Despite outward appearances, it was actually not until the latter decades of the 19th century that the surgeon truly emerged as a specialist within the whole of medicine to become a recognized and respected clinical practitioner

Despite outward appearances, it was actually not until the latter decades of the 19th century that the surgeon truly emerged as a specialist within the whole of medicine to become a recognized and respected clinical practitioner. Similarly, it was not until the first decades of the 20th century that surgery could be considered to have achieved the status of a bona fide profession.

• Despite outward appearances, it was actually not until the latter decades of the 19th century that the surgeon truly emerged as a specialist within the whole of medicine to become a recognized and respected clinical practitioner. Similarly, it was not until the first decades of the 20th century that surgery could be considered to have achieved the status of a bona fide profession.

Before this time, the scope of surgery remained quite limited. Surgeons, or at least those medical men who used the sobriquet surgeon, whether university educated or trained in private apprenticeships, at best treated only simple fractures, dislocations, and abscesses and occasionally performed amputations with dexterity but also with high mortality rates.

• Before this time, the scope of surgery remained quite limited. Surgeons, or at least those medical men who used the sobriquet surgeon, whether university educated or trained in private apprenticeships, at best treated only simple fractures, dislocations, and abscesses and occasionally performed amputations with dexterity but also with high mortality rates.

• They managed to ligate major arteries for common and accessible aneurysms and made heroic attempts to excise external tumors.

Some individuals focused on the treatment of anal fistulas, hernias, cataracts, and bladder stones. Inept attempts at reduction of incarcerated and strangulated hernias were made, and hesitatingly, rather rudimentary colostomies or ileostomies were created by simply incising the skin over an expanding intra-abdominal mass, which represented the end stage of a long-standing intestinal obstruction.

• Some individuals focused on the treatment of anal fistulas, hernias, cataracts, and bladder stones. Inept attempts at reduction of incarcerated and strangulated hernias were made, and hesitatingly, rather rudimentary colostomies or ileostomies were created by simply incising the skin over an expanding intra-abdominal mass, which represented the end stage of a long-standing intestinal obstruction.

Compound fractures of the limbs with attendant sepsis remained mostly unmanageable, with staggering morbidity being a likely surgical outcome. Although a few bold surgeons endeavored to incise the abdomen in the hope of dividing obstructing bands and adhesions, abdominal and other intrabody surgery was virtually unknown.

• Compound fractures of the limbs with attendant sepsis remained mostly unmanageable, with staggering morbidity being a likely surgical outcome. Although a few bold surgeons endeavored to incise the abdomen in the hope of dividing obstructing bands and adhesions, abdominal and other intrabody surgery was virtually unknown.

Despite it all, including an ignorance of anesthesia and antisepsis tempered with the not uncommon result of the patient suffering from or succumbing to the effects of a surgical operation (or both), surgery was long considered an important and medically valid therapy.

• Despite it all, including an ignorance of anesthesia and antisepsis tempered with the not uncommon result of the patient suffering from or succumbing to the effects of a surgical operation (or both), surgery was long considered an important and medically valid therapy.

This seeming paradox, in view of the terrifying nature of surgical intervention, its limited technical scope, and its damning consequences before the development of modern conditions, is explained by the simple fact that surgical procedures were usually performed only for external difficulties that required an objective anatomic diagnosis.

• This seeming paradox, in view of the terrifying nature of surgical intervention, its limited technical scope, and its damning consequences before the development of modern conditions, is explained by the simple fact that surgical procedures were usually performed only for external difficulties that required an objective anatomic diagnosis.

Surgeons or followers of the surgical cause saw what needed to be fixed (e.g., abscesses, broken bones, bulging tumors, cataracts, hernias) and would treat the problem in as rational a manner as the times permitted. Conversely, the physician was forced to render subjective care for disease processes that were neither visible nor understood.

• Surgeons or followers of the surgical cause saw what needed to be fixed (e.g., abscesses, broken bones, bulging tumors, cataracts, hernias) and would treat the problem in as rational a manner as the times permitted. Conversely, the physician was forced to render subjective care for disease processes that were neither visible nor understood.

After all, it is a difficult task to treat the symptoms of illnesses such as arthritis, asthma, heart failure, and diabetes, to name but a few, if there is no scientific understanding or internal knowledge of what constitutes their basic pathologic and physiologic underpinnings.

•