4.5 Article

The early history of the placebo

期刊

COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 94-97

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2012.06.002

关键词

Placebo; Medical history

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the late 18th century the term placebo became part of medical jargon. In contrast to the prevailing opinion that it was the Scottish physician and pharmacologist William Cullen (1710-1790) who introduced this expression into medical language in 1772, the credit must be given to another English physician, Alexander Sutherland (born before 1730 - died after 1773). The main reason for administering placebos in late 18th-century medical practice was to satisfy the patient's demand and his expectations. Another reason was obstinancy of the patient: the motivation behind such prescriptions may be summarized as prescribing inert drugs for the satisfaction of the patient's mind, and not with the view of producing any direct remedial effect. In most cases these 18th century physicians did not administer pure placebos but resorted to any kind of medicine which they thought simple, feeble, or altogether powerless, non-perturbing medicines. Today we make the distinction between pure placebos (substances with no pharmacological effect, e.g. sugar pills) and impure placebos (substances with pharmacological effect but not on the condition being treated). In the 18th century those physicians who prescribed placebo usually thought of drugs which were considered not very effective in the particular case, e.g. a mild ointment. At the same time, only very few brilliant minds came up with the ingenious idea of using inert substances as placebo. An alternative to milk sugar used as placebo in homeopathy was breadpills. Recent research suggests that expectancy is an integral part of the placebo effect. As early as 1775 the English bishop John Douglas (1721-1807) anticipated the findings of modern research on the placebo effect. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据