Throughout history, the discovery of anatomy through the process of dissection has always sparked the curiosity of many scholars scattered across the world's empires. It is interesting to note how dissection was integrated into the study of medicine as a science and how this was influenced by the culture, religion and established beliefs of specific historical periods. The correlation between the process of dissection and the study of anatomy was initially linked fortuitously, and its popularity as a science has fluctuated throughout different periods of history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essay In this report, I would like to examine the accuracy of some of the earliest anatomical discoveries from the pre-medieval period, based on of theories developed by scholars such as Hippocrates, Herophilus and Erasistratus who immersed themselves in the study of anatomy through cadaveric dissection to varying degrees and how this influenced the accuracy of their studies. I would particularly like to analyze Galen's contribution and legacy to medicine and the study of anatomy, highlighting how his deviation from the dissection of human cadavers affected the vast legacy of his work. I will conclude by explaining how the study of human cadaver dissection, at the heart of anatomical and medical studies, has led to the most important anatomical discoveries that have been able to advance the field of medicine towards the complete integration of dissection into the modern medical program. The beginnings of anatomy Between the Greek and Anatolian peninsulas in 460 BC Birth of Hippocrates, the “Father of medicine” (Persaud, 1984). Although very few of his anatomical studies were correct, since he based the physiology of the human body on the concept of the four "humors" (Porter, 2017), Hippocrates was the first to remove magic and superstition from medicine and to make it into medicine. science. It is not known whether he carried out dissection of human cadavers, as this was considered an "unpleasant, even cruel task" (Persaud, 1984), although he most likely observed wounds and carried out dissections of animals, which allowed him to identify several organs such as the lungs. , kidneys, bladder and intestine (Persaud, 1984). His most important anatomical errors were his more detailed descriptions of the cardiovascular system and the function of the atria of the heart as air reservoirs (Persaud, 1984). Nonetheless, Hippocratic physicians practiced patient-centered care and were keen observers of trends in pathology, skills that modern doctors aspire to acquire and that institutions such as universities and the General Medical Council (GMC) ensure. that they be included in the modern baccalaureate program. of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS). Additionally, Hippocrates established the concept of “do no harm” or non-maleficence, now a principle of medical ethics (Porter, 2017). Aristotle, born after the death of Hippocrates, greatly contributed to the knowledge of anatomy, even though he was not a doctor and had not himself dissected a human corpse (Crowther, 2018). He believed, like many researchers after him, that human and animal anatomy were comparable (Persaud, 1984), but he was able to advance on the structural presence of large vessels such as the aorta and the pulmonary vein and that these These came from the heart. and not the brain, as previously believed. His description of the trachea with cartilaginous rings was correct, including his relationship ofposition with the esophagus and the function of the epiglottis during food ingestion. Aristotle described the gastrointestinal tract accurately, correctly described the hepatic portal through the liver, but without identifying the connection between the hepatic artery and the celiac trunk, the first major branch of the abdominal aorta (Abdel-Misih and Bloomston, 2018). His description of the function of the kidneys as an organ of separation and excretion was correct, although his view of the structure of the kidney as consisting of many small kidneys (the pyramids) was perhaps a little simplistic (Wallace, 1998 ). After the fall of Greece to the Roman Empire, scholars of literature and science retreated to Alexandria, the intellectual and cultural center of the world. The rigidity of Aristotelian scholars was overturned by scholars who favored a more empirical method of study including scientific investigations, observations, and clinical histories. Two prolific individuals during this period were Herophilus of Alexandria and Erasistratus of Ceos, the former considered the founder of systemic anatomy while the latter was the first scientific physiologist (Dobson, 1925). As contemporaries and researchers in similar fields of medicine using the vital tool of cadaveric dissection, their collaboration led to an overall development in the knowledge of anatomy. In Alexandria, cadaveric dissection was at the forefront of understanding human anatomy and Herophilus and Erasistratus were both accredited for human vivisection on criminals as well as the removal of live fetuses from the womb. Herophilus advanced on Aristotle, providing a description of at least seven pairs of cranial nerves (von Staden, 1992) and understanding that when they emerged from the brain (Porter, 2017), this proved that the brain was the seat of human intelligence, as opposed to the heart. Although predating Galen, Herophilus also suggested that there may be more than seven cranial nerves (Persaud, 1984). Galen had advanced on this point and recognized the importance of tracing the source of all nerves by dissection, which Herophilus had not done. Herophilus and Erasistratus disagreed on the contents of the blood which Herophilus believed was blood, while Erasistratus suggested it was pneuma (Porter, 2017). Erasistratus was also credited with individual anatomical discoveries that included the function of the bicameral heart as a mechanical pump and illustrated the function of the heart valves, discovered by Herophilus (von Staden, 