4 ms·
From the wikipedia[1] article on the assassination of Garfield in 1881: > Most historians and medical experts now believe that Garfield probably would have sur
by saghm 4y ago
From the wikipedia[1] article on the assassination of Garfield in 1881:
> Most historians and medical experts now believe that Garfield probably would have survived his wound had the doctors been more capable.[66][67] However, most American doctors of the day did not believe in anti-sepsis measures or the need for cleanliness to prevent infection.[68] Several inserted their unwashed fingers into the wound to probe for the bullet, and one doctor punctured Garfield's liver in doing so. Also, Bliss had supplanted Garfield's physician Jedediah Hyde Baxter. Bliss and the other doctors who attended Garfield had guessed wrong about the path of the bullet in his body; they had probed rightward into his back instead of leftward, missing the location of the bullet but creating a new channel which filled with pus. The autopsy discovered this error and revealed pneumonia in both lungs and a body that was filled with pus due to uncontrolled sepsis.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield#Treatment_and_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garf...
- john-aj 4y agoThat only speaks for the 1800s, though. There were a lot of incorrect beliefs among scientists during that time that weren't commonplace before; race biology comes to mind. Soap has been around for a long time, and thousand-year-old religions have rules about cleaning oneself. My impression was that doctors actually stopped believing in disinfection during the rise of modern science, as they began see these beliefs as unscientific superstitions. I don't currently have a source for this, though.