Page 9

Update item information
Title I don't know ... yet
Subject Medicine--Philosophy
Description The 44th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Peterson, Chase N.
Publisher Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1981-02-11
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1200
Source R723 .P44
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "I don't know ... yet," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6sb43q8
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320459
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 9
Description I DON'T KNOW . . . YET 9 The second age of medicine, that of science and technology, began with public health measures in the late 19th Century and flowered with modern surgery and the fulfillment of Ehrlich's prediction of a "magic bullet" which would strike figuratively at a person's illness without striking the host. First arsenicals, then sulfa, penicillin and other therapeutic agents have fully fulfilled Erhlich's prediction. The gain for mankind from the technological revolution in medicine is obvious, and none of us would turn back the clock. Yet, there has also been a price. We are now involved in the infinite care of the terminally ill. Pneumonia used to be termed "the friend of the aged," which released the hopelessly infirm without prolonged anguish. That pneumonia, a disease of the bed-ridden, now is repeatedly cured by antibiotics. We are faced with the legal frustration of being unable to manage the undefinable. Not knowing what the definition is of life or of death, we are victims of our technology which is an ironic union of technological knowledge and ethical paralyses. Just as we find it difficult as a culture to control T. V. violence or public obscenity because they are difficult to define, we find ourselves increasing patient misery while emotionally and financially bankrupting families when we prolong the lives of those terminally ill who long to die. We are victims, as well as beneficiaries, of technology in other ways. If we receive miracles by the presence of technology, is it not logical to assume that we are at risk in their absence? If you have an effective tool, is it not possible that it will take on a life of its own? Technology by definition has impersonal and cold connotations, because the machine or the instrument is often doing what the mere human attendant cannot. Finally, we ask if we have so many technological answers, why don't we have them all? Again, the impatience of rising expectations. We are now in a third stage of medicine where we are attempting to recover and enlarge the art of medicine and unite it with science. As Sir William Osier said, the practice of medicine is an art based on science. Hospice facilities where people can die with support and dignity is a bright example of a combination of science with a sense of the art of medicine. Our moves toward birthing centers within hospitals and adjacent quarters for parents of premature infants are attempts to recapture the familial supports of child-birth and yet preserve the benefits of science. There are programs for realistic burial. We are attempting to train doctors to listen and to treat the whole patient. While we will continue to advance our technology without foreseeable limits, we are attempting to teach our providers
Format application/pdf
Identifier 015-RNLT-PetersonCN_Page 9.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: I don't know ... yet by Chase N. Peterson.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320449
Reference URL