How useful is this source to an historian studying the role of anesthetics in the development of surgery? (8 marks)
Step One
Ask yourself what is the source? When and why do you think it was produce? Use the voicethread above to help you.
Step Two
Now you can start to answer the question. What problems with surgery does the source suggest there was before the development of anesthetics.
Step Three
Finally for the smart part, use your own knowledge of anesthetics to suggest what problems of surgery the new developments really made.
Try to post your responses below this post (so other can share them) or write them out into your book.
Best of luck
Posts
16 comments:
I think this source is very useful to a historian who is studying what role anaesthetics played in terms of development in surgery.
First of all the source shows the patient during an amputation. It shows 4 men holding him down to the table and the surgeon works as fast as he can. This suggests that surgery was a quick process because without anaesthetics the patient was in excruciating pain. The coffins placed near the operating table also suggest that without anaesthetics the success rate of surgery was very low and most patients died from either the shock of the pain, excess bleeding, or infection after the surgery had been done. (The risk of infection is also shown as the men surrounding the patient are fully exposed to disease, as are the patients lying in their beds at the back). To a historian this would be very useful because they would be able to understand why surgery was not successful in the 19th century and therefore, would see the importance and impact of anaesthetics when they were first introduced by James Simpson.
On the other hand, the source may not be very reliable as it is an artists impression of surgery and may have been slightly exaggerated to get a point across. Also this scene many not have been the case in all hospitals and with all surgeons.
This source is fairly useful to a historian studying the role of anaesthetics in the development of surgery because from this source we can see the image of a very unpleasant and painful amputation taking place. This source has been produced to show what happens during amputation which is a lot of pain, most likely infection and blood loss, all the ingredients for a messy amputation. The early 19th century is the time when this source was produced, this is before Simpson's invention of chloroform in 1847, therefore anaesthetics must not of been used to ease the unimaginable pain for the patient; suggesting a very awful picture of surgery without anaesthetics. The period of time this source produced, suggests it was also before plastic surgery was invented so there was no chance of a prosthetic leg as another option. This source has a very shaded tone to the image, suggesting to the historian that surgery was a very gloomy affair. In the background there is four large men holding down the patient which shows he is suffering and struggling a great deal. The event doesn't also look good, as it looks like the surgeons are not very successful, because of the stack of coffins to the front of the image, suggesting many people die from surgery. To the back of the image there is some patients awaiting surgery, and with the coffins and the patient in surgery, the future for them certainly doesn't look to be positive, the faces of these patients in the hospital beds match this prediction. The main three problems of surgery before the development of anaesthetics were pain, infection and blood loss, which were major reasons for death after surgery as any people died from the shock of the pain, others died from the infection which entered the wound, and others lost a lot of blood, suggesting Pare's ligature theory wasn't used and they were using old methods by simply sawing the limb off. Despite the development of the drug, many problems still occurred after 1847, the year of Simpson’s discovery of chloroform. For example, a 15 year old girl under surgery took the drug and died from the use of it, so the main question from this event was did it really work? Another example is religious views, they were against the drug terribly as they believed you should be able to feel the birth of a new child from god and you shouldn't interfere with that. A positive did come out of the drug though as Queen Victoria used the drug during the birth of her eighth child and found it very soothing and calming, a strange mixture of feelings to describe birth in that era. Therefore although there was a development in anaesthetics and it was positive in parts e.g. childbirth, it was also negative too e.g. surgery, but what we do not know is whether it did work on other people in surgery. In conclusion I believe that this image is a little helpful to the historian studying the role of anaesthetics in the development of surgery, as he can see what surgery is like without anaesthetics and the effect of that.
The source shows an interpretation of surgery in the early 19th Century, before anaesthetics were discovered in 1847 when Harvey Williams Cushing developed chloroform. The source shows surgery as unpleasant and also extremely dangerous, we know this portrayal is true as surgery itself was very dangerous as most patients died on the operating table from excessive blood loss and of course, anaesthetics had not yet been developed meaning that patients rarely survived the pain which is suggested by the coffins in the bottom left hand corner of the source. To help this, surgeons attempted to speed up the process of amputation therefore causing less pain. However as a result, amputations were much less precise and a whole lot more messy.
The source also shows numerous other patients lined up waiting for their own limbs to be amputated,which is quite a disturbing thought. It also shows that operating theatres weren't very well prevented from germs in the atmosphere, and were performed in the living environment of other patients.
