Hippocrates - Biography

Hippocrates, the body of work referred to by the name ‘Hippocrates’ is likely the work of a number of writers, as was the custom of the time. Therefore, despite Plato’s reference to Hippocrates the individual, namely, Hippocrates of Cos (450 BCE – 380 BCE) the Corpus Hippocratium is believed to be the collected works of a number of individuals, sharing a time, place and a general thesis and method.

The Corpus Hippodraticum is a text composed of two major topics, biomedical methodology and ethics. Regarding the latter, this text may very well be the first instance of a reflective code of professional ethics, in particular the professional ethics of medicine. Regarding biomedical methodology, this text is certainly the most detailed ad intricate collection of biomedical observations. Moreover, the text also provides a set of speculations, which when pieced together, provide a theoretical framework for diagnosis and treatment.

Modern interest, of course, in the Corpus compiled by these writers is not in their conclusions, but in the fundamental methodological problems they confronted, and in the solutions they proposed.

The typical distinction drawn between the contributors to the Corpus is that between those of Cos and those of Cnidos. The former, as opposed to the latter, aimed at abstracting general biomedical laws, while the latter claimed the priority of individual and idiosyncratic cases. The extraction of general laws from particular cases aimed at composing a body of laws that any practitioner could refer to, and thereby have an etiology of the disease, and consequently a framework, if not a specific strategy for treatment.

The theory of the Four Humors of the body, namely, blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm, involved a principle of balance. That is, health was supposed to be a consequence of balance between the four humors, while disease or sickness was supposed the result of an imbalance. A diagnosis of a particular excess or deficiency was dealt with by an empirically deduced effective counter measure. Typically, this involved the prescription of a particular counter-acting agent, for example citrus juice or fruit. Although it s impossible to claim with certainty the effectiveness of the treatments in general, we can nonetheless deduce that the treatments were largely effective from the fact that many of the cures based on the humor theory extended into the 19th century. The general method of there early medical practitioners finds analogy in British Empiricism.

A fierce debate raged between the factions over the efficacy of general causes theories. The Cnidos faction held that strict empirically derived laws, and rigid reliance on them, did no allow the practitioners to go beyond the data. They proposed that each individual ought to seen in their undeniable particularity, instead of being fitted into an empirically derived category. This debate resolves around the status of observational conclusions. The two basic options were crudely the priority of particularity, or that of universality. That is, should the observations be grouped into more general principles, or remain individual accounts? This distinction is often, rather inappropriately, referred to as one between trial and error, and general laws. Obviously, this distinction is inadequate since the general laws themselves are ultimately sourced from trial and error. The distinction is better articulated as one between the presupposition of the identity of diseases bearing the same symptoms, and also an identity of the human bodies reactions to the same disease, and the presupposition of a rather radical idiosyncrasy of symptoms and human bodies. This dilemma still confronts practitioners of all fields, and the ultimate ruling of one over the other is as distant and unlikely today, as it was over 2000 years ago.

The same debate repeats itself on the issue of prognosis and treatment. Where the Coan faction aimed at establishing a theory of causes that underlies individual cases, the Cnidians argued that such presupposed generality lead to a diminished ability to treat novel cases. Their focus, directed by their maxim of idiosyncrasy, was to confine themselves only to sensuous data. The crude distinction often made between the two factions becomes problematic when particular claims of each faction are considered, for example, the reasoning behind the Coan search for underlying causes, which developed into a classification of types of diseases, is in part grounded on the observation that the particular manifestation of symptoms is certainty not uniform. The search for underlying causes thus begins with the very premise of the Cnidians, and seeks to overcome it by, in a sense, taking it to its extreme.

This Coan program can be justifiably considered as the beginning of a more theoretical understanding of nature, one that goes beyond, by going beneath, the simpler understanding of nature as individuals possessing similarities. Such an understanding of nature conceptualizes it as the regulator of the symptoms, and consequently, as the determining factor in prognosis and treatment. Moreover, such an understanding allows the practitioner to hypothesize and consider the patient’s symptoms beyond the present moment, that is, to consider them in the past, present and future.

Hippocrates is often considered the father of medicine, in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field, however, given that the Corpus which bears his name, is almost certainly the work of a collective, it is more appropriate to consider the Hippocratic School as the father of medicine. The Hippocratic School, especially the Coan faction, influenced all three principal Hellenistic schools, which followed, namely: the Dogmatists, the Methodists and the Empirics.

The second element of the Hippocratic School that is of interest to more modern times is their ethics, or code of conduct, as articulated in The Oath of Hippocrates. The standard, and certainly most likely, account of the origin and necessity for the Oath is that during Hippocrates’ time there were many charlatans seeking to pass themselves off as physicians. The Hippocratic School dealt with this in much the same way we do to this day, namely, it created codes of conduct and structures of accreditation.

The Oath:

I swear by Apollo the physician and Æsculapius, and Health(Hygeia), and All-heal(Panacea), and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation — to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.