was used for hundreds of years. Bloodletting consisted of a barber surgeon cutting a vein in someone’s arm or using leeches to suck their blood or to scratch their skin and use hot cups to suck the blood out. People believed that diseases were in blood and if they suck all the infected blood out then they would be cured and left with the good blood. This wasn’t a good idea however and yet again this was due to misinformation and peoples lack of understanding because of the churches power. This often led to people dying as too much blood was taken out of them, or it led to infections due to the lack of hygiene and care which a lot of the time would end up killing the patient. Even with the amount of deaths this form of treatment caused, people still believed it worked and it was still widely accepted as an actual form of treatment well into the renaissance period clearly showing little progress.
Another reason why there was such little progress was people’s attitudes to new ideas. People didn’t really accept anything as truth unless it was approved by the church which led to little progress as the church didn’t accept many ideas and the ones it did has to fit into the teachings of the bible so therefore usually were ineffective. However after the Black Death things did start to change. It became clear to people after the Black Death in 1348 that people died or survived from the plague for no reason at all. Cures either worked or they didn’t - nothing was consistent. This led to physicians to start questioning their practises. Many leading medical theoreticians died during the plague which opened a new path for new ideas. Also people started to turn to practical surgeons. As surgery rose in popularity, more research was done of the human body and more people wanted to learn about anatomy. This resulted in a better understanding. Additionally, dissections which wasn’t allowed on humans due to the church’s belief that you body has to be intact to go to heaven were pursued more often and gained support form public authorities.
Ultimately, I agree with the statement. Whilst some progress was made in understanding the human body, the church’s power and influence over people made it difficult for any breakthroughs to occur. The theories which were used were mostly incorrect and without the ability and knowledge to prove that these theories were ineffective, nothing could be done and progress was difficult to make. People were also very untrusting and didn’t want to be experimented on so physicians stuck to what they had been taught even if they thought the theories and practises were incorrect.
Doctors back in the day were cool, with those bird masks with the hat and the canes. Nowadays they wear these lame scrubs and stupid face masks.
If I could go back to the beginning of covid, I would 100% get one of those plague doctor masks.
Also, the prognosis half the time was that you would die if they didn't cut of one of your arms or put 200 leeches on you, and they could prescribe you cocaine.
If I could go back to the beginning of covid, I would 100% get one of those plague doctor masks.
Also, the prognosis half the time was that you would die if they didn't cut of one of your arms or put 200 leeches on you, and they could prescribe you cocaine.
(edited 1 year ago)
Firstly, you've limited yourself by not including counter argument, which will help hit the 'analytical' bit of the mark scheme. Whilst it might seem like it reduces the consistency of your argument, as long as you constantly link to the focus and explain why it doesn't aid your argument, it can be a good way of getting the top marks.
In most questions, you can see how the examiner is trying to hint at what point they'd put in the answer: the example of barber surgeon could be used to show how there was some progress in the medicine as it became more accessible to poorer people and in some ways, encouraged early investigation of the body. However, you could go on to say how this was limited as barber surgeons sometimes did more harm than good as they created further complications, or just reinforced the practice of bloodletting which did not help progress medicine. This would still be consistent with your overall judgement.
Likewise, you can even group up the points they've given you because a lot of the time, you want your blocks/paragraphs to be broad and a whole paragraph on blood-letting isn't as effective as one that combined barbers surgeons and blood letting and one on the influence of the church and Galen's ideas and another on attitudes, which can be linked to the case study of the Black death like you've already done.
I'd be careful about making claims like 'It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way.' because Galen's theories hindered the development of medical understanding, and this flawed understanding lead to physicians making incorrect diagnoses, followed by ineffective treatments, which caused increased death. As you can see, whilst it may seem obvious, you have to explain your line of argument clearly instead of rushing to finish your point. This makes your answer more 'thoughtful' which is want the examiners want.
To add more complexity you can even argue that it was more so the church's restrictions rather than Galen's theories that truly hindered medicine as Galen's theories themselves could have at least been a starting point into further investigation but it was the church that prevented this from happening by enforcing censorship.
But overall, your answer is a really strong one and is certainly has a sustained argument throughout. You didn't fall into the trap of story-telling which is great, but make sure you analyse more thoroughly as this is where you'll get most of your marks.
In most questions, you can see how the examiner is trying to hint at what point they'd put in the answer: the example of barber surgeon could be used to show how there was some progress in the medicine as it became more accessible to poorer people and in some ways, encouraged early investigation of the body. However, you could go on to say how this was limited as barber surgeons sometimes did more harm than good as they created further complications, or just reinforced the practice of bloodletting which did not help progress medicine. This would still be consistent with your overall judgement.