1992). The freedom of their studies of anatomy through dissection and vivisection allowed the medical school of Alexandria to flourish further and attract more scholars, because their findings, often precise and empirical, were reproducible by other people interested in gaining a truthful understanding of human anatomy. Therefore, the discoveries attributed to them are found in the works of eminent scholars such as Galen, as unfortunately all of their writings have been lost. Despite the omnipresent religious and moral obstacles, Herophilus and Erasistratus built the foundations of the study of anatomy on dissection, because previously this was limited to a superficial exploration of the human body triggered by pathological demands rather than for academic purposes (Gosh, 2015). The Roman conquest of Alexandria in 30 BC by Octavian, later called Augustus (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), followed the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra on behalf of the Emperor Julius Caesar. The conquest of modern Egypt meant that the dissection of human corpses was no longer permitted (Persaud, 1984). During the period of the Roman Empire which lasted untilthe invasion of the Sassanid Persians in 619 AD (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), the infamous scholar Claudius Galen was born. Galen is one of the most famous anatomists of Antiquity due to his numerous, often public, dissections of different animal species, which gave him an in-depth knowledge of anatomy, allowing him to write numerous books on the subject. Galen understood and emphasized to his students the importance of a thorough knowledge of anatomy for the physician. Being appointed as a Physician's Gladiator provided him with the opportunity to observe human anatomy in vivo, something he would not have been able to do otherwise.witness. However, this was not a problem for Galen, who considered the internal organs of the pig to be extremely similar to those of humans. What ensured Galen's popularity was that he explained the complexity and exquisite relationship between the structure and function of different parts of the human body as being due to divine providence, which was accepted by all. religions and translated into many languages. Galen's studies focused on the dissection of veins, arteries, muscles and nerves. His description of human bones was one of the first to attempt to construct an anatomical vocabulary. Although Galen was very careful in his description of the internal organs, his stubborn reliance on animal dissections led him to make many errors. The effect of Galen's legacy on future anatomists meant that his incorrect description of blood circulation and his adherence to the pneumatic theory established by Erasistratus that arteries contained a pneuma, delayed the discovery of pulmonary and systemic circulation until 'in the 17th century, when the blood circulation was discovered by William Harvey. The Hippocratic theory regarding the four "humors" of the body: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile, was a theory supported by Galen and which described that a pathological condition was caused by an imbalance in one of these fluids in the body. He thus practiced bloodletting, also known as bloodletting, to cool the body and restore balance to the body. This practice will permeate until the 19th century as well as the theory of “humours”. I would argue that although Galen meticulously described many organs of the human body, such as the female reproductive system, he partially backed away from correlating philosophy so closely with theology and medicine. He looked down on many of his colleagues who based their studies on empirical findings, but then prided himself on being a medical scientist. He publicly demonstrated that severing a living pig's spinal cord at various levels would eventually cause the pig's cries to cease, because the recurrent laryngeal nerve would ultimately be severed (Gross, 1998). This proved the extension of the spinal cord from the brain and that the brain controlled behavior (Gross, 1998). However, his errors were based on his complacency which avoided any variation in his works as well as his explanations of anatomy and physiology through speculations about the macrocosm instead of direct observation and empirical results. In 1315, the first public human dissection on record was carried out in Bologna by Mondino de' Luzzi (Porter, 2017). Anatomy would now become increasingly important in the study of medicine, but it was some time before anatomical theaters were built and anatomical dissection was included in the medical curriculum. Galen's anatomy was ubiquitous and cadaveric dissection was justified as a means of reflecting the perfection of the human body created by God rather thanadvance clinical practice and surgery based on a deeper and more precise knowledge of human anatomy. Due to Boniface VIII's papal ban against the dismemberment of bodies in 1300 (Porter, 2017), the increasing frequency of cadaveric dissections may be explained by an increasing desire to establish the cause of death after homicide through autopsy , as well as using dissections as a form of punishment for criminals and at the same time providing entertainment and warning to citizens. Although religious injunctions prohibiting dissection persisted during this period, it can be argued that public apprehension was decisive in ensuring that the practice of dissection was subject to strict rules (Gosh, 2015). However, it is unlikely that many researchers took advantage of these opportunities to advance the study of anatomy, as the dissections had now become simply a ritual of demonstrating material known from Galenic texts that would have guided the student in their medical training rather than doing so.discovery (Porter, 2017). A dissection was thus led by a pre-elector lecturing from a pulpit while a lowly assistant dissected the corpse, the pre-elector blindly following the text with an indistinguishable view of the dissected body (Gosh, 2015). It is therefore rational to conclude that the Middle Ages was a period of few anatomical discoveries. Furthermore, it is a period in which we have the most simplistic anatomical illustrations compared to, for example, the Renaissance period. However, it is important to establish that medieval illustrations had a different role, that of simply representing general, non-factual anatomy and being used as teaching aids (Porter, 2017). To whom we can attribute the most precise anatomical illustrations is none other than Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519 (Heydenreich, 2017). Leonardo studied anatomy in the most comprehensive way, from the point of view of a mathematician and that of an artist. Although Leonardo often relied on tradition rather than observation, for example in his description of the liver as having five lobes rather than four and remaining relatively faithful to Galen, his illustrations were certainly superior and more "realistic" by compared to those of medieval anatomists (Porter, 2017). Leonardo's illustrations convey a thorough understanding of the musculoskeletal system, with no doubt about the correctness of its origin and insertion, as well as knowledge of the function of muscles and their antagonists and the complex action of muscles and bones acting as levers during dynamic movement. Following Erasistratus, Leonardo discovered the movement of heart valves during systole and diastole, as well as the nature of blood vessels and their change with age (Keele, 1973). It is surprising that thanks to his technically advanced experiments, Leonardo was not able to discover the circulation of blood. These successes could not have been achieved without the help of the true science of dissection and a keen sense of observation of Vesalius and Galenism. Overall, the formal study of anatomy by dissection at major European universities such as Bologna and Paris stagnated until the early career of the scholar Andreas Vesalius, born in 1514 (Persaud, 1984). Anatomy teachers often ignored anatomical nomenclature and faithfully followed the Galenic texts, without accepting deviations from his work. Jacob Sylvius, a major influencer of Vesalius, said that "man must have changed his structure over time, because Galen's teaching cannot be wrong." However, the brilliant and enterprising Vesalius took intocontinued his medical training, privately dissecting small animals and rodents for his own studies. In 1537, Vesalius obtained his doctorate in medicine and was appointed professor of surgery at the University of Padua (Del Negro, 2003; Persaud, 1984). Vesalius was exceptional in the study of anatomy for his redefinition of dissection, often encouraging his students to dissect while teaching and lecturing them, as well as using the comparative anatomy of small animals to emphasize the specific characteristics of the human body. During his professorship at the University, Vesalius correctly articulated a human skeleton and was the first to finally compare and courageously point out the errors made by Galen in his conclusions drawn from comparing the skeleton of an ape to that of a a human (Persaud, 1984). Vesalius thus emphasized the necessity of cadaveric dissection to discover the true anatomy of the human body and suggested that this was the reason behind Galen's many baseless "discoveries." Vesalius brought the process of dissection once known as an unfounded and distasteful science to a level of utmost importance, as the primary tool of pure scientific analysis in the field of medicine. Obviously, Vesalius received brutal criticism from Galen's supporters, but he remained unfazed and unlike Galen, he accepted and often responded to constructive criticism from his colleagues. Vesalius was not timid or incapable of making his case, as he paved the way for more dynamic progress in the science of anatomy, identifying obvious errors in the works of previous researchers simply through scientific experimentation and observation of the human body. Vesalius' main impact was to move away from the concept that dissection was merely an addition to anatomical illustrations and to establish that dissection was essential to learning anatomy (Gosh, 2015). However, Vesalius did not ignore the work of previous scholars and when in 1543 he published De Humani Corporis Fabrica, 659 pages of illustrated anatomy, the book was divided into seven sections, following the Galenic approach to dissection. If his methodology for the dissection process, illustrated in the text, was followed correctly, any budding student of anatomy could independently dissect and learn a human cadaver. Despite the more in-depth study of anatomy on human cadavers, Vesalius' work was also linked to some incorrect details such as the presence of the "rete mirabile" at the base of the brain, the division of the sternum and the five-sectioned liver. lobes. . This bridge connects Galen to almost all of his successors, highlighting the impact he had on anatomy despite many of his misconceptions, simply because of the vast legacy he left behind. The works of Vesalius would also have this effect and would establish themselves as one of the greatest in modern science since Galen. The 17th century The 17th century led to another progression in the study of anatomy and medicine, where experimental research was carried out as a means of discovering functional anatomy and physiology, insufficiently studied by the scholars mentioned previously, Galen, Leonardo and Vesalius. William Harvey, born in 1578, studied at the University of Padua between 1599 and became interested in the study of the movement of blood, inspired by the studies of Aristotle, who held that the heart was the origin of the veins and that the organ where all the blood converged. Harvey discovered the function of valves and the direction of venous blood flow through the simple experiment of squeezing and compressing protruding veins, but most importantly he applied Galileo's notion of quantitative inquiry in biological experiments.