Talk:Medicine in ancient Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of Science (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Opium not morphine[edit]

I think this article needs more reference to Ancient Greek medicine and Humorism, which heavily influenced Roman medicine. Also, this article mentions morphine, which did not exists in Ancient Rome. Morphine is opium based, which I think is where the confusion lies. Opium would have been available to the Ancient Romans, but any mention of morphine should be removed from this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primvspilvs (talkcontribs) 18:15, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Skepticism[edit]

I know the request is to help expand the article, but I've taken the liberty of removing this section:

"There was also a raving sect of ancient Roman people who saw the medical profession as a chance to get rich quick, as these were that days before the Hippocratic oath and no qualifications were required in order to classify yourself as a doctor. Many of these were complete witch doctors who used cures like sliced black mouse. Conversely, there were some quack medical ideas that have some medical soundness today, like the use of cobwebs to stem the flow of blood."

The first reason is that it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Frankly it reads like a bit of a rant ("raving sect"; "complete witch doctors"). Plus, I'd like some confirmation that Roman doctors didn't recognise the Hippocratic Oath, which was devised in the 4th Century BC, and thus only a few hundred years of Rome's history were 'before' it. - Shrivenzale 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good. In fact I would like to take this a little bit further and propose a (partial) re-writing of the introduction: it seems to contradict itself and quite obviously some add-ons haven't been properly integrated into the overall structure. Anyone with me on this? Also, anybody knows why this article has not been rated yet?

Opinion[edit]

The sentence "Though several accounts have been recovered, detailing the progress in health made by people admitted to the Asclepieions, it is unlikely that they were based on fact; they may simply have been used as propaganda." is, itself, propaganda and opinion. No contrary facts are being provided. Maybe they were healed by Asclepios; we don't know. It should be removed. Cn Caelius (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Additions[edit]

I have added a section on Asclepieions in Roman Medicine and increased both the introduction and section on Galen. I hope nobody minds, I did it on the recommendation by Wiki and because I personally felt I could further the article. I would also like to add more to this article in the near future. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

There seems to be a lot of overlap with Medical community of ancient Rome. I proposed a merge as a way of sorting these two articles out. Whogue (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly agree. II | (t - c) 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Even going by the titles it doesn't make much sense to have these as seperate articles. Plus there appears to be a lot of redundancy between these two. Shinobu (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes this would be helpful. I am doing some work on this at the moment, and finding everything in one article is better than flicking between two articles that are basically the same. I think you should keep the name to be Medicine in ancient rome. Kingalex1st (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Uvula Amputation?[edit]

Any reason it would be so common to amputate the uvula? What would that even -do-? 24.42.94.52 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)