The history of modern anesthesia technology – A critical reappraisal (Part II) An international comparison of contemporary devices and of nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia (c. 1900–1930s)- recognizing another changing evidence-base

Q3 Arts and Humanities
M. Wulf M. Strätling
{"title":"The history of modern anesthesia technology – A critical reappraisal (Part II) An international comparison of contemporary devices and of nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia (c. 1900–1930s)- recognizing another changing evidence-base","authors":"M. Wulf M. Strätling","doi":"10.1016/j.janh.2020.07.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>This paper is the continuation (Part 2) of an extensive, critical reappraisal of the international historiography on modern anesthesia and its technology. The first paper of this series provided general definitions, backgrounds and an update on recent research on one aspect of this topic: the history of professionalization / specialization (Part 1).</span><span><sup>1</sup></span> <em>This</em> paper goes on to provide a first, international comparison of entire anesthesia devices and on the history of nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia (c. 1900–1930s). Results: A comparative chronology of internationally recognized milestones of entire anesthesia machines does <em>not</em> suggest significant differences between the nations of continental Europe on one side, or the USA and Britain on the other. The international historiography on one of the key techniques for which these devices were designed (nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia), is likewise demonstrably biased. These findings are further evidence that a frequently held hypothesis, which suggests national <em>dominances</em> in these fields, is incorrect. Contributing factors and wider contexts of this phenomenon can be further confirmed: These are an under-recognition of non-Anglo-American (particularly continental-European) and of primarily surgical contributions; contemporary international conflicts and inter-professional demarcation disputes. In addition, it can be shown that these phenomena had already started around the same time (c. 1900s–1930s). There also is evidence to suggest that they were at times reciprocal and quite deliberate. The author illustrates and argues that the currently prevalent historiography on modern anesthesia requires a thorough reassessment. This should be based on a perspective of internationalism and transdisciplinary reciprocity and should recognize much broader historical contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.janh.2020.07.010","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235245292030027X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper is the continuation (Part 2) of an extensive, critical reappraisal of the international historiography on modern anesthesia and its technology. The first paper of this series provided general definitions, backgrounds and an update on recent research on one aspect of this topic: the history of professionalization / specialization (Part 1).1 This paper goes on to provide a first, international comparison of entire anesthesia devices and on the history of nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia (c. 1900–1930s). Results: A comparative chronology of internationally recognized milestones of entire anesthesia machines does not suggest significant differences between the nations of continental Europe on one side, or the USA and Britain on the other. The international historiography on one of the key techniques for which these devices were designed (nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia), is likewise demonstrably biased. These findings are further evidence that a frequently held hypothesis, which suggests national dominances in these fields, is incorrect. Contributing factors and wider contexts of this phenomenon can be further confirmed: These are an under-recognition of non-Anglo-American (particularly continental-European) and of primarily surgical contributions; contemporary international conflicts and inter-professional demarcation disputes. In addition, it can be shown that these phenomena had already started around the same time (c. 1900s–1930s). There also is evidence to suggest that they were at times reciprocal and quite deliberate. The author illustrates and argues that the currently prevalent historiography on modern anesthesia requires a thorough reassessment. This should be based on a perspective of internationalism and transdisciplinary reciprocity and should recognize much broader historical contexts.

现代麻醉技术的历史-关键的重新评估(第二部分)当代装置和一氧化二氮麻醉的国际比较(约1900 - 1930)-认识到另一个不断变化的证据基础
本文是对现代麻醉及其技术的国际史学进行广泛而批判性的重新评价的延续(第二部分)。本系列的第一篇论文提供了该主题的一个方面的一般定义、背景和最近研究的更新:专业化/专业化的历史(第1部分)这篇论文继续提供了第一个,整个麻醉装置的国际比较和一氧化二氮麻醉的历史(约1900 - 1930年)。结果:国际公认的全麻醉机里程碑的比较年表显示,欧洲大陆国家之间或美国和英国之间没有显著差异。这些装置设计的关键技术之一(一氧化二氮麻醉)的国际史学同样明显存在偏见。这些发现进一步证明,一个经常被持有的假设,即国家在这些领域占据主导地位,是不正确的。这种现象的影响因素和更广泛的背景可以进一步证实:这些是对非英美(特别是欧洲大陆)和主要手术贡献的认识不足;当代国际冲突与专业间划界争端。此外,可以证明这些现象大约在同一时间(约20世纪20年代至30年代)就已经开始了。也有证据表明,他们有时是相互的,而且是深思熟虑的。作者阐述并论证了当前流行的现代麻醉史学需要一个彻底的重新评估。这应基于国际主义和跨学科互惠的观点,并应认识到更广泛的历史背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia History
Journal of Anesthesia History Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia History (ISSN 2352-4529) is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the study of anesthesia history and related disciplines. The Journal addresses anesthesia history from antiquity to the present. Its wide scope includes the history of perioperative care, pain medicine, critical care medicine, physician and nurse practices of anesthesia, equipment, drugs, and prominent individuals. The Journal serves a diverse audience of physicians, nurses, dentists, clinicians, historians, educators, researchers and academicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信