This blog post from the British Library showcases a 15th-century manuscript (Harley MS 1760) containing a fascinating early example of medical licensing. The document grants "Master Nicholao" permission to practice medicine in the diocese of Norwich, specifically allowing him to treat internal ailments. Issued by the Bishop of Norwich, it highlights the Church's historical role in regulating medical practice and reveals contemporary understanding of medical specializations, differentiating between treating internal diseases and surgical procedures. The manuscript exemplifies the intersection of religious authority and healthcare in medieval England.
The National Archives is seeking public assistance in transcribing historical documents written in cursive through its "By the People" crowdsourcing platform. Millions of pages of 18th and 19th-century records, including military pension files and Freedmen's Bureau records, need to be digitized and made searchable. By transcribing these handwritten documents, volunteers can help make these invaluable historical resources more accessible to researchers and the general public. The project aims to improve search functionality, enable data analysis, and shed light on crucial aspects of American history.
HN commenters were largely enthusiastic about the transcription project, viewing it as a valuable contribution to historical preservation and a fun challenge. Several users shared their personal experiences with cursive, lamenting its decline in education and expressing nostalgia for its use. Some questioned the choice of Zooniverse as the platform, citing usability issues and suggesting alternatives like FromThePage. A few technical points were raised about the difficulty of deciphering 18th and 19th-century handwriting, especially with variations in style and ink, and the potential benefits of using AI/ML for pre-processing or assisting with transcription. There was also a discussion about the legal and historical context of the documents, including the implications of slavery and property ownership.
Summary of Comments ( 13 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42832114
HN users discuss the historical context of medical licensing, highlighting how it served to protect established physicians and potentially stifle innovation. Some point out the inherent difficulty in assessing medical competence in earlier eras, lacking the standardized testing and scientific understanding we have today. Others draw parallels to modern regulatory hurdles faced by startups and new technologies, suggesting that licensing, while intended to protect the public, can also create barriers to entry and limit progress. The elitism and gatekeeping aspects of early licensing are also mentioned, with some arguing that similar dynamics still exist in modern healthcare systems. A few users express skepticism about the overall efficacy of medical licensing throughout history, questioning whether it has truly improved patient outcomes.
The Hacker News post titled "Permission to Practise Medicine," linking to a British Library blog post about a medieval physician's license, generated several interesting comments.
One commenter highlighted the striking similarities between the historical licensing process and modern medical regulation, noting the continued importance of established authorities granting permission to practice. They found it fascinating that core elements of professional certification have persisted across centuries.
Another commenter pointed out the irony of the physician, John of Burgundy, being licensed to practice in London despite apparently not being English. They connected this to the broader historical context of migration and the movement of skilled individuals across borders, suggesting that even in the Middle Ages, cities recognized and sought out expertise regardless of nationality.
A further comment focused on the text of the license itself, specifically the phrase granting permission "in the city and suburbs of London." This commenter questioned the geographical extent of the suburbs at that time and speculated on the challenges of defining the boundaries of the city's jurisdiction.
Someone else expressed surprise at the apparent lack of a requirement for formal medical education, contrasting it with modern stringent educational pathways for physicians. They wondered about the prevailing medical knowledge and practices of the period and how competency was assessed in the absence of standardized training.
The discussion also touched upon the role of the Bishop of London in granting the license, prompting a commenter to discuss the historical intertwining of religious authority and secular governance, particularly in matters of public health and welfare.
Finally, a commenter reflected on the broader historical context of the Black Death, suggesting that the licensing of physicians might have been partly a response to the devastating plague and a desire to regulate medical practices in a time of crisis. They pondered whether this period saw an increased emphasis on formalizing medical authority.
These comments collectively offer various perspectives on the historical license, touching on themes of professional regulation, migration, urban geography, medical education, religious authority, and the impact of historical events. They provide a richer understanding of the context surrounding the document and raise intriguing questions about the evolution of medical practice.