Three-Year Honors Program Thesis

Towards a Philosophy of Medicine

Jonathan R. Swanson

April 24, 1997

Advisor: Dr. Michael Gose

My undergraduate career is nearly over. Looming over the horizon is graduation and after that, hopefully, medical school. Unlike many of the pre-medical students who have known all their life that a medical doctor was their career ambition, I really did not know what I wanted to do in life. I couldn't decide until well into my first year at Pepperdine. I really cannot put my finger on what directed my path of undergraduate education, but I believe that practicing medicine is a profession that I truly want to be a part of.

Since I have not always wanted to be a medical doctor, I have often wondered why a person wants to be one. More importantly, what is a physician's philosophy of medicine. With the foundation of my undergraduate education perspective coming from a two year, sixteen unit, alternative within Pepperdine's general studies requirements known as the Great Books Colloquium, one of the many questions that I have come to ask myself is what will be my personal motivating principles and concepts that will lead me in practicing medicine.

Before I am a medical doctor, I will somewhere along the line recite the Hippocratic Oath. Hippocrates was an ancient Greek physician and philosopher who formulated his own ideas on what medicine was all about. I have often wondered when the time comes to recite this ancient oath, if I will truly know and understand what Hippocrates meant and what his philosophy of medicine was. With thousands of doctors graduating every year from medical schools across the United States, I presumed that most would have a solid base for their philosophy of medicine by the time they finished their medical education. I based this presumption on a belief that medical schools would educate medical students on the history and philosophy of medicine. I had not done any research at this point. I began my task of researching medical schools for descriptions of their philosophy of medicine courses on a high note. I was anxious to obtain copies of their course descriptions, syllabi, and reading lists so that I could have that knowledge for writing this paper on the philosophy of medicine. I thought that any board of curriculum would find it not only a worthy and justifiable course, but also an imperative one. I was soon dismayed and shocked. Of the one hundred fourteen licensed and accredited allopathic medical schools, not one of them had a course in the philosophy of medicine. Although many, but not a majority, of the schools had an ethics course in their curriculum, I was still very disappointed that not one school could boast of a philosophy course. In my mind such a course would be imperative as a context for all other work in medicine.

With the base of my education grounded in the "Great Ideas" I decided to find out what others thought of a philosophy of medicine. Since there does not seem to be a course in medical philosophy at any medical school, I felt that it is important for me to set a foundation for my philosophy of medicine before I commit myself to this life-long profession. Thus I felt a profitable direction would be to do my own research into a history of the philosophy of medicine.

Although Hippocrates (460 - 377 B.C.) is often called the Father of Medicine as he laid the foundations of modern medicine, there were others before him who had written on the subject, including Aeschylus (525 - 456 B.C.), Aristophanes (448 - 388 B.C.), Herodotus (5th Century B.C.), Plato (427 - 347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 -322 B.C.). Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Herodotus briefly wrote about medicine, but for both Plato and Aristotle, the physician and medicine were a large part of their respective philosophies. Both of these men wrote about medicine in two different ways; medicine as a science, and medicine as an art. For both (and thereafter) the science of medicine tends to emphasize exact, and accurate diagnosis of a disease, while the art of medicine tends to view the diseased patient in a larger context of relationships between the body and health. Thus, a physician who practices the art of medicine would more likely include the patient's emotional realities that influence health. A scientific doctor, on the other hand, tends to be more objective and emotionally neutral focusing on all that is known about the injury or disease itself.

Through many of his writings, it can be seen that Plato believes that medicine is both a science and an art, and that the physician is a master of both the science of medicine and the art of medicine. Without mastering both of these forms of medicine, the physician can not be a good physician. In one of his earlier writings, Plato writes,

"Is not medicine, I said, the science of health? . .And suppose, I said, that I were asked by you what is the use or effect of medicine, which is this science of health, I should answer that medicine is of very great use in producing health, which is an excellent effect." (Charmides, par. 164)

Plato goes on to describe the results and effects of other occupations and their sciences. Plato is saying that every occupation, whether it be a physician or even an architect, has a science. With this science is the effect that the occupation produces. In his example of the architect, Plato sees the effect of the occupation as houses which stem from the science of buildings. By viewing both of these examples, it is seen that Plato believes that the science of anything is actually the effect it produces. Thus, the science of medicine, is health.

