Abstract
The day 29 December 2019 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Sir William Osler (1849–1919). Although this is not a themed issue of the Journal (such has already appeared, as a Supplement to volume 15, published in 2007) this anniversary (already celebrated, very prematurely, elsewhere 1 ) provides an opportunity to publish a number of articles related to Osler. These pieces, along with occasional publications in JMB over the intervening years since the Supplement,2–4 summate to a significant corpus of Osler-related material.
Few clinicians of the modern era can have had greater lasting impact on the profession of medicine than Osler. His most evident contributions relate to his emphasis on bedside clinical teaching, his acute descriptions of many clinical disorders, and the influence of his textbook, the Principles and Practice of Medicine (PPM) which was pre-eminent in its day. 5 However, there is also a “charge sheet” against Osler.
He was a persistent and determined “practical joker.” 6 My understanding of this terminology suggests its meaning to be along the lines of having fun for personal gratification at the expense of unwitting others. Whilst this might work with your close friends, it may cause embarrassment and distress to others, and, like most such jokers, Osler was less enthusiastic when the joke was at his expense (e.g. when given incorrect information on ergotism which was nearly included in PPM; see Bliss 5 , p. 185). This “practical joking” also extended for Osler to a wilful and persistent perversion of the medical literature with publications under his alias of Egerton Yorrick Davis (EYD).
Whilst it is not appropriate to judge a historical figure by the mores of later times, since we are all of us more or less prisoners of the cultural assumptions of our times, it is likely that such behaviours today would be viewed with opprobrium and might prompt sanctions, possibly even expulsion, for transgressing codes of professional and ethical behaviour.
Osler’s views on women in medicine were not entirely progressive. He advised Dorothy Reed to go home before commencing her medical studies at Johns Hopkins, 7 although later was a supporter, as for other female students. Again this behaviour may be viewed as typical of his age.
I do not doubt that such comments may provoke howls of protest from those who regard Osler as little less than a (secular) saint. But since no one now has direct experience of Osler, the man or the clinician, some, perhaps particularly those now entering the profession, may ask the question as to why he is so sanctified when the circumstances of clinical practice have changed so significantly. It remains to be seen if his ability to inspire medical practitioners persists into a second century after his death.