Abstract
EnglishAround 1840s, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis proposed a prophylaxis for puerperal fever cases. Working at the Vienna Hospital, he was successful in his proposal; then, he proceeded to explain the cause of the disease. His hypothesis clashed strongly with the medical- scientific knowledge established at the time; nevertheless, it was warmly welcomed by the Vienna Academy of Sciences, which suggested a development of Semmelweis's work. Semmelweis declined of this grant and simultaneously attacked the medical community, which he found guilty of the disease. Finally, his proposal was totally disregarded by the community. The purpose of this article is, starting from the historiography about this episode, to introduce a social constructivist philosophical explanation of the disregard of Semmelweis’ hypothesis. portuguesNa decada de 1840, o medico hungaro Ignaz Semmelweis propos uma profilaxia para casos de febre puerperal. Atuando no Hospital de Viena, foi bem sucedido em sua proposta; em seguida passou entao a tentar explicar a causa da doenca. Sua hipotese colidia fortemente com o conhecimento medico-cientifico estabelecido na epoca; mesmo assim, ela foi acolhida com simpatia pela Academia de Ciencias de Viena, que sugeriu um desenvolvimento dos trabalhos de Semmelweis. Semmelweis recusou a oferta e, simultaneamente, passou a atacar a comunidade medica, que ele considerava culpada pela doenca. Finalmente, sua proposta foi totalmente desconsiderada pela comunidade. O objetivo desse artigo e, partindo da historiografia do episodio, apresentar uma explicacao filosofica socio-construtivista para a nao aceitacao da hipotese de Semmelweis.
Highlights
Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis proposed a prophylaxis for puerperal fever cases
he was successful in his proposal
he proceeded to explain the cause of the disease
Summary
Around 1840s, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis proposed a prophylaxis for puerperal fever cases. O que Semmelweis tinha consolidado eram seus dados favoráveis à queda da mortalidade, mas ele não havia isolado sua entidade, a matéria cadavérica e, portanto, nada sabia acerca de sua natureza –ainda não existiam as “outras sentenças” mencionadas por Latour.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
