Category Archives: medical history

Tracing Britain’s early hospital ships

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Ships’ muster and pay book records provide valuable information about hospital ships in the Royal Navy starting in the 17th century, say Edward Wawrzynczak and Jane Wickenden.

Hospital ships carrying surgeons and medical supplies became a regular feature of Royal Naval operations in times of conflict during the second half of the 17th century. The vessels initially employed were typically old merchant ships hired for a specified period which underwent minimal alterations for their special role.

The Royal Navy deployed hospital ships for the first time during the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667) Four Days Battle, Abraham Storck, National Maritime Museum with aid from the Art Fund

Improvements were introduced early in the 18th century: the gun-deck was reserved for the sick and wounded, bulkheads were removed and canvas screens used to separate infectious cases. From this time, naval hospital ships were built in naval dockyards or purchased outright and modified for the purpose when required.

Many of the ship muster and pay book records have survived in remarkably complete form in naval archives. They provide valuable information about these hospital ships, especially where, when and how they were used, who was responsible for the care of seamen and what kind of patients were brought on board.

During the long 18th century, sea-going hospital ships were employed wherever in the world the fleet was engaged: in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Baltic, North America and the East Indies. Hospital ships were also stationed at major home ports before the construction of naval hospitals and continued as additional accommodation for the sick.

The nominal surgeon’s complement of a hospital ship included mates, assistants, helpers or nurses, and laundresses/washerwomen or washermen. Their actual number depended on the vessel’s size and function and probably reflected changing naval needs, the availability of suitable staff and the surgeons’ preferences.

The use of laundresses was recorded on the sea-going hospital ship Looe in 1718. In the 1740s, women nurses were often found on hospital ships stationed in port, such as the Blenheim at Portsmouth, with six nurses allocated to every 100 men. Five nurses formed part of the surgeon’s company on the Apollo hospital ship which sailed to the East Indies in 1747.

The records of two hospital ships that served in the Caribbean in 1741-44, Princess Royal and Scarborough, reflect the high incidence of sickness which affected some ships of the line and the high mortality associated with tropical diseases, notably yellow fever, which severely reduced manpower.

Such ships took sick or wounded men from ships of the fleet, cared for them until they were fit to return to their own ships, or conveyed them to a naval hospital. They relieved shore hospitals to facilitate the convalescence of patients, and returned invalided seamen home where they could continue their recovery.

The hospital ship to the fleet also housed the squadron’s physician. At the turn of the 19th century, hospital ships such as Thomas Trotter’s Charon and Medusa carried, as well as the usual medical necessities, essential foodstuffs to minimise the risk of scurvy. They kept the surgeons of the fleet regularly supplied and helped to ensure that their charges remained fighting-fit at sea.

Thomas Trotter (1766-1832), Physician to the Fleet, engraving by Daniel Orme, public domain

Edward is currently BSHM Vice-President and President Elect. Jane Wickenden was the Historic Collections Librarian to the Royal Naval Medical Service at the Institute of Naval Medicine from 2001 to 2021.

Wawrzynczak EJ & Wickenden JVS. From ‘Sick Comforts’ to ‘Doctor’s Garden’: British Naval Hospital Ships, 1620 to 1815. British Journal for Military History. 2023; 9(1): 24-48. https://journals.gold.ac.uk/index.php/bjmh/article/view/1687/1792

‘Wilson’s balls’: TB treatment in the 1940s-1950s

Posted on by | 1 Comment

A chance encounter with a jam jar of what appeared to be old ping pong balls in the (currently closed) Bakelite Museum in Somerset, set Christine Gowing on a fascinating journey to discover their link to pulmonary tuberculosis.

In 1945, someone died every ten minutes from pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in the United States. Nearly 50 years previously, French surgeon Théodore Tuffier had opined that not only collapsing the lung would help but that physically maintaining the collapse with a substance was crucial to resting the lung, so that it had a chance to recover from the tuberculous infection. The procedure became known as plombage.

In the intervening period, a range of procedures and cures was attempted, but a prolonged stay in a sanatorium became the best available therapy. Plombage experiments were performed with a variety of materials, but none really worked. That is, until plastics were introduced which coincided with the particularly enterprising spirit of a young American

Dr David A Wilson                      Kind permission of Dr Robert Wilson

David A Wilson was a member of the surgery house staff at Duke University Hospital, North Carolina in the 1940s. He had, himself, suffered with TB for a year during his medical training. Maybe that experience motivated him to persevere with researching ways to sustain the collapse of a TB-affected lung, following thoracotomy, in an attempt to treat the disease.

