只有在积极和确定的必要性原则下才能捍卫的制度":检疫与托马斯-梅特兰对 1819 年和 1824 年医学辩论的贡献

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY
Evangelos (Aggelis) Zarokostas
{"title":"只有在积极和确定的必要性原则下才能捍卫的制度\":检疫与托马斯-梅特兰对 1819 年和 1824 年医学辩论的贡献","authors":"Evangelos (Aggelis) Zarokostas","doi":"10.1093/shm/hkad091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article focusses on the ‘plague debates’ which took place in the British parliament in 1819 and 1824, where the opinions of non-medical experts were also taken into account; particularly those of officials who had acquired relevant practical experience. Such opinions were crucial in politicising the medical debate from one of the nature of plagues, towards an evaluation of the impact of quarantine more broadly. Paying closer attention at the correspondence between the colonial governor of Malta and the Ionian Islands, and the colonial secretary, it reveals a different aspect of the contagion inquiry in Britain—one considering medical knowledge about plagues that was highly speculative. While most historical works illuminate the establishment of what was considered to be medical evidence, there is less work about the political, economic or even personal motives which underlined interventions in these debates.","PeriodicalId":21922,"journal":{"name":"Social History of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘A System Only to Be Defended on the Principle of Positive and Ascertained Necessity’: Quarantine and Thomas Maitland’s Contribution to the Medical Debates of 1819 and 1824\",\"authors\":\"Evangelos (Aggelis) Zarokostas\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/shm/hkad091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article focusses on the ‘plague debates’ which took place in the British parliament in 1819 and 1824, where the opinions of non-medical experts were also taken into account; particularly those of officials who had acquired relevant practical experience. Such opinions were crucial in politicising the medical debate from one of the nature of plagues, towards an evaluation of the impact of quarantine more broadly. Paying closer attention at the correspondence between the colonial governor of Malta and the Ionian Islands, and the colonial secretary, it reveals a different aspect of the contagion inquiry in Britain—one considering medical knowledge about plagues that was highly speculative. While most historical works illuminate the establishment of what was considered to be medical evidence, there is less work about the political, economic or even personal motives which underlined interventions in these debates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social History of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social History of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkad091\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkad091","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的重点是 1819 年和 1824 年在英国议会进行的 "鼠疫辩论",辩论中也考虑了非医学专家的意见,特别是具有相关实践经验的官员的意见。这些意见对于将医学辩论从瘟疫的性质政治化,转向更广泛地评估检疫的影响至关重要。通过仔细研究马耳他和爱奥尼亚群岛殖民总督与殖民秘书之间的通信,我们发现了英国传染病调查的另一个方面--考虑到有关瘟疫的医学知识是高度推测性的。虽然大多数历史著作都阐明了被认为是医学证据的确立过程,但有关政治、经济甚至个人动机的著作却较少,而这些动机正是干预这些辩论的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘A System Only to Be Defended on the Principle of Positive and Ascertained Necessity’: Quarantine and Thomas Maitland’s Contribution to the Medical Debates of 1819 and 1824
This article focusses on the ‘plague debates’ which took place in the British parliament in 1819 and 1824, where the opinions of non-medical experts were also taken into account; particularly those of officials who had acquired relevant practical experience. Such opinions were crucial in politicising the medical debate from one of the nature of plagues, towards an evaluation of the impact of quarantine more broadly. Paying closer attention at the correspondence between the colonial governor of Malta and the Ionian Islands, and the colonial secretary, it reveals a different aspect of the contagion inquiry in Britain—one considering medical knowledge about plagues that was highly speculative. While most historical works illuminate the establishment of what was considered to be medical evidence, there is less work about the political, economic or even personal motives which underlined interventions in these debates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social History of Medicine
Social History of Medicine 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social History of Medicine , the journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine, is concerned with all aspects of health, illness, and medical treatment in the past. It is committed to publishing work on the social history of medicine from a variety of disciplines. The journal offers its readers substantive and lively articles on a variety of themes, critical assessments of archives and sources, conference reports, up-to-date information on research in progress, a discussion point on topics of current controversy and concern, review articles, and wide-ranging book reviews.
×
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