This source is useful as it creates an impression of problems before anaesthetics in the early 19th Century, and we know these representations are true by facts which we gather from other sources.
However, the sources usefulness is affected by it's reliability. The source is an artist impression of an operating theatre, therefore the representations might not be accurate, as if to dramatise the image and the source doesnt explain how anaesthetics helped surgery develop, also what the exact effect was (good or bad.)
All of these points, in turn affect the sources usefulness.
Chloee (':
This source is quite useful to an historian studying the role of anaesthetics in the development of surgery as it shows what it would look like in an operating theatre in 1870. The source paints a negative picture of surgery in the late 17th century firstly by the dull colours used which could be showing how grim surgery was before anaesthetics. It is evident that the patient is suffering from a lot of pain from his facial expressions and how the men are restraining him. I know that people often died purely from the pain of amputation before anaesthetics which emphasises how important they were in the development of surgery. In the foreground of the source, there are some coffins which suggest how many operations resulted in death; this is useful as it shows how important anaesthetics were to be in surgery. The saw the doctor is using to amputate the patient’s leg just proves how dangerous and unpleasant surgery was and the pain it inflicted. This also link with the problem of infection and blood loss in surgery which lead to many deaths. The patients lined up waiting to have an operation can witness the operation they are about to face and by their expressions it doesn’t look positive. This is useful to an historian as it tells us how the patients felt about surgery before 1847, when chloroform was discovered.
However, this source also lacks in usefulness as it is a cartoon so it may not be a reliable piece of evidence. The source does show some of the problems with surgery before anaesthetics; it does however not explain the role anaesthetics had in the development of surgery making it less useful to an historian studying that.
This source shows a man having his leg amputated. When studying the source I first noticed that the patient was being held down by four men I can interpret from this that he was in excruciating pain, making this a key problem before the developments of anaesthetics. This would help when studying anaesthetics because it would give a difference in before anaesthetics and after and show the difference of feeling the pain. In the background of the source there are other patients waiting for their operation This may have made the surroundings of the operation unhygienic causing the patient having the operation more likely to have caught infection. Making this a problem because operations had to be done so quickly as there was nothing to numb the pain so everyone had to be waiting around in case it was their turn next. Also at the bottom of the source there are some coffins, this suggest that people have died whilst having this operation, making that a useful fact when studying anaesthetics because you could find out how many patients died before anaesthetics were discovered and how many after anaesthetics were discovered. I think this source was produced before anaesthetics or just as anaesthetics were being discovered to show the public how bad operations were and to encourage people to do something about it. However from my own knowledge I know that when anaesthetics started to be used they weren’t accepted by doctors and the general public straight away. For example, religion was very much against anaesthetics because they believed that god created pain and humans should feel it. Doctors were scared of using anaesthetics because they thought that if they gave the patient too much they wouldn’t wake up. War also apposed to the development of anaesthetics as army officers believed that men should feel pain to show their strength. In conclusion I think that this source is useful for someone studying anaesthetics because they can study how things changed within the process of no anaesthetics, to discovering them, to arguments over them and them now being used as an everyday essential.
The source shows an the operation of a leg amputation taking place in the early 19th century,this was before simpson's invention of chloroform.I think this source was produced to show what surgery was like before the use of anasthetics,it looks like an artisits sketch or drawing,possibly from a newspaper or article.But we can not be sure if this source is reliable to use or not because we do not have a ny definite background information about the source.It does not tell us who drew the picture ,why they drew it or a definite date at which it was drawn, this means we can not rule out the possiblity that it is a biased picture.If it was produced after the invention of chloroform. it could be trying to show the people who opposed the use of anasthetics that it was needed as sugery was so horrible. These consisting of christians as they thought it was better to be in pain as god invented pain.Also people like John hall of the crimean war who also opposed Simpsons discovery of chloroform because a man was better of screaming to his grave than sielently slipping away.This however was contradicted by queen Victoria,who used chloroform whilst giving birth to her tenth child.She described its effects as `delightful',this later increased chloroforms popularity.
This source is fairly useful to a historian studying the role of anasthetics in surgery because it paints a rather grim picture of what surgery was actually like before anasthetics were used.
