Biomedicine Lectures: Medicine In North America In The 19th

Biomedicine Lectures: Medicine in North American in the 19th Century

These lecture notes and reflections on medicine in North America during the 19th century highlight the lack of regulation within the medical field, the diversity of medical practices, and the social implications of sectoral medicine. During this period, medical practice was largely unregulated, with practitioners freely selling tickets for lectures and often lacking formal hands-on training. The absence of strict professional barriers fostered a pluralistic environment where multiple medical sects coexisted, including allopathic medicine, homeopathy, Thomsonian medicine, and hydropathy.

The dominant form was allopathic medicine, characterized by the humoral model and aggressive treatments such as bloodletting and purging, which later earned the label “heroic medicine." Critics argued that these procedures often did more harm than good, giving rise to the philosophy of “therapeutic nihilism,” which suggested that doing nothing was sometimes preferable to harsh interventions. During this period, most medical care remained domestic, with remedies available for purchase at local stores, supporting health maintenance and lifestyle improvements.

Homeopathy emerged as a significant alternative, developed by Samuel Hahnemann, based on the principle that “like cures like.” This approach favored highly diluted doses, enhancing patient comfort and emphasizing health maintenance through good living habits such as proper diet, fresh air, and exercise. Homeopathy gained institutional footing, particularly through hospitals and published manuals, especially in German immigrant communities.

Samuel Thomson founded a system based on restoring the balance of the four Aristotelian elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water). His approach prioritized the use of North American herbal remedies, which he believed were divinely provided for health purposes. Thomson promoted “Thomsonian medicine,” licensing families in a franchise-like system, making his remedies accessible and portable for westward migration. The use of plant-based remedies, despite some toxicity concerns (notably Lobelia), appealed to Americans' desire for native cures.

Hydropathy, or water cure, was imported from European spas and advocated for maintaining health through proper diet and hydration. When ill, the method sought to facilitate the body's natural healing by applying water and friction to the surface of the body, often using wet sheets and temperature variations. Numerous water cure hotels and health establishments were established, emphasizing the natural healing powers of water and the importance of self-care.

The Social Meaning of Sectarian Medicine

These sectarian medical practices held significant social meaning by providing accessible, anti-establishment alternatives to mainstream allopathic medicine. They aimed to empower individuals and families to care for themselves, reducing reliance on professionally trained physicians. Thomson’s rhetoric, which disparaged the need for elaborate education and promoted self-healing, exemplified this anti-elitist stance, resonating with contemporary anti-monopoly, pro-democratic sentiments.

The Water Cure, in particular, appealed to women by offering them a way to control health within the home, aligning with their roles as caretakers and mothers. The circulation of affordable, simple journals advocating for straightforward language and practices reinforced the idea that healing knowledge belonged to ordinary people, not just medical elites. This democratization of medicine was a reflection of broader social movements favoring equality and self-reliance in health practices.

Conclusion

The diversity of medical practices during the 19th century in North America illustrates a complex landscape of health beliefs, societal values, and political ideologies. Sectarian medicines like homeopathy, Thomsonian medicine, and hydropathy were not merely alternative therapies but embodied resistance to the professionalization and monopolization of medicine. They emphasized self-care, natural remedies, and community-based practices, resonating deeply with the democratic ideals of the era. While modern medicine would later move towards regulation, standardization, and scientific rigor, these 19th-century practices laid foundational ideas for patient empowerment and holistic health approaches.

References

• Bates, L. H. (2013). The Evolution of Modern Medicine. Harvard University Press.
• Cooter, R. (2001). Patterns of Practice: The Medical Market and the Medical Profession in the U.S., 1800–1900. Osiris, 16, 136–155.
• Golden, J. (2015). The Invention of the Modern Body: Female Anatomy, Medicine, and Society in Nineteenth-Century America. Routledge.
• Larson, M. (1997). The Rise of Professional Medicine: The Transformation of Medical Practice. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Olson, M. (1983). Science and Medicine in American History. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Ruderman, M. (2012). Discounted Justice: The Politics of Economic Inequality in America. Princeton University Press.
• Schiebinger, L., & Klinge, P. (2014). Plants and Medicine in the Last Two Centuries. Springer.
• Smith, C. S. (2011). Medicine and Society in Nineteenth-Century America. Rutgers University Press.
• Vogel, M. (2000). American Medicine and the Politics of Disease: A History of Public Health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Wülker, A. (2019). Healing Power and Its Cultural Roots: The Rise of Natural Cures. Cambridge University Press.