Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Taylor Still

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MD

[edit]

Back in the 1800's there was no formal education in the practice of medicine. Dr. Still learned his trade from apprenticeship like every other physician in that time. The fact that his was a physician is common knowledge and doesn’t need a citation to make it true. Dumaka (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it's not "common knowledge" and also Wikipedia is not a repository for uncited "common knowledge". --70.131.88.175 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're like 6 months too late. This argument was resolved long ago. BTW, it was cited (6 months ago) Dumaka (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were several traditional medical schools existing in the early 19th century, some as early as the late 18th century, although most aspiring physicians studied as an apprentice. This method gave way in the mid to late 19th century to the "didactic" method of attending medical school for a few months or even a year or two. By the late 19th century, some physicians were seeking advance training after medical school by undergoing a few months training in a specific area or a broader training in hospitals which later served as the basis for modern residencies. The U.S. Army helped institutionalize this practice by testing new physicians applying for service and then requiring a training period of 6 months.

A considerable revision is needed to this article.

[edit]

The latest revision does much for giving a more complete history of Still's earlier life but has edited out some aspects of Still's "philosophy" - such as his vehement rejection of vaccination (which had been utilized in England since the late 18th centrury and made mandatory by 1840), the germ theory and general medica which had gained wide acceptance by late 19th century when the concept of Osteopathy was being formed.

Much of the present article is written without regard to his theories having been disproven by the contemporary science of the era or the fact that modern osteopathic medicine's only relation to the original as formulated and taught by Still is the insistance on continuing to teach manipulations and retaining the degree "D.O." It would also be a service to include the fact that the manipulations are almost exclusively palliative and of little or no benefit to healing. There is no mention that the "holistic" method espoused by Still has become generally accepted by all branches of modern medicine.

The article needs a revision to give a balanced view of Still and Osteopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CashelrockVa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree - the article overstates his prescience and impact on the associated medical fields. The emphasis should be more on his organizational efforts than his generally dismissed academic contentions. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Taylor Still. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Taylor Still. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Taylor Still. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a MD

[edit]

He was not an MD but an experimental therapist. As outlined in the paper, he just completed a short medical course in 1870

A considerable revision is STILL needed to this article

[edit]

The points of the above section still stand. This article in its current form is a puff piece. A dangerous one at that. --Kraligor (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union Army Surgeon

[edit]

The article says he was a hospital steward in the Union Army but served as a "de facto surgeon." Although it is unclear if he became a Union Army officer, the "Category:American Civil War surgeons" was changed to "Category:Union Army surgeons" even though the upper level cat for that is "Category:Union Army officers". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century doctors

[edit]

While he was not a medical school graduate, most physicians in the 19th century were not. The point is he practiced standard 19th century allopathic medicine until his development osteopathy as an alternative. He became a physician through the apprentice system, which was completely acceptable at that time. It was the most common way a person became a doctor when Still was studying medicine. That’s not puffery, that’s an actual fact. 24.210.21.255 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True forefather or just aggrandizement?

[edit]

There’s a reference in the article that he’s one on the earliest proponents/advocates of “preventative medicine” and yet the citation is only a page of a collection of academic works. He didn’t coin the term (term came later) and historically many medical predecessors advocated health practices that were preventative in the general sense - for example, traditional Chinese medicine that vastly predates his century advocated treatments that could be described similarly regardless of efficacy. This isn’t to discount his contributions but rather that an attribution as a forefather of a foundational medical concept requires overlapping historical consensus of some sort. It seems inappropriate to describe his work as unique in this regard without more substantial citations. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The best way to describe his contributions would be cumulative from other contemporary fields of medicine, but also highly reactionary to that of the current medical climate. He likely drew experience from European bone setting and spinal manipulation, he was just the first to bring it together into one coherent science. Likewise, he differentiated osteopathy from alliopathy by the rejection of medication in favor of preventive medicine/osteopathy, but likely had no experience with Traditional Chinese medicine. Perhaps rewording it to say that he was amongst the first Western medical movements into preventative medicine would be more accurate.
There is also a degree of skepticism that this article is missing. Still was very unscientific (Rejecting Germ Theory, Cranial OMM, etc.), prideful to a fault, and often engaged in self-aggrandizement. However, he also played a major role in the first women in medicine and indirectly caused large changes in medical sciences. Put simply, Still was both revolutionary and a quack, a Freudian figure if you will. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a regular wikipedian, so I hesitate to add/change things on my own, so I'll chat. The following sentence is just wrong: "Still was also one of the first physicians to promote the idea of preventive medicine and the philosophy that physicians should focus on treating the disease rather than just the symptoms." Physicians since Galen had ALWAYS given advice about healthy living. In the absence of effective therapeutics, it was one of the major functions of a physician in the West. The idea that he was somehow pioneering in the idea that physicians should treat the disease not just the symptoms is misleading without context. In the western tradition, at least, diseases were the symptoms. Beginning in around the 1830s or so, mass migration to cities and subsequent formation of large hospitals and charities that had lots of patients with similar diseases and that also did dissections were able to more precisely diagnose diseases by matching external symptoms to internal changes (the Paris or numerical method of medicine). This allowed medicine to go from prognostic (will you live or die and how long will it take?) to diagnostic (really pinpointing what was actually happening). Now, the phrase "doctors just treat the sytmptoms" is more of an alternative medicine rhetorical move that devalues modern medical standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4500:1000:D41D:62F4:7C98:7C74 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Taylor_Still&oldid=1250191803"