The main problems with surgery were pain,bloodloss and infection.All of these problems are shown in the soruce.For example the patient is obhviously in al;ot of pain as he is being restrained and pinned down by four other men,this often made it difficult for the surgeon as the patient was probably writhing in pain which ment the surgeons had to be quick ,this was because lots of patients died from the shock of the pain but many surgens made mistakes because of the rush.I know that surgeons wore there own clothes and these would not be washed or sterilized between operations as some surgeons had lucky coats or jackets. In the source there are coffins in the foreground,this would hardley bring hope to the patients as they would of witnessed many deaths as they can see the operation from their hospital beds,knowing that it was nearly their turn and knowing one of those coffins may be reserved for them.
If you look closley in the background there looks to be a post mortem being carried out,this probably means that the surgeons did not have much hope either and predicting many people to die during the operation.
Overall i think this source is useful but like i said at the beggining we can not not tell whether this source is reliable enough.It also does not show the development of anasthetics that were to come in the future,anasthetics such as laughing gas,ether and simpsons chloroform.
I think this source could be of use to a historian studying the roles of anaesthetics throughout the development of surgery. The source shows that people often died during surgery, because of the coffins piled up in the foregrounds. This is also linked with surgery being very dangerous and being a last resort. The patient would have been in such pain in the operation, because the source is from the early 19th Century- before Simpson's discovery of Chloroform in 1847- so we know the patient wouldn't have had an effective anaesthetic to ease the pain, and therefore 4 men are required to hold the patient down.
However, there are alot of things the Source doesn't tell us, such as what operation the patient was having, which limits it's usefulness. Also, the source’s reliability is questionable, because we do not know who the author is, or the purpose behind it.
In conclusion, I believe that this Source is useful to historians, because it gives an idea of what surgery was like in the early C19th, and what it was like for patients without anaesthetic. It shows what people at the time thought about surgery
This source is quite useful for a hisotrian studying the role of anaethetic in the development of surgery because it shows that the surgeon can work easily on the patient while they are under anaethetic,it also shows that many people died because of the coffins.Anaesthetic was a big impact on surgery because it allowed the surgeon to work effectively on the patient with out them dieing of pain or blood loss,also they don’t have to hold the patient down or try operating on them when they were moving around .James Simpson First discovered chloroform but many people were scared to use it and doctors refused to use it.Queen Victoria expreienced it during the birth of her eighth child and many people started to trust it more after she used it.This source isnt very useful because it shows the patient being operated on but it doesn’t show if the operation was succesfull,it shows rows of coffins which could suggest that the arstist was against anaeasthetic because he is telling people if you have anaestheic you will die.This could be bias because the arstist could be against anaesthtic.
i think this source is extremely useful to a hstorian who is studying the role of anaestetics as the source show someone having a leg amputated and shows four men having to hold him down to make sure he does not make the surgeons slice ascute also it shows some patients waiting for surgery and you can see the gloomy look on their faces ws they realise what awaits.also there are coffins piled on top of each other showing that the death rate was high, all of these factors i believe this was a propaganda poster of some kind but still even though it is probably exaggerated it shows the publics fear towards surgery. Showing tht anaestetics are probably just what they needed to boost confidence on surgery. This has shown me that this source is most probably unreliable.
I think this source is useful to an historian who is studying what role anaesthetics the development of surgery.I think that the source was made because it was to show people what would happen to them if they were put into hospital and if they would be treated ok but they would not.The patients would die from infection after surgery or loss of blood.The patients would sufffer from the pain from the amputation and that was why all these people were trying to help the patient from suffering the effects of getting a limb amputated they would find either and later go on to the anaesthetics and that would relife the pain without any other problems
I think that this source is uselful to an historian whos studying anaesthetics. The source shows a patient during surgery of amputation, theres 4men who are holding him down which shows that there must of been a lot of pain during the surgery. The surgeon is working as fast as he can to try stop causing problems such as shock during the surgery but without anaesthetic this was very unlikely. Theres coffins at the side of the operating bed, this shows that the rates of success of surgery was very low before anaesthetics as they usually died of, pain, infection or bleeding. Infection was also very high as theres other patients along th back of the room who will be giving out infections. This source would help a historian see how surgery befor anaesthetics were very dangerous and unsuccessful. Also it would help show the big impact Simpson had in the future with chloroform. On the other hand the source may be slighly biast as the artist who drew this might be exagerating what happened in surgery and this may not be the same in all hospitals.
The source is basically a cartoon drawing of what seems a amputation of the leg probably done before the use/re-discovery of anaesthetics. I think it was drawn to put an negative impression on surgery; this from the way the doctors are holding the patient down (this could hint towards the patient doesn't want to be there or the pain/distress the patient could be under)
So this could be fairly useful for someone studying the effects of anaesthetics. As it shows surgery before the common use of anaesthetics. As it shows the patient being held down by four doctors including the amputer which shows one of the major problems within surgery - pain. Also the uncleaniness of the operating room presents a high risk of infection to the patient that they are amputating on and the other patients in the ward aswell the empty coffins on the side of the drawing show little expectations of succession of the procedure.
