I read the piece and I felt it lacking in nuance. Especially the latter part passing a rather harsh value attribution on modern medication. Which doesn't seem i

I read the piece and I felt it lacking in nuance. Especially the latter part passing a rather harsh value attribution on modern medication. Which doesn't seem in line with the author characterizing themselves multiple times as a physician throughout the piece That's when I got curious and looked at the author's name. > Theodore Dalrymple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple Well, that's in line with what I'd expect from him and the ideological traditions he represents through his writings. The author purposely romanticizes the past because it fits his reactionary stance against many contemporary norms and values prevalent in Western society. In this article, the implicit conclusion reads: Dadd's talent and hard work causing the Victorians to treat him differently despite of his condition. And so, people today just have to take agency over their own lives in order to uplift themselves as a moral duty to society, regardless of their condition. Of course, that's just not how the human mind works. I totally agree, at worst, this is a harmful line of thinking to follow.