Trick or Treatment Read Free Page A

afternoon, removing a further whole litre of blood.
    Over the next few hours, it appeared that the bloodletting was helping. Washington seemed to recover and for a while he was able to sit upright. This was, however, merely a temporary remission. When his condition deteriorated again later that day, the doctors conducted yet another session of bloodletting. This time the blood appeared viscous and flowed slowly. From a modern perspective this reflects dehydration and a general loss of bodily fluid caused by excessive blood loss.
    As the evening passed, the doctors could only watch grimly as their numerous bloodlettings and various poultices failed to deliver any signs of recovery. Dr Craick and Dr Dick would later write: ‘The powers of life seemed now manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder. Blisters were applied to the extremities, together with a cataplasm of bran and vinegar to the throat.’
    George Washington Custis, the dying man’s step-grandson, documented the final moments of America’s first President:
    As the night advanced it became evident that he was sinking, and he seemed fully aware that ‘his hour was nigh’. He inquired the time, and was answered a few minutes to ten. He spoke no more – the hand of death was upon him, and he was conscious that ‘his hour was come’. With surprising self-possession he prepared to die. Composing his form at length and folding his arms on his bosom, without a sigh, without a groan, the Father of his Country died. No pang or struggle told when the noble spirit took its noiseless flight; while so tranquil appeared the manly features in the repose of death, that some moments had passed ere those around could believe that the patriarch was no more.
     
    George Washington, a giant man of 6 feet 3 1 /2 inches, had been drained of half his blood in less than a day. The doctors responsible for treating Washington claimed that such drastic measures had been necessary as a last-ditch resort to save the patient’s life, and most of their colleagues supported the decision. However, there were also voices of dissent from within the medical community. Although bloodletting had been an accepted practice in medicine for centuries, a minority of doctors were now beginning to question its value. Indeed, they argued that bloodletting was a hazard to patients, regardless of where on the body it took place and irrespective of whether it was half a litre or 2 litres that was being taken. According to these doctors, Dr Craik, Dr Brown and Dr Dick had effectively killed the former President by needlessly bleeding him to death.
    But who was right – the most eminent doctors in the land who had done their best to save Washington, or the maverick medics who saw bloodletting as a crazy and dangerous legacy of Ancient Greece?
    Coincidentally, on the day that Washington died, 14 December 1799, there was effectively a legal judgement on whether bloodletting was harming or healing patients. The judgement arose as the result of an article written by the renowned English journalist William Cobbett, who was living in Philadelphia and who had taken an interest in the activities of a physician by the name of Dr Benjamin Rush, America’s most vociferous and famous advocate of bloodletting.
    Dr Rush was admired throughout America for his brilliant medical, scientific and political career. He had written eighty-five significant publications, including the first American chemistry textbook; he had been surgeon general of the Continental Army; and, most important of all, he had been a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps his achievements were to be expected, bearing in mind that he graduated at the age of just fourteen from the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University.
    Rush practised at the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia and taught at its medical school, which was responsible for training three-quarters of American doctors during his tenure. He was so