Likewise, you can even group up the points they've given you because a lot of the time, you want your blocks/paragraphs to be broad and a whole paragraph on blood-letting isn't as effective as one that combined barbers surgeons and blood letting and one on the influence of the church and Galen's ideas and another on attitudes, which can be linked to the case study of the Black death like you've already done.
I'd be careful about making claims like 'It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way.' because Galen's theories hindered the development of medical understanding, and this flawed understanding lead to physicians making incorrect diagnoses, followed by ineffective treatments, which caused increased death. As you can see, whilst it may seem obvious, you have to explain your line of argument clearly instead of rushing to finish your point. This makes your answer more 'thoughtful' which is want the examiners want.
To add more complexity you can even argue that it was more so the church's restrictions rather than Galen's theories that truly hindered medicine as Galen's theories themselves could have at least been a starting point into further investigation but it was the church that prevented this from happening by enforcing censorship.
But overall, your answer is a really strong one and is certainly has a sustained argument throughout. You didn't fall into the trap of story-telling which is great, but make sure you analyse more thoroughly as this is where you'll get most of your marks.
Original post by Roses.Are.Red
Firstly, you've limited yourself by not including counter argument, which will help hit the 'analytical' bit of the mark scheme. Whilst it might seem like it reduces the consistency of your argument, as long as you constantly link to the focus and explain why it doesn't aid your argument, it can be a good way of getting the top marks.
In most questions, you can see how the examiner is trying to hint at what point they'd put in the answer: the example of barber surgeon could be used to show how there was some progress in the medicine as it became more accessible to poorer people and in some ways, encouraged early investigation of the body. However, you could go on to say how this was limited as barber surgeons sometimes did more harm than good as they created further complications, or just reinforced the practice of bloodletting which did not help progress medicine. This would still be consistent with your overall judgement.
Likewise, you can even group up the points they've given you because a lot of the time, you want your blocks/paragraphs to be broad and a whole paragraph on blood-letting isn't as effective as one that combined barbers surgeons and blood letting and one on the influence of the church and Galen's ideas and another on attitudes, which can be linked to the case study of the Black death like you've already done.
I'd be careful about making claims like 'It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way.' because Galen's theories hindered the development of medical understanding, and this flawed understanding lead to physicians making incorrect diagnoses, followed by ineffective treatments, which caused increased death. As you can see, whilst it may seem obvious, you have to explain your line of argument clearly instead of rushing to finish your point. This makes your answer more 'thoughtful' which is want the examiners want.
To add more complexity you can even argue that it was more so the church's restrictions rather than Galen's theories that truly hindered medicine as Galen's theories themselves could have at least been a starting point into further investigation but it was the church that prevented this from happening by enforcing censorship.
But overall, your answer is a really strong one and is certainly has a sustained argument throughout. You didn't fall into the trap of story-telling which is great, but make sure you analyse more thoroughly as this is where you'll get most of your marks.
In most questions, you can see how the examiner is trying to hint at what point they'd put in the answer: the example of barber surgeon could be used to show how there was some progress in the medicine as it became more accessible to poorer people and in some ways, encouraged early investigation of the body. However, you could go on to say how this was limited as barber surgeons sometimes did more harm than good as they created further complications, or just reinforced the practice of bloodletting which did not help progress medicine. This would still be consistent with your overall judgement.
Likewise, you can even group up the points they've given you because a lot of the time, you want your blocks/paragraphs to be broad and a whole paragraph on blood-letting isn't as effective as one that combined barbers surgeons and blood letting and one on the influence of the church and Galen's ideas and another on attitudes, which can be linked to the case study of the Black death like you've already done.
I'd be careful about making claims like 'It led to lots of people dying as these ideas were clearly incorrect and didn’t help in any way.' because Galen's theories hindered the development of medical understanding, and this flawed understanding lead to physicians making incorrect diagnoses, followed by ineffective treatments, which caused increased death. As you can see, whilst it may seem obvious, you have to explain your line of argument clearly instead of rushing to finish your point. This makes your answer more 'thoughtful' which is want the examiners want.
To add more complexity you can even argue that it was more so the church's restrictions rather than Galen's theories that truly hindered medicine as Galen's theories themselves could have at least been a starting point into further investigation but it was the church that prevented this from happening by enforcing censorship.
But overall, your answer is a really strong one and is certainly has a sustained argument throughout. You didn't fall into the trap of story-telling which is great, but make sure you analyse more thoroughly as this is where you'll get most of your marks.
Hey thanks for your feedback! I’ll take what you have said on board. Would my third paragraph not be a considered a counter point? I mentioned that physicians did start to change their opinions however did I not make the conter argument clear enough? Thanks again!
