RICHARD BRADLEY'S ILLICIT EXCURSION INTO MEDICAL PRACTICE IN 1714 by FRANK N. EGERTON III* INTRODUCTION The development of professional ethics, standards, practices, and safeguards for the physician in relation to society is as continuous a process as is the development of medicine itself. The Hippocratic Oath attests to the antiquity of the physician's concern for a responsible code of conduct, as the Hammurabi Code equally attests to the antiquity of society's demand that physicians bear the responsibility of reliable practice." The issues involved in medical ethics and standards will never be fully resolved as long as either medicine or society continue to change, and there is no prospect of either becoming static. Two contemporary illustrations will show the on-going nature of the problems of medical ethics. The first is a question currently receiving international attention and publicity: what safeguards are necessary before a person is declared dead enough for his organs to be transplanted into a living patient? The other illustration does not presently, as far as I know, arouse much concern among physicians: that medical students carry out some aspects of medical practice on charity wards without the patients being informed that these men are as yet still students. Both illustrations indicate, I think, that medical ethics and standards should be judged within their context. If and when a consensus is reached on the criteria of absolute death, the ethical dilemma will certainly be reduced, if not entirely resolved. If and when there is a favourable physician-patient ratio throughout the world and the economics of medical care cease to be a serious problem, then the relationship of medical students to charity patients may become subject to new consideration. In such ways, conditions influence ethics and standards. Armed with this perspective, one will not judge those involved in medicine in the early years of the eighteenth century according to present-day criteria. That was a time when even the best physicians might do more harm than good for their patients; when apothecaries prescribed medicines as well as preparing them; when a medical degree from a British university was not a guarantee of first-hand medical ex- perience; when charlatans and self-made practitioners were often tolerated or con- doned by society; when there were not nearly enough physicians; when many members * I wish to thank Gilman D. Grave, M.D., The National Institutes of Health, for reading this paper and providing many helpful suggestions, and Professor Edward 0. Doughtie, Rice University, for checking several citations for me at the British Museum after my return from there. 1 Henry E. Sigerist, 'The history of medical licensure', J. Am. med. Ass., 1935, 104, 1056-60; reprinted by Milton I. Roemer, ed., Henry E. Sigerist on the Sociology of Medicine, New York, MD Publications, 1960, 308-18. Benjamin Spector, 'The growth of medicine and the letter of the law', Bull. Hist. Med., 1952, 26, 499-525. Richard Harrison Shryock, Medical Licensing in America, 1650-1965, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967, ch. 1. 53 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.234, on 29 Sep 2021 at 16:44:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300015131 Frank N. Egerton III of the Royal College ofPhysicians were more concerned with establishing an exclusive and profitable guild than they were in raising standards of practice; and when even the flimsy regulations governing medical practice in Britain applied primarily to London and its environs.2 THE BACKGROUND OF BRADLEY'S EXPERIENCE The case of Richard Bradley (1688?-5 November 1732) practising medicine without having had any medical training was not unusual for the times, but it is noteworthy because Bradley was already a Fellow of the Royal Society and was later appointed the first Professor of Botany at Cambridge University. Furthermore, he was later to make significant contributions to biology.3 This case is also interesting because knowledge of it comes from candid private letters rather than from either the public proclamations of a quack or the complaints of physicians or society. As evident from his letters quoted below, Bradley apparently took the role of physician without premeditation because he was susceptible to the flattery of status, he needed money, and the opportunity arose from little effort on his part. Having assumed the role of physician, he did the best he could for the few patients he acquired. Very little is known about Bradley's early years. He apparently came from a middle class family. He spent most of-his adult life in and around London, and it is likely that he was born in that area. If 1688 is his birth date, he must have married before the age of24, because he sent his blessing to his children in a letter dated 11 May O.S. 1714, when he was presumably 26 years old.4 In one of his books he wrote that he had been interested in gardening since childhood,5 but nothing definite is known about his education. Thomas Martyn (1735?