Diseases of the Past and Their Modern Names Essay

Introduction

A significant number of historical figures have been assigned modern diseases. For instance, it is believed that Immanuel Kant suffered from Alzheimer’s, Hamlet was plagued with melancholia, Van Gogh bore the brunt of various mental illnesses, and Catherine the Great was riddled with syphilis¹. There are significant risks associated with the projection of contemporary diagnoses to historical figures. Although studying the history of diseases and epidemics of the past is valuable for identification, one must be aware of the risks of arriving at speculative conclusions due to a limited understanding of the contextual details.

Risks of Retrospective Diagnoses

The risks of retrospective diagnoses include the fact that individuals may select features that suit their hypotheses while others rely heavily on speculation to make conclusions. The dangers of such an endeavor were demonstrated in 1969 when Richard Hunter and Ida Macalpine wrongly diagnosed King George III with porphyria². This diagnosis was later used in a play by Alan Bennett and a feature film that was released in 1994³. The conclusion regarding King’s condition was reached after the assessment of physician records detailing his illness. It is likely that the researchers picked symptoms that suited their desired diagnosis instead of trying to derive accurate data accounting for the context and environment⁴. It is also worth considering that the inability to physically examine such patients adds to the complexity of finding the correct diagnosis. In addition, the lack of knowledge in the past meant that notes documenting illnesses featured a significant degree of conspiracy theories and speculation⁵.

Limits of Retrospective Diagnoses

The limits of projecting backward in time in modern terms are rooted in the fact that medical knowledge undergoes a continuous process of evolution over time. The definition of diseases is heavily reliant on prevailing customs, environmental factors, nutrition, work conditions, and medical practices⁶. These limiting factors often affect patients, and they are almost impossible to trace or contextualize. Examining of the degree to which social circumstances affect diseases demonstrates the complexity of applying modern illnesses to the past. Retrospective diagnostic procedures are largely unreliable given the fact that they rely on second-hand evidence, and there is a distinct lack of access to primary sources. In addition, it is often difficult to understand the disease in its context, as is the understanding of the impact of patient consent at the time of documentation.

Potential Benefits of Retrospective Diagnoses

However, there are some benefits associated with the exploration of past illnesses. The examination of past illnesses serves as a unique window through which the examination of past medical practices and perceptions may be conducted⁷. It is an effective way of attempting to analyze ancient and unfamiliar measures of understanding diseases. For instance, ergotism, an illness resulting from the ingestion of a fungus, is believed to have been the cause of the illnesses that triggered the Salem witch trials of 1662⁸. Witchcraft was thought to be the cause of a strange illness that plagued children in Salem. The disease was characterized by irregular speech, convulsions, and strange gestures, which are identical to the symptoms one gets after ingesting the fungus. The weather conditions and the physical environment in Salem were suitable for the growth of ergot⁹. It is vital to consider the social and cultural contexts in which the conditions occurred in order to gain a full appreciation of the illnesses. The consideration of personal reflexivity regarding the forms of diseases that are likely to be projected to the past is important.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are serious risks of arriving at speculative conclusions due to a limited understanding of the contextual details, even if studying the history of epidemics is useful for the identification of diseases. The risks include conspiracy theories, speculation, and historical data alteration, whereas the limitations of conducting such assessments are rooted in the lack of contextual information. However, the benefits lie in the effectiveness of attempting to analyze ancient and unfamiliar measures of understanding diseases. Thus, it is important that a researcher considers the social and cultural contexts in which the conditions took place.

Bibliography

Edge, Joanne “Diagnosing the Past.” Wellcome Collection. Web.

Jamieson, Anna. “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.” The Polyphony. Web.

Footnotes

1. Anna Jamieson. 2020. “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.” The Polyphony. Web.
2. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
3. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
4. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
5. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
6. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
7. Jamieson, “The Perils and Possibilities of Retrospective Diagnosis.”
8. Joanne Edge. 2018. “Diagnosing the Past.” Wellcome Collection. Web.
9. Edge, “Diagnosing the Past.”