Original post by Carenzaleah
Hey thanks for your feedback! I’ll take what you have said on board. Would my third paragraph not be a considered a counter point? I mentioned that physicians did start to change their opinions however did I not make the conter argument clear enough? Thanks again!
With history, clarity is key: you can have the most unique points and great analysis but this is no use if you aren't clear especially at GCSE. There are actually a few issues with your last paragraph, which is understandable if you have rushed it.
- The focus shifts suddenly from regression due to the church to progress from the black death. You have to pick a factor and stick to it, if you want to link factors you have explain how they link very clearly.
- If you intended it as a counter, you should have signposted accordingly with something like: 'despite the factors above, there was some evidence of progression in medicine due to [insert your factor]
-Likewise, you should also have a concluding line to every paragraph: if your running out of time, do a quick concluding sentence rather than add more info and then finish your conclusion.
Personally, I think the black death shows how ppl reverted back to old ideas highlighting how any improvements in medicine didn't actually have an impact. Or, if you wanted to use it anyways, I'd say that is showed progression in the governments involvement in public health as quarantines were introduced for the first time, which is a step in the right direction.
But there is no right answer in history, only a justified answer, which you have to clearly explain.
Hope this helps.
Original post by Roses.Are.Red
With history, clarity is key: you can have the most unique points and great analysis but this is no use if you aren't clear especially at GCSE. There are actually a few issues with your last paragraph, which is understandable if you have rushed it.
- The focus shifts suddenly from regression due to the church to progress from the black death. You have to pick a factor and stick to it, if you want to link factors you have explain how they link very clearly.
- If you intended it as a counter, you should have signposted accordingly with something like: 'despite the factors above, there was some evidence of progression in medicine due to [insert your factor]
-Likewise, you should also have a concluding line to every paragraph: if your running out of time, do a quick concluding sentence rather than add more info and then finish your conclusion.
Personally, I think the black death shows how ppl reverted back to old ideas highlighting how any improvements in medicine didn't actually have an impact. Or, if you wanted to use it anyways, I'd say that is showed progression in the governments involvement in public health as quarantines were introduced for the first time, which is a step in the right direction.
But there is no right answer in history, only a justified answer, which you have to clearly explain.
Hope this helps.
- The focus shifts suddenly from regression due to the church to progress from the black death. You have to pick a factor and stick to it, if you want to link factors you have explain how they link very clearly.
- If you intended it as a counter, you should have signposted accordingly with something like: 'despite the factors above, there was some evidence of progression in medicine due to [insert your factor]
-Likewise, you should also have a concluding line to every paragraph: if your running out of time, do a quick concluding sentence rather than add more info and then finish your conclusion.
Personally, I think the black death shows how ppl reverted back to old ideas highlighting how any improvements in medicine didn't actually have an impact. Or, if you wanted to use it anyways, I'd say that is showed progression in the governments involvement in public health as quarantines were introduced for the first time, which is a step in the right direction.
But there is no right answer in history, only a justified answer, which you have to clearly explain.
Hope this helps.
Thanks a lot. So my biggest issue is not justifying my points enough? I’ll definitely work on that~~ thank you!
Original post by Carenzaleah
Thanks a lot. So my biggest issue is not justifying my points enough? I’ll definitely work on that~~ thank you!
Yes. I suppose claims and quick facts are an easy way to feel as though you're getting the marks as you are making a judgement but you need to remember it all has to flow and have a general direction. Not only is this key for any essay, it will make you stand out from those who just shove a bunch of irrelevant facts into a paragraph (which many do!).
A common misconception people have in history is that examiners mark point by point as they go through your answer. They don't. They read all of it first and judge the entire thing and place it into a band before giving you an actual mark. So make good points throughout and try to make each paragraph as consistent as possible, even if it means not sticking strictly to the points they've given you.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- GCSE History
- GCSE History Study Group 2022-2023
- EPQ - my dilemma
- A level revision 2024
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- EPQ deadlinesss
- What is Edexcel GCSE History like? And what was it like having it after Gcses?🙂
- How to study sociology in one year and resit 2 a levels
- EPQ for MEDICINE
- Spanish or Psychology A-level
- AQA Biology essay
- Which is better to study, A level classics or History????
- TO CURRENT OR FORMER YR12s and YR13s: What are some mistakes you made during your as
- biology, chemistry and history alevel combination ?
- Immerse Education essay competition 2022
- AQA A-Level Psychology Support for 2024 exams
- help with alevel options
- Improve from cdd to abb in a month
- I got all 9s in GCSEs 2022 - ask me anything
- A-Level English Comparitive Coursework
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
