Professorial correspondence [of R. Christison & J.Y. Simpson] relative to the chair of General Pathology / reprinted ... from the public journals of Edinburgh.

  • Christison, Robert, Sir, 1797-1882
Date:
1841
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Professorial correspondence [of R. Christison & J.Y. Simpson] relative to the chair of General Pathology / reprinted ... from the public journals of Edinburgh. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    12/16 (page 12)
    .1 Since I became a member of the Medical Faculty in 1821, the term of study for the graduates in Medicine has been extended from three years to four; the length of Hospital attendance imperative on them has been doubled, and either apprenticeship, or other means of acquiring practical information, has been enforced; independently of the Chair of Pathology, the number of courses of lectures required of them has been extended from seven to thirteen,—(viz., by the addition of the Practical Anatomy, Mid¬ wifery, Surgery, Clinical Surgery, Medical Jurisprudence, and Natural His¬ tory) ; the number of Professors entitled to examine these candidates has been raised from six to twelve; and while, in consequence of these changes increasing the burdens on the graduates, the number, both of students and of graduates, has been diminished, the number of Professors entitled to share the graduation fees has been doubled, and the share thereof falling to each of the Chairs formerly existing in the Faculty been reduced to one half. “ Now, every one of these changes has been made by the Senatus Aca- demicus. They have been made at three different times, and there have been differences of opinion as to the time when several of them should take effect, but each of them has been supported by the whole, or by a majority of the medical faculty existing at the time when it was resolved upon. I can say for myself, that I have zealously supported every one of them ; and I shall only add, that if, in the face of these notorious facts, any man believes that the Medical Faculty have, ‘ on all occasions, shewn great unwillingness to extend the course of study of the candidates for their degrees, and are guided by their pecuniary interests in the limitation of their number/—I am afraid that he will retain his belief although we were to come to an un¬ animous vote in favour of the continuance of an imperative course of Gen¬ eral Pathology.’’ I should be very sorry to think that I was blind to the merits of the Me¬ dical Facility, or of any other set of men, in this or in any other matter ; but I cannot conscientiously acknowledge that the Medical Faculty are entitled to the merit which Dr Alison claims for them. That the additions to the curriculum which he mentions, have been made, is unquestionable ; but an investigation of the circumstances in which they have been made will shew that the Medical Faculty have been by no means the leaders or active mov¬ ers in the reform that has been effected. It appears to have been in 1767 that a curriculum or course of study for those desirous to obtain medical degrees, was first introduced into the Uni¬ versity of Edinburgh. By the second statute of that curriculum, it was provided that the student, before being admitted a candidate, should have gone through, in this or some other University, a course of study in all branches of medical science. Some doubt having arisen as to what was im¬ plied by this last phrase, it was in 1777 declared to comprehend Anatomy and Surgery, Chemistry, Botany, Materia Medica and Pharmacy, Theory of Medicine, Practice of Medicine, and Clinical Lectures. In 1783, the length of the course of study was fixed at three complete years, and it was announced to be expected of candidates that they should attend the Univer¬ sity of Edinburgh at least one of these years. Though various changes were made in the interval between 1783 and 1824, in the less important regulations relative to Medical Graduation, the course of education prescribed continued through that long period without any change. Various events, however, took place, in the interval, in the University, in which the Medical School was materially interested, to which I may perhaps take another opportunity to advert,—such as the opposition the Medical Faculty made, in 1777, to the proposed establishment of a sep¬ arate Professorship of Surgery ; in 1788, to that of a separate Chair of Med¬ ical Jurisprudence ; and in 1806 to that of a Chair of Military Surgery ; as well as the restrictions and limitations which, in 1803, they caused to be in¬ troduced into the commission of the Professor of Clinical Surgery ; and the supercilious maimer in which, in 1815, they treated the application of the \