Plato does not believe though, that by just knowing the science of medicine is the way to become a good physician. A good physician, he says, is one who also knows the art of medicine. He writes,

"And what sort of well-doing makes a man a good physician? Clearly the knowledge of the art of healing the sick." (Protagoras, par. 345)

If there is a "good physician," then there must also be a physician of the other extreme. Clearly, a bad physician must also exist. Plato writes,

"Now who becomes a bad physician? Clearly he who is in the first place a physician, and in the second place a good physician: for he may become a bad one also. . . the good may become deteriorated by time, or toil, or disease, or other accident. . . and if he were to become bad, he must previously have been good." (Protagoras, par. 345)

The only way to be a bad physician is to never have, or to lose, the knowledge that it takes to be a good physician. A bad physician then, would be one who does not have, or never had, the knowledge of the art of healing the sick. Although a good and bad physician have now been defined, what is exactly, the "art of healing the sick?" This art is integral to Plato's philosophy of medicine, and to define what this art is, would be integral to understanding his philosophy. Plato does not define this art anywhere in Protagoras, but we do find it elsewhere in his writings.

In Plato's dialogue Symposium we find a clearer sense of what exactly Plato's philosophy (or art) of medicine is. Plato divides his philosophy into two parts. He writes,

"And this is what the physician has to do, and in this the art of medicine consists: for medicine may be regarded generally as the knowledge of the loves and desires of the body, and how to satisfy them or not; and the best physician is he who is able to separate fair love from foul, or to convert one into the other;" (Symposium, par. 186)

Plato believes that the art of medicine can be divided into the knowledge of the body and the ability to satisfy the body's desires. Plato's philosophy of medicine emphasizes healing the entire body, not just curing the disease which has infected it. The best physician is the one who can distinguish between what the body needs and desires from what is unfavorable and disagreeable to the body. But how does one tell if the physician practices the art of medicine? Plato writes,

". . . just as the physician, whether he cures us against our will or with our will, and whatever be his mode of treatment . . . is a physician all the same, so long as he exercises authority over them according to rules of art, if he only does them good and heals and saves them. And this we lay down to be the only proper test of the art of medicine, or of any other art of command." (Statesman, par. 293)

Physicians are in command of the body and the patient. Because they have this power then, the only way to tell if they are exercising their authority (the art of medicine) to the best of their ability is to see if they are curing their patients. Thus, if he is satisfying the "loves and desires" of the body, then the physician is practicing the art of medicine.

Another aspect of Plato's philosophy of medicine can be seen in his dialogues of Laws. In Laws, Book IV, Plato describes two types of physicians. One is the slave-doctor and the other is freeman doctor. He writes,

"The slave-doctor prescribes what mere experience suggests, as if he had exact knowledge; and when he has given his orders, he rushes off to some other [patient] . . . But the other doctor, who is a freeman . . . carries his inquiries far back, and goes into the nature of the disorder; he enters into discourse with the patient and with his friends . . . and he will not prescribe for him until he has first convinced him." (Laws IV, par. 720)

For Plato, education of the patient is extremely important, just as important as the prescription for health and the correct diagnosis. If a patient becomes educated about the causes of his illness, then he can correct his living patterns in order to help "satisfy the needs and desires of the body" (Symposium, par. 186). One can see then, that education of the patient is an integral part of Plato's philosophy of medicine. Many physicians of that time would disagree. Plato writes,

"That if one of those empirical physicians . . . were to come upon the gentleman physician . . . he would say, you are not healing the sick man, but you are educating him; and he does not want to be made a doctor, but to get well." (Laws IX, par. 857)

Plato disagrees with these physicians though. Plato says that it is best to educate an ill patient so that he can help satisfy the body's needs. An empirical physician might cure a sick man even faster than a gentleman physician, but a gentleman physician gives the patient the opportunity to help cure himself of the illness forever. An empirical physician's prescription may not last forever. Plato believes (Symposium, par. 186) that conversion from a foul love to a fair love is what produces health. The production of health is what should be desired, as it is the science of medicine. Plato's philosophy of medicine then, is both the science and art of medicine combined together to bring about health and education to the patient.