But furthermore this source may become useful but may become unreliable as it only shows a artistic impression of one hospital so some of the areas introduced in the drawing may of been exagerated or wasn't really the case in other hospitals. However it could also show what common sterotypes for surgery was.
So in conclusion I believe that this drawing would become useful to a historian as she could use this source to compare with other sources post use of anaesthetics. Also in evidence to show the importance of the discovery of anaesthetics and how it contributed to the advancement of surgery.
Ling :D
This source is quite useful to a historian studying the role of anaesthetics, as it shows the problems and risks of surgery before the development of chloroform in 1847: pain, infection and bleeding. The source shows an operation taking place without the use of anaesthetics, represented by the pain on the patients face, and the fact four men are needed to hold the patient down. The infection and lack of hygiene is shown by the shaded area around the operation, in comparison to the white of the rest of the cartoon. The surgeon had to work fast in operations such as these, as blood loss was a deadly risk at this time, and if patients hadn’t died of shock before then, they only had a limited time before they ran out of blood, which is why surgery was performed quickly and often inaccurately.
This source does not represent surgery as being successful, as shown by the coffins in the foreground, either filled or waiting for the next victim, and also by the expressions of the patients in the background, waiting for their own operations. However, even after 1847, death rates didn’t decrease, as dosage was a major problem of chloroform, either too little, in which the patient would wake up half way through the operation, or too much, where the patient would not wake up at all.
This source is not reliable, as it was only a cartoon, and might be biased. It is also very general, only one operation in one hospital. It can still, however, reflect the public opinion at that time.
i think that this source is useful because it gives us great insite to the way surgery was performed before the use of anesthetics, the coffins that are stacked next to the patients do not show us that there was a high survival rate, possibly due to infection, passing out from show or bleeding to death, the patient required 4 large men to hold him down showing us that the pain was extreamly intense, this tells us that surgery before the discovery of anesthetics was risky, dangerous and had a low survival rate, which we can therefore conclude that the dicovery of anesthetics has benefited surgery massivly, however, the source may be unreliable because it is only a cartoon, and therefore cannot be seen as soaly fact but an opinion of one person and not a large group.
I think that the source would be useful to a historian, but not reliable when showing the developments in surgery. In the painting we see coffins surrounding the surgery which is taking place this indicates that there was a high death rate occuring in the 17th century.Infection also lead to this due to the attention of hygiene as they would have been wearing clothes which they had been worn while taking place in other surgeries.Bleeding also caused death rates to become higher as surgeons where using incorrect tools and methods of sealing of the blood.Because anesthetics had not been fully discoverd yet, as Simpson discoverd Chloroform in 1847. We see pain was a big occurance in death rates as in the source we see 4 men having to restrain the patient this shows there was a huge affect on the patient as they would have been in excrutiating pain and because there was a lack of anaesthetics from my own knowledge patients tended to die of shock through the surgery aswell as surgeons tried to carry out the opperation in a time limit decreasing there care as they where doing it. We also see a women attempting the amputation with a saw. This would be useful to a historian as you can see technology was another factor to appear in the 17th century.Even though Simpson had discoverd a anaethetic it did not increase the death rate completley as we know there was a recourring doasge problem when given to patients. However its popularity did increase when it was used by Queen Victoria when giving birth to her eighth child. Overall i do question the sources reliablity as it was a painting/cartoon which could have been over exaggerated. Especially by the way the source is shown to us in a black and white form to create emphasis on the atmosphere in a surgery. Though the source also does not tell us if any other surgeries took place like this and if the methods used consisted in others aswell as the number of sucsesful number of patients who survived these methods of treatment before and after Simpsons discovery.But it is useful towards an historian.
I think this source is useful to an historian who is studying what role anaesthetics the development of surgery.
Firstly the surce shows the patient in pain during the operation i can tell this because men are holding him down so he dosent struggle while the surgeon works as careful and as fast as he can.
The coffins next to the table show surgery dident go to well without anesthetics because the patient could die from excrutiating pain or blood loss or infection.
Also it may not be reliable because its a cartoon and could be exaggerted to show people how bad surgery was back then.
Post a Comment