News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by CamperBob2 on Sunday May 05, 2019 @03:43PM (#19834587)
Correct. No self-respecting "doctor" wanted anything to do with the messy business of surgery.

I found The Devil's Doctor by Philip Ball to be an interesting book on this sort of thing.

Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by glangdale on Sunday May 05, 2019 @05:10PM (#19835082)
This is more of a ex-British empire thing, but at least some surgeons I have heard of in Australia insist, among medical company, of being called "Mister" not "Doctor", to set them apart from "mere doctors".

I think this is a formal distinction in the UK, but in Australia I think both groups can be called Dr.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119265/

Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by monkeydreams on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:34PM (#19836409)
> but in Australia I think both groups can be called Dr.

They can be called Dr, but will respond with a snippy "Mr Smith" if you do it.

Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by sandworm101 on Sunday May 05, 2019 @05:51PM (#19835310)
It is also to do with the doctor-patient relationship. The surgeon-patient relationship is far more limited. A patient is refered to a surgeon by a doctor for a specific treatment.
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by Nursie on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:09PM (#19836321)
In the UK the 'Dr' title is dropped for a doctor who has risen to become a consultant. Never heard of it working that way for surgeons
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by codeulike on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:25AM (#19837465)
Are you sure? I've met lots of consultants who are titled Doctor.
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by Nursie on Tuesday May 07, 2019 @05:56AM (#19847929)
You might be right - could be the consultants I've encountered gave all been surgeons.
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by HarryHirsch on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:32PM (#19836401)
Considering that in the pre-medchem era (i.e. until 1935 when sulphonamides entered the field) surgery was the only field of medicine that actually worked, this is strange. Physicians could diagnose patients just fine since before the days of Papyrus Eber, but the treatment options were very limited.
Re:Killer Rabbits in Medieval Manuscripts by nickles on Monday May 06, 2019 @12:02AM (#19836767)
> Physicians could diagnose patients just fine since before the days of Papyrus Eber, but the treatment options were very limited.

Can you elaborate on this? Until germ theory and lesion theory, western medicine lacked the concept of etiology of disease, limiting the ability to accurately and consistently diagnose disease. Doctors operated within a Galenic framework and relied heavily, if not exclusively, on uroscopy for diagnosis (hence diabetes mellitus -- to pass through sweet urine).

> surgery was the only field of medicine that actually worked

"War is the only proper school for surgeons." -- Hippocrates

Doctors, following Hippocratic and Galenic traditions, would refuse to perform surgery, due to its usage of knives and causing harm to the patient. Even the study of anatomy by means of human dissection was discouraged until the 16th century, when Vesalius and others published their landmark works. Prior anatomical publications (such as those by Leonardo da Vinci) likely presented dissections of other animals as if they were human, due to the presence of structures such as the rete mirabile.

In the absence of antibiotics, surgery was a risky, and frequently lethal procedure. One surgery famously led to the death of 3 people. Before the advent of chloroform in the 1800s, there was no way for surgeons to effectively anesthetize subjects. Consequently, surgery was not looked upon favorably, nor considered a reliable medical practice.