Both al-Rhazi’s case book and the cases of the Hippocratic text, Epidemics, present illnesses, their courses and a physician dealing with the effects and the patient. There are many similarities between these two texts, as they are case studies in ancient times. Even though al-Rhazi (c. 900 CE) was writing over 1000 years after Hippocrates (c. 400 BCE), many of the same methods and theories of medical practice were used when dealing with patients (The Western Medical Tradition, Nutton, 40, 89). Of course there are differences as well, and, one of the most prominent differences between the texts is that the al-Rhazi cases are much more comprehensive and prescriptive rather than the more diagnostic Hippocratic case studies (Pomata, Gianna, lecture
…show more content…
He wanted to know why something went wrong not just what went wrong. The Hippocratic texts have no mention of any attempts of curing the sick patients, at least in Book 1 of Epidemics. They also don’t include any foundation of “personal reflection.” Al-Rhazi states when his treatments don’t work, “ …he died from it while he was far from me” (335 33 Clinical Observations), and even tries to determine why the patient died and how it could be prevented or foreseen in other patients. In contrast, Hippocrates never includes a case where he admits he messes up a diagnosis. He does include cases where people died, but in these cases he blames a number of different causes and never himself. He states, “ A man dined when heated and drank too much…Eleventh day: Death” (Epidemics 111). Hippocrates does not include much detail in this case, which is unusual, however, in many cases where patients die Hippocrates includes as little detail as possible. There is no introspection or analysis as to why the patient died or even any of the conditions of his environment. Hippocrates only focuses on the narrow symptoms of the disease as it progresses, unlike in his other cases where he described much more about the patients and their lifestyle. …show more content…
Both of these texts are based on the assumption that the four humours (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood) govern the health of the body and a balance must be maintained between them (CITE). It is very evident how treatments derived from humoral theory, specifically in al-Rhazi’s cases, are directly influenced by the nature of the patient whom he is treating. Al-Rhazi writes, “There remained…some residue of ill natured humours…he became disturbed, meteoric and of dry temperament” (al-Rhazi 334). Even though al-Rhazi was writing in the 9th century CE, more than one thousand years after the death of Hippocrates, the Hippocratic teachings of the four humours still played an integral role in the medicine of this time, as al-Rhazi talks about a “dry temperament” and “residue of ill natured humours.” These two pieces of information were crucial in determining a healing method for the patient during the premodern era. If a patient was “dry,” then they must be given something “wet” in order to balance their temperament (CITE). Also, everyone is predisposed to a particular humour, according to humoral theory, whether it be black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, or blood, Therefore, it is natural that someone would have a slight excess of the humour they are
He wanted to know why something went wrong not just what went wrong. The Hippocratic texts have no mention of any attempts of curing the sick patients, at least in Book 1 of Epidemics. They also don’t include any foundation of “personal reflection.” Al-Rhazi states when his treatments don’t work, “ …he died from it while he was far from me” (335 33 Clinical Observations), and even tries to determine why the patient died and how it could be prevented or foreseen in other patients. In contrast, Hippocrates never includes a case where he admits he messes up a diagnosis. He does include cases where people died, but in these cases he blames a number of different causes and never himself. He states, “ A man dined when heated and drank too much…Eleventh day: Death” (Epidemics 111). Hippocrates does not include much detail in this case, which is unusual, however, in many cases where patients die Hippocrates includes as little detail as possible. There is no introspection or analysis as to why the patient died or even any of the conditions of his environment. Hippocrates only focuses on the narrow symptoms of the disease as it progresses, unlike in his other cases where he described much more about the patients and their lifestyle. …show more content…
Both of these texts are based on the assumption that the four humours (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood) govern the health of the body and a balance must be maintained between them (CITE). It is very evident how treatments derived from humoral theory, specifically in al-Rhazi’s cases, are directly influenced by the nature of the patient whom he is treating. Al-Rhazi writes, “There remained…some residue of ill natured humours…he became disturbed, meteoric and of dry temperament” (al-Rhazi 334). Even though al-Rhazi was writing in the 9th century CE, more than one thousand years after the death of Hippocrates, the Hippocratic teachings of the four humours still played an integral role in the medicine of this time, as al-Rhazi talks about a “dry temperament” and “residue of ill natured humours.” These two pieces of information were crucial in determining a healing method for the patient during the premodern era. If a patient was “dry,” then they must be given something “wet” in order to balance their temperament (CITE). Also, everyone is predisposed to a particular humour, according to humoral theory, whether it be black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, or blood, Therefore, it is natural that someone would have a slight excess of the humour they are