-1825), whose father, John Martyn (1699-1768), succeeded Bradley as Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, wrote that 'Bradley was never of any university, and had no education ....'.6 Anything that either of the Martyns said about Bradley is suspect, because John Martyn was jealous of Bradley's professorship and maliciously denigrated both him 'Leter S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1958. George Clark, A History ofthe Royal College ofPhysicians ofLondon, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966, vol. 2, chs. 22-27. Cecil Wall, A History of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London 1617-1815, ed. by H. Charles Cameron, revised by E. Ashworth Underwood, London, New York, Toronto, Oxford University Press for The Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, 1963. ' Gordon D. Rowley, 'Introduction', in Richard Bradley, Collected writings on Succulent Plants, London, Gregg Press, 1964, vii-xxiv. Frank N. Egerton, 'Richard Bradley's understanding of biological productivity: a study of 18th century ecological ideas', J. Hist. Blol., 1969, 2, 391-410. Frank N. Egerton, 'Richard Bradley's relationship with Sir Hans Sloane', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond., 1970, 5, in press. His birth year is given as 1688 by Donald McDonald, Agricultural Writers, from Sir Walter of Henley to Authur Young, 1200-1800 . ., London, Horace Cox, 1908, 170. The Bradley letters are in the Sloane Manuscripts of the British Museum. Cf. Sloane 3322 fol. 50. The Gregorian Calendar replaced the Julian Calendar throughout Holland by 1700, but not in Britain until 1752. While in Holland Bradley dated his letters either O.S. (Old Style) or N.S. (New Style), indicating respectively the calendars used in Britain and Holland. To minmize confusion, his dating is preserved here. To convert from Old to New Style, add 11 days to the Old Style date. 6 Bradley, New Improvements ofPlanting and Gardening, both Philosophical andPractical; explaining the motion of sap and generation ofplants; with other discoveries..., 3rd ed., 3 pts., London, W. Mears, 1719-20, [viii]. IsLeiter from Thomas Martyn to James Edward Smith, dated 12 April 1818, published by Lady Smith in Memoir and Correspondence of the late Sir James Edward Smith, M.D., 2 vols., London, Longman, 1832, vol. 2, p. 387. 54 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.234, on 29 Sep 2021 at 16:44:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300015131 Richard Bradley's Illicit Excursion into Medical Practice in 1714 and others;7 but it is probably true that Bradley attended no university. His writings attest to his having received a fairly good education, but he probably was not an outstanding student; had he been, he might have been granted a university fellowship. Although he wanted to be neither gardener nor farmer, plants remained a dominant interest throughout his life. The main reasons for studying plants at that time were either medicinal or agricultural, but Bradley was one of a growing number of people who were interested in plants primarily for aesthetic and scientific reasons. He probably became a member of the informal Temple Coffee House Botany Club that seems to have orignated in 1689 and persisted until 1717.8 It may have been through this group that he met the affluent apothecary, James Petiver (c. 1663-20 April 1718), who became his mentor. Petiver, a bachelor, was an insatiable collector of res naturae. He was the one most likely responsible for getting Bradley into the Royal Society, which favour was probably granted in hopes that Bradley would repay it by adding to Petiver's collections. This possibility is suggested by the fact that Petiver got Patrick Blair(1666?-1728) into theRoyal Society on the date Bradley joined (1 December 1712), after Blair had added to Petiver's collections.9 In 1714 Bradley went to Holland to obtain biological specimens for himself, Petiver, and others. It is from the letters written during this trip that we gain an insight into Bradley's practice of medicine.10 On this trip he followed in the footsteps of Petiver, who had gone there as the agent of another collector, Dr.Hans Sloane. The contacts Petiver made in 1711 were to be useful to Bradley three years later. In Leiden Petiver made the acquaintance of Dr. Herman Boerhaave (1668-1738), who probably was the one who persuaded the University to confer upon Petiver a Doctor of Medicine degree."1 In Amsterdam Petiver met Dr.