Lucite (polymethylmethacrylate) had recently been developed and, following trials with other materials, Wilson experimented with producing spheres made of the acrylic to pack into the patient’s chest cavity. As well as its strength, biocompatibility and resistance to water, Lucite’s ability to be shaped into complex curves made it an ideal material for plombage. Supporting Wilson’s pioneering procedure, the university laboratory technicians at Duke set to work developing one-inch spheres – and trials began.

The procedure was successful and its practice quickly spread, soon hitting the headlines as an effective TB treatment.  A small firm in New Jersey, Nichols Products, which produced plastic novelties, took over production of the Lucite balls in 1946. Archived records show that the balls were despatched widely throughout the United States and overseas, as Lucite plombage became increasingly adopted worldwide as a treatment for TB, until it became eclipsed by the use of modern antibiotics.

This innovative and audacious procedure was not without occasional side effects, however, such as the migration of the Lucite balls. A BMJ report in 2011 described a 76-year old woman who ‘presented with axillary squeaking on moving her left arm which she noticed during a yoga class. Her chest radiograph showed multiple rounded left upper zone lucencies.’  One of the balls had escaped.

It may have been a short-lived therapeutic success, but many patients such as this lived into their old age, free of TB, with what had become known as ‘Wilson’s balls’ in their chests.

Moreover, the significance of this procedure is not only its focus on a mid-twentieth century intervention for tuberculosis, but an illustration of the intersection of healthcare, new plastic technology and industry as a feature of post-World War Two medicine.

A Nichols propelling pencil Author’s own photo

My research journey took me from Somerset to the United States where I met Dr Wilson’s son, visited Duke University and the site of the factory in Moorestown, NJ, where Edgar Nichols, an inventor and multiple patent-holder, mass produced the Lucite balls. The building is now derelict, but in the 1940s and 1950s the factory had produced a range of early plastic novelties, such as the one in the photo above: a propelling pencil with, curiously, a Lucite ball at one end for use as a magnifier and telephone dialling tool.

 Christine Gowing has an MA and a PhD in the history of medicine. A full article with more detail of this pioneering procedure, Lucite plombage, was originally published in the journal of the Plastics Historical Society, ‘Plastiquarian’, December 2022.

 

 

Recycling Penicillin from Urine in Post-War Germany

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Limited supplies of penicillin and Allied restrictions on German access to the drug in the immediate aftermath of World War II led to its recovery from the urine of treated patients. Susanne Krejsa MacManus explains.

German research on penicillin started only in 1942 and then on a very small scale.[1]  Gerhard Domagk (1895-1964), the German scientist who in 1935 had developed sulfonamides, had advised the Nazi government to concentrate on improving of “his” type of antibiotics instead of trying to get its own penicillin production going.

It took Germany till the end of 1943 to really understand the importance of penicillin, but because of the efforts of the Allies to restrict information and materials,[2] German scientists were not able to learn about the right mould, nor could they develop the process to get a good supply.

From autumn 1945, British and American forces increased the amount of penicillin flown into hospitals in Berlin – mostly for their own soldiers as a treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. But the occupying forces faced a dilemma: on one hand, they had to look after the health of the population of the occupied areas; on the other hand, there was a hostile atmosphere against the German population – at least in the first months after the end of the war. Germany was categorised as a “defeated enemy” – in contrast to Austria which was categorised as a “victim”.

There was even a third aspect. The German pharmaceutical industry was known as being innovative and effective. The occupying forces hoped for “penicillin made in Germany” and encouraged companies like I.G. Farben, Hoechst and Chemie-Grünenthal to start such an undertaking.

The USSR did not have penicillin production of its own, although they claimed two of their scientists had invented the antibiotic long before Alexander Fleming. As early as early May 1945, Soviet forces who were eager to get penicillin as part of German reparations were pushing the German company Schering .[3]

Since one of Schering’s production sites lay in British territory, the company got support from the British element of the occupation forces for building laboratories and getting raw material (as this ad shows.).[4] 

Salzburger Nachrichten, 9/1/1946  Schering AG produces penicillin Berlin,  As the British broadcast has reported, the Germany pharmaceutical company Schering AG in Berlin will manufacture penicillin for Germany. The British military government has promised its support to the company in procuring the laboratory and the necessary material, so far as it is available in Germany.

