Talk:Charles Hastings (English physician)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Critique of Hastings[edit]

Friends, last night, I added the following info: Dr. Hastings was so opposed to hydrotherapy that he frequently wrote articles about its dangers, and Dr. James Manby Gully, a leading author on water-cure and a homeopathic physician, was the target of Hasting's attacks. At the same time that he was making these strongly worded accusations, he and his orthodox medical colleagues utilized a wide range of medical treatments that everyone would soon call simply barbaric.[Bradley, J., and Depree, M. A Shadow of Orthodoxy? An Epistemology of British Hydropathy, 1840–1858, Medical History, 2003, 47:173–194]

An anonymous editor deleted the second sentence and referred to it as "editorializing." I am not going to edit war, but I would like other editors opinion here. I am not just interesting in others' thoughts about whether it is or isn't editorializing but also how do we provide context to our articles. Further, what place is there in wikipedia for "irony"? These tricky issues are where wikipedia is fun and challenging. DanaUllman^Talk 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you edit-warring? The "simply barbaric" part is editorializing. It is an opinion that needs to be directly attributed to someone, but even then it doesn't cut it for inclusion in this article. What don't you understand? 83.3.248.44 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I will change it to "barbaric practices such as bloodletting and mercury-laden drugs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have also provided a RS. If you don't have this article, I will quote: "Acceptance or rejection of a particular therapeutic regime was not soley dependent upon belief in specific pathological or physiological principles. Indeed, different therapeutic rationales often led to the employment of identical therapeutic regimes. To illustrate this lat point, it is worthy revisiting John Harlye Warner's account of the Edinborugh bloodletter contrsoversy. As late as the 1850s, the majority of Edinburgh medical medn continued to defend bloodletter as apractice, while rarely using it." (p. 178) There are other good quotes too. DanaUllman^Talk 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get it..."simply barbaric" is editorializing, though don't we all agree that the medicine practiced in 1850s, including bloodletting and mercury compounds, was barbaric? Would it be more NPOV to add: At the same time that he was making these strongly worded accusations about hydrotherapy, he and his orthodox medical colleagues utilized bloodletting and mercury-laden drugs which medical historians soon realized was barbaric medicine.(there are many potential references here, though there are so many one could make a case for this information being generally accepted as true) If the above recommendation doesn't work for you, what does? I'm open for collaboration. DanaUllman^Talk 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana. I come here from the James Gully page. There is no reason to include the "barbaric" at all. Indeed, as founder of the BMA he was a notable agent for improvement of medicine in the UK and the world. By all means, any valid criticisms should be included, but just saying he practised the conventional medical techniques of the time is not notable or interesting, unless you are trying to make a point (see WP:POINT). I agree the techniques are awful by our standards, but unless you can show he knew that what he was doing was wrong, or there was a good reason for him to know this (for example, it was illegal or other Drs had stopped doing it years before), then this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. >>Partyoffive (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]

Actually, Hastings was quite concerned about the "dangers" of water-cure in efforts to protect the British public from harm, and yet, ironically, he devoted his critique of medical treatments outside of regular medicine of the day, while ignoring the dangers of medical practice in which he and his colleagues had engaged. This information IS notable. Imagine if there was evidence that modern-day skeptic of CAM because the treatments are "unproven" and "dangerous" was found to use antibiotics for colds, this would be notable because his/her own practices are unproven and dangerous. Let's avoid a double-standard. DanaUllman^Talk 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) There are no "double standards" here. For his day, Sir Charles was a progressive and enlightened doctor - which contradicts your claim that he didn't criticise the medicine of the day. Try reading the article. Your analogy to a modern day doctor misusing antibiotics doesn't work, as you haven't shown that Sir Charles was guilty of malpractice by the standards of his day, whereas the modern doctor should know not to misuse antibiotics in this way. We know know that some of the techniques used then were ineffective at best (including homeopathy, water-cure, bloodletting, etc), but you have to show some kind of malfeasance by Sir Charles for this to be notable - as I have already said. >>Partyoffive (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]

Partyoffive, you're right: my analogy to the use of antibiotics wasn't a good one. My point was that Hasting was lividly against water-cure and called it "dangerous." And yet, ironically, his and his colleagues were practicing a type of medicine that even their own medical colleagues would call dangerous and barbaric in just a short time. I am not saying that Hastings was malfeasant; I'm saying that he was practicing a dangerous style of medicine, while asserting (incorrectly) that others (such as Gully) were dangerous. That is notable. DanaUllman^Talk 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Dana, thank you for bringing the interesting fact that Sir Charles criticised hydropathy and James Gully to this article. Also, thanks for acknowledging your error above. You say above, in your justification for adding "barbaric", that it was called so within just a short time. It was not called so at the time though, and you need to show that Sir Charles used these methods after they were considered barbaric by the medical establishment and the public. I don't think this can be done, as I don't think he did. Can you provide a reference to any of Sir Charles' criticisms? They may be useful additions to this and the James Gully article. Also, were his criticisms incorrect (I don't know as I haven't seen them)? Hydropathy, as practised by Gully, is a largely discredited area of medicine. >>Partyoffive (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]

If and when I make a mistake, I will acknowledge it...or at least do my best to do so, and I hope others will also. The reference that I previously gave is the reference to Hastings' critique of Gully and to his accusations that water-cure was "dangerous." It has never been substantiated that Gully's water-cure was dangerous (or even that water-cure was such). My point was Hastings himself was providing dangerous medical treatment, while at the same time, he was accusing others of doing so. Homeopaths and even some conventional doctors were extremely critical of bloodletting or mercury compounds in the 1850s, and this fact is well-established. I am certainly not saying that Hastings knowingly provided ineffective and dangerous treatment; I am saying that he was calling water-cure dangerous at the same time that he was unknowingly providing bloodletting an mercurial drugs that were dangerous. This information seems notable. DanaUllman^Talk 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any information Dana, you're making unsupported inferences (that are false, he did criticise and seek to improve the medical care of the day, but that is irrelevant). I refer you to my previous answers. If you think I'm wrong, then take this to an RFC or the third opinion people (and let me know). Thanks. >>Partyoffive (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]

Friends, [Partyoffive] has been discovered to be a sock, and 83.3.248.44 has been blocked for being a TOR exit node. This is getting to be a common problem in editors who have been following me around. DanaUllman^Talk 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, give it a rest spreading the word you have someone following you around. No one is going to lend a sympathetic ear. While their use of socks is wrong, the points that they brought up are in no way any less relevant. Baegis (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title[edit]

Charles Hastings (surgeon) is misleading.

Given the tenets of the time, is should be Charles Hastings (Physician).

It is true that his first appointment was as a surgeon - however, "surgeon" was an unqualified profession and they were considered inferior to physicians, who were qualified by study and examination. Hence physicians (at least in the UK) use the title "Dr." and surgeons simply "Mr.". Surgeons were originally bloodletters and those who carried out amputations, and were often also barbers - hence the barber's pole sign outside shops showing a striped red and white pole, which symbolised the blood and bandages of their profession.

As for Sir Charles Hastings, it was most definitely as a physician that he achieved his reputation.

I don't know how to change the title of this article - could someone please oblige? Ben.hastings (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updatre - I fixed it. Ben.hastings (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Hastings (English physician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709120353/http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/BMAOutlineHistory to http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/BMAOutlineHistory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Hastings (English physician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127184723/http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/htt/619.aspx to http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/htt/619.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]