By: Alexander Chin

Alexander Chin — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 03:02:31 +0000

I think that your review of The Poison Trials does a great job of summarizing the main arguments of the book in a very succinct manner. I agree with your summary of the arguments, but, when I was reading the book, I saw the arguments about authority and ethics as the main arguments where the argument about using experiments. This was because, throughout much of the book, there was a continual narrative of the tenuous nature of the morality of the poison trials. I saw the argument on authority as equally important since the experimental setup played into the perception of authority as well as the derision of people they viewed as charlatans. Overall I believe your review gives a good summary of The Poison Trails and works well with the arguments within the book.

By: Alexa Shipes

Alexa Shipes — Tue, 31 Jan 2023 20:21:38 +0000

I agreed with your commentary. One of the first things that struck me was the connection between experimentation and early modern medicine. I was left wondering why so much of early modern medicine was based on leeches and bloodletting. Were people set in their ways about the traditional remedies? Or could the nobles afford to be treated with a new “wonder drug”, while leaving the ordinary people with the traditional remedies? As regards medical ethics, I was surprised to hear that the Renaissance doctors knew that the poison trials were ethically questionable at best. Why didn’t they stop? However, my question was answered when I learned that the first code of medical ethics was published in 1803. The Age of Enlightenment had to dawn before people questioned dubious medical practices, and the medical ethics we know today came in the wake of World War II, which the people of the sixteenth century could never have foreseen.

Comments on: A Review of _The Poison Trials: Wonder Drugs, Experiment, and the Battle for Authority in Renaissance Science_ by Alisha Rankin

By: Alexander Chin

By: Alexa Shipes