But sufficient output was not available before the end of 1946/the beginning of 1947.

Two-thirds excreted

During their struggle to set up a production site, scientists at Schering recalled that two- thirds of penicillin given by injection left the body very quickly, so quickly that injections had to be repeated every few hours.[5] “If we could get the urine of patients treated with penicillin”, the scientists speculated, “we might be able to reclaim and concentrate this substance.”

The British and American forces permitted them to collect the urine from their hospitals on the condition that they got their share of the recycled substance. From March 1946, Schering’s scientists organised milk-churns and bicycles and went from hospital to hospital to collect patients’ urine. The recycling process was successful, and in spring 1947 it was extended into American and British areas of West Germany. In April 1949, nearly 5000 liters of urine from 3153 patients were collected from hospitals. This activity lasted till 1950, when the manufacturers’ penicillin production was sufficient to meet demand.

Recycling penicillin from urine was not a new idea, but its use on this scale was was exceptional. It showed that the German researchers had clearly understood the character of penicillin being excreted from the organism so quickly. Secondly, the process of recycling penicillin purified the substance, which at the initial injection had produced sharp and unpleasant feelings for the patient. And third, it shows how Schering’s researchers could act on their own initiative, without having to ask boards and committees for permission as they would have to do today.

Susanne Krejsa MacManus PhD is an independent journalist, author and archivist in Vienna. She is a member of the History of Medicine/Medical Humanities working group of the Commission for History and Philosophy of the Sciences at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW).

References

[1] I. Pieroth: Penicillinherstellung – Von den Anfängen bis zur Großproduktion, Heidelberger Schriften, 1992, p. 103.

[2] P. Rostock: Die Wunde, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1950, p. 290.

[3] J.-P. Gaudillière, B. Gausemeier: Molding National Research Systems, OSIRIS 2005, 20:180-202.

[4] Schering A.G. Berlin produziert Penizillin, Salzburger Nachrichten, 9. 1. 1946, p. 2.

[5] J.H. Humphrey: Excretion of Penicillin in Man, Nature 3920, 1944, 765.

 

 

Being right is not enough

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Scientific debate can be soured by the tendency for evangelical pioneers to see any questioning as opposition bordering on evil.   Their aggressive attitude can delay innovation, a lesson perhaps for our own times and a reason for studying history, says Mike Davidson.  

Ignaz Semmelweis

My wife and I saw the production “Dr Semmelweis” at the Bristol Old Vic. At last, a chance to experience live theatre with a full audience; it also fulfilled my interest in the history of medicine. The writers, Mark Rylance and Stephen Brown, were influenced by the 1952 biography Semmelweis (1818-1865) by Louis-Ferdinand Céline, a work I am unfamiliar with.

Their play is a dramatic interpretation of the work of Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) on puerperal sepsis and his failure to convince his contemporaries of the need for ward hygiene to control the disease. This was in no small part a result of his uncompromising personality and ability to alienate even his strongest supporters and allies.

Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. His observations brought him into conflict with many within the contemporary scientific and medical establishment.

The play records Semmelweis’s descent into madness, haunted by the ghosts of the women he has not saved. The ghosts are portrayed as dancers and musicians on stage and within the audience, as he recollects events. Much of the narrative takes the form of flashbacks acted out for his wife. The opportunities for engagement squandered by Semmelweis due to his lack of understanding of human nature are highlighted.

Rylance’s performance as Semmelweis was central and powerful and the cast provided strong support. I found two female performances poignant, Thalissa Teixeira, as his wife Maria, and Jackie Clune, as nurse Muller. The female characters provide a more balanced view of history than concentrating on male pioneers.

Muller is a senior midwife who helps Semmelweis with his introduction of hygiene methods and provides clinical data to support his thesis. His lack of empathy for her guilt in accidentally causing an outbreak of sepsis that contributed to her ultimate suicide speaks volumes of the single-mindedness and unforgiving attitude of Semmelweis.