Plato also describes an aspect of a physician that transcends both the roles of the empirical and gentleman physician. He believes that any true physician puts the good of the patient above anything else. He writes,

". . . no physician, in so far as he is a physician, considers his own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient; for the true physician is also a ruler having the human body as a subject, and is not a mere money-maker." (Republic, par. 341)

Thus, even though there are different types of physicians, Plato believes that the good of the patient is always first for any true physician. According to Plato, physicians have a sense of power over the human body and the patient. For Plato, physicians do not consider the interest of themselves, but the interest of the patient.

Aristotle has slightly different views on medicine, although he still believes that the science and art of medicine are important. Aristotle's view on the science of medicine is very similar to Plato's. In Topics, Aristotle writes,

"'The science of many things is one': here 'many things' may mean the end and the means to that end, as (e.g.) medicine is the science both of producing health and of dieting;" (Topics, par. 110b)

This is very similar to the definition of the science of medicine defined above and with Plato's definition. For both Plato and Aristotle, the science of medicine is the ability to produce health, i.e. the result of the treatment of medicine. The science of medicine then, emphasizes the ability to diagnose the disease and correctly treat it which leads a patient to health. Producing health comes about by identifying the causes of a disease and then developing a treatment which works against these causes. Aristotle also goes on to say,

"Thus inasmuch as the relation of a doctor towards the possession of ability to produce health is like that of a trainer towards the possession of ability to produce vigor, and it is a property of a trainer to possess the ability to produce vigor, it would be a property of a doctor to possess the ability to produce health." (Topics, par. 137a)

This statement made by Aristotle shows a view not expressed by Plato. This statement means that according to Aristotle, every physician or doctor must have the property of the ability to produce health. This would mean that every physician must practice and have knowledge of the science of medicine which is the production of health. Plato defined two different types of physicians, a scientific physician and a physician who practiced the art of medicine. Aristotle, on the other hand, emphasizes that all physicians must have a scientific aspect to their practice.

Does this mean that Aristotle only believes in a science of medicine and that the art of medicine does not exist or is not important? I do not believe so. Aristotle also believes in the art of medicine.

He writes, "As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the pursuit of health, and as in the other arts there is no limit to the pursuit of their several ends, for they aim at accomplishing their ends to the uttermost. . ." (Politics, par. 1257b)

Where Plato believes the art of medicine is complete knowledge of the body and the ability to satisfy the body's desires, Aristotle believes that the art of medicine is the desire to completely rid the body of any disease, i.e. bring the body to complete health. This, I believe, would include patient education of public health, much like Plato's freeman physician. Thus, Aristotle's and Plato's views on the natures of the science and art of medicine are quite similar. One difference they have though, is how they describe different types of physicians.

Aristotle also believes in different types of physicians, but his types are distinct from Plato's. For Aristotle, there are three types of physicians.

In Politics he writes,

"But physicians are of three kinds:--there is the ordinary practitioner, and there is the physician of the higher class, and thirdly the intelligent man who has studied the art: in all arts there is such a class; and we attribute the power of judging to them quite as much as to professors of the art." (Politics, par. 1282)

For Aristotle, the "ordinary practitioner" is the physician who only has knowledge of the science of medicine. This type of physician is very similar to Plato's slave-doctor. These physicians know how to diagnose and treat a disease, but do not enter into a discourse with the patient, nor do they try to educate him. Aristotle writes,

". . . for the physician does nothing contrary to rule from motives of friendship; he only cures a patient and takes a fee;" (Politics, par. 1287a)

These physicians know nothing of the art of medicine, so they of course do not practice the art. He may be friendly and courteous, but he only does what he is asked to, cure the patient of his disease for the time being. The "physician of the higher class" must be the type of physician who has knowledge of both the science and art of medicine, yet truly does not practice the art of medicine to the fullest extent. He does more than just diagnose the patient and then cure the patient from the disease. At the same time, he does not fully educate the patient about the disease and how to prevent it from reoccurring.

