daily experience satisfies us that bloodletting has a most salutary effect in many diseases, and is indeed the foremost among all the general remedial means: vitiated states and plethora of blood, are causes of a whole host of disease; and the timely evacuation of a certain quantity of the fluid frequently delivers patients from very dangerous diseases, and even from imminent death.[36]
The English scientist Henry Stubbe brought to the surface what would appear to be an obvious dilemma: How could one bleed to produce local effect if the blood circulated? Stubbe commented in 1671:
I do say, that no experienced Physician ever denied the operation of bloodletting though since the tenet of the Circulation of the Blood the manner how such an effect doth succeed admits of some dispute, and is obscure. We the silly followers of Galen and the Ancients do think it an imbecility of judgement, for any to desert an experienced practice, because he doth not comprehend in what manner it is effected.[37]
In the early nineteenth century the physiologist François Magendie (1783-1855), who argued against bloodletting, showed that the physiological effects of opening different veins was exactly the same, and therefore the choice of which vein to bleed did not affect the procedure.[38]
The first serious modern challenges to bloodletting were made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries under the leadership of the German alchemist Paracelsus and his Belgian follower, Van Helmont. The medical chemists or iatrochemists espoused explanations for and treatments of diseases based on chemical theories and practices. They believed that the state of the blood could best be regulated by administering the proper chemicals and drugs rather than by simply removing a portion of the blood. Iatrochemistry provided a substitution in the form of medicinals to quell the flow of blood for therapeutic purposes.[39]
The revival of Hippocratic medicine in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also led to questioning the efficacy of bloodletting. The Hippocratic treatises, while they occasionally mentioned bloodletting, generally stressed nature’s power of cure. This school of medicine advocated a return to clinical observation and a reduction of activist intervention. Treatments such as bloodletting, it was felt by the neo-Hippocratists, might merely serve to weaken the patient’s strength and hinder the healing processes of nature.[40]
A rival group of medical theorists also flourished in this period. The iatrophysicists, who concentrated on mechanical explanations of physiological events, remained adherents of bloodletting. Their support of the practice ensured its use at a time when the first substantial criticism of it arose.
Instrumentation and Techniques
Sharp thorns, roots, fish teeth, and sharpened stones were among the early implements used to let blood.[41] Venesection, one of the most frequently mentioned procedures in ancient medicine, and related procedures such as lancing abcesses, puncturing cavities containing fluids, and dissecting tissues, were all accomplished in the classical period and later with an instrument called the phlebotome. Phlebos is Greek for “vein,” while “tome” derives from temnein, meaning “to cut.” In Latin, “phlebotome” becomes “flebotome,” and in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript dating from A.D. 1000, the word “fleam” appears. The phlebotome, a type of lancet, was not described in any of the ancient literature, but its uses make it apparent that it was a sharp-pointed, double-edged, and straight-bladed cutting implement or scalpel similar to the type later used for splitting larger veins.[42]
Several early Roman examples of phlebotomes have been collected in European museums. One, now in the Cologne Museum, was made of steel with a square handle and blade of myrtle leaf shape. Another specimen, made of bronze, was uncovered in the house of the physician of Strada del Consulare of Pompeii. This specimen, now in the Naples Museum, is 8 cm long and 9 mm at the broadest part of the blade, and its handle bears a raised ring ornamentation.[43] A number of copies of Roman instruments have been made and some have passed into museum collections. Some of the copies were commissioned by Sir Henry Wellcome for the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum collection and the Howard Dittrick Historical Medical Museum in Cleveland. They emulate the size, color, and aged condition of the originals and make it very difficult for the inexpert to distinguish an original from its replica. It is, however, impossible to fully duplicate the patina of ancient bronze.[44] Seventeenth-century and later bloodletting instruments usually have not been copied.[45]