There is a very pertinent observation by Rylance in an interview published in the Financial Times on 12 January 2022: “He wasn’t just a victim. He was also a very difficult person: someone who got very angry about people not understanding him and became his own worst enemy. Which maybe a lot of pioneers are — they’re people who cut through and are not the most polite or politically savvy people.”

The production at Bristol has now ended but given the enthusiastic reception it got there, it may be staged again.

I recommend the play not only for a medical history enthusiast but for anyone who wants to experience a thought-provoking performance by a talented cast, playwrights, dancers and musicians.

Mike Davidson is President of the British Society for the History of Medicine.

Control and the therapeutic trial: the influence of insulin

Posted on by | Leave a comment

How do we decide whether a drug, or other treatment, actually works? Martin Edwards describes the rhetorical strategy adopted by the Medical Research Council to establish its authority.

Patients’ variations in response to disease and treatment can render it fiendishly difficult to know whether a therapy is benefitting a particular individual. For centuries, the gold standard was the assessment of a wise and experienced clinician but during the first half of the twentieth century, new methodologies arising from the laboratory, hospital and statistical theory challenged this traditional model.

The stakes were high, no less than the moral authority to adjudicate how the therapeutic efficacy should properly be ascertained. Between the wars, the debate in Britain was frequently vitriolic – particularly between the Royal College of Physicians, which prioritised clinical acumen, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) which advocated newer methodologies.

The University of Toronto in 1921 granted British patent rights over insulin to the MRC and thus offered the MRC control, not only over insulin manufacture and supply, but also how to assess its effects and proper usage.

In fact, the MRC’s approach to testing was, as with other drugs at that time, highly eclectic; it sent samples of insulin to trusted clinicians in prestigious hospitals without any protocol or scheme for investigation – the clinicians were simply asked to report their experiences with the drug.

An unanticipated consequence of the MRC’s control of insulin supply was that it was on the receiving end of public clamour for the drug. Heartrending letters to the MRC described young people, typically in their teens or early twenties, dying slowly and horribly from diabetes, and pleaded for supplies of life-saving insulin.

Patients even turned up at the MRC, supported by loved ones. Landsborough Thomson, MRC Council Secretary, recalled the MRC administration being swamped by these requests and unable to fulfil its normal functions.

Reserved for controlled studies

In response, the MRC under the direction of its chairman Walter Morley Fletcher adopted a standard response to such requests, stressing that insulin was a new drug which needed to be reserved for ‘controlled studies’. The meaning of ‘controlled’ was not defined nor did it refer to the presence of a comparison group – none of the MRC insulin trials used one – but rather vaguely implied proper conduct, regulation and scrutiny.

So successful was this rhetorical strategy that the MRC repeated it when restricting supplies of penicillin in the 1930s and streptomycin and influenza vaccine in the 1940s. In each case, it stated that the drug should be reserved for ‘controlled trials’.

Control is a powerful word with implications of authority, power, regulation and order. Without defining it, the MRC appended the word to their own studies in the interwar years, using it as a rhetorical device in the battle for authority to adjudicate therapeutic efficacy.

By the time the MRC’s trial of streptomycin in tuberculosis – reckoned by many trial historians to be the first randomised controlled trial – was published in 1948, the MRC had successfully co-opted the word as applying exclusively to its own studies. It offered the streptomycin trial as an exemplar of how therapeutic trials should be conducted, describing the methodology as ‘the controlled trial’. By then, ‘controlled’ referred technically to the presence of a control group, though the other powerful associations of the word continued to resonate.

We have depended on the ‘controlled trial’ ever since. The MRC’s adoption of the potent word ‘control’ arguably began with insulin. Had it not been for MRC control of British insulin supply, might we simply refer nowadays to a ‘randomised trial’?

This text is an abstract of a talk given to a session of the Apothecaries’ History of Medicine Fellows 8/12/2021 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin.

References/further reading:

  1. A Landsborough Thomson, Half a Century of Medical Research vol. 2: The Programme of the Medical Research Council (UK) (London: HMSO 1975) pp 40, 230
  2. Liebenau, ‘The MRC and the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Model of Insulin’, in J, Austoker and L. Bryder (eds), Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) 163-80
  3. Edwards, Control and the Therapeutic Trial: Rhetoric and Experimentation in Britain 1918-48 (Amsterdam: Rodopi Publishing, 2007)