The physician who is the "intelligent man who has studied the art" is of course the physician who practices both the science of medicine and the art of medicine. This physician is very similar to Plato's "freeman doctor." According to Aristotle, this physician would put the good of the patient at the utmost of importance, not concerned with the good of himself. He writes,

". . . as we see to be the case in medicine, gymnastic, and the arts in general, which are only accidentally concerned with the good of the artists themselves." (Politics, par. 1279a)

The artful physician places the treatment and education of the patient (i.e. the art of medicine) above the good of himself. Thus, the true physician who practices the art of medicine to the fullest cares more for the health and well-being of his patients then about his fees or reputation. Aristotle would argue that if the artful physician practiced in this way, his fees and reputation would come regardless. It is through practicing medicine in this way that patients tend to trust and have faith in their physicians.

Aristotle's philosophy of medicine is quite similar to Plato's philosophy. Both argue that the best physician is one who practices the art and science of medicine equally and to their fullest. A physician who is practicing medicine with the absence or lack of either side of medicine is not practicing medicine to the best of his ability or knowledge, and would not be serving the patient's best-interests. Both philosophers would argue that both the art of medicine and the science of medicine are equally important in the practicing physician. And by example both give the greatest recognition to physicians who go beyond the art and science to also engage the patient in their own education.

Hippocrates (460 - 377 B.C.), known as the Father of Medicine, looks at medicine from slightly different viewpoints then Plato or Aristotle. He writes more on what Medicine is, rather than what constitutes the art or science of medicine. Hippocrates claims that Medicine itself was the Art. He then breaks this art down into three components. He writes,

"The art consists in three things--the disease, the patient, and the physician. The physician is the servant of the art, and the patient must combat the disease along with the physician." (Epidemics, par. 5)

Medicine is more than just treating a disease, or curing a patient. It is made up of the interaction between the patient and the physician working together to confront and defeat the disease. Thus, we see from Hippocrates that the art of medicine is Medicine itself, which is the patient and physician fighting the disease together.

So why is the physician the "servant of the art" as stated above? The physician is the servant because it is the leader of the three components of the art. Just as it is the servant's job to get things done for the master, it is the physician's duty to get everything working together for the cure of the patient. In Aphorisms he writes, "The physician must not only be prepared to do what is right himself, but also to make the patient, the attendants, and externals cooperate." (Aphorisms, Sect. 1, par. 1)

The physician not only has to worry about making sure he does everything correctly and accurately, but because he is the servant of the art, he must also make sure that everyone else is competent and doing their job correctly and accurately. In essence, the burden of performing the art of medicine with the patient and against the disease lies on the shoulders of the physician.

With such a burden placed directly on the physician, Hippocrates lays down some fundamental ideas which would help the physician in his artful craft. One of the ideas that he writes about is for the physician to look into the future to think about what might happen. He writes,

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future--must meditate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to diseases, namely to do good or to do no harm." (Epidemics, par. 5)

He also writes,

"Thus a man will be the more esteemed to be a good physician, for he will be the better able to treat those aright who can be saved, from having long anticipated everything; and by seeing and announcing beforehand those who will live and those who will die, he will thus escape censure." (Prognostics, par. 1)

If the physician has looked into the future to see what might happen, he will be ready for whatever happens. This will not only help him in fighting the disease and curing the patient, but if it happens that the patient will not live, he will be able to better prepare those who the patient's death affects. A physician who does this, according to Hippocrates, will have a much better reputation than if he just let things happen. He will be "esteemed to be a good physician" and his peers and patients will respect him for what he does and what he says. It takes more than just much talk and future thinking though. There must also be results. Hippocrates writes,

". . . for it is disgraceful in every art, and more especially in medicine, after much trouble, much display, and much talk, to do no good after all." (Articulations, par. 44)

Thus, there must be a primary goal for a physician, and that goal must be to cure a patient from his disease. Those physicians who cannot cure their patients as well as they can talk and perform will not be respected nor be termed a "good physician."

Like Plato, Hippocrates believes that there are ways with which one can tell how well a physician knows his art, or in other words, how one can find a "good physician." For Plato, this test of the art comes from whether or not the physician is healing and saving the sick. Hippocrates, on the other hand, believes this is just the primary object of the physician's craft. For him, a physician who is skilled in his art is something more. He writes,

"The prime object of the physician in the whole art of medicine should be to cure that which is diseased; and if this can be accomplished in various ways, the least troublesome should be selected; for this is more becoming a good man, and one well skilled in the art, who does not covet popular coin of base alloy." (Articulations, par. 78)

Thus, the "good physician" must be one who can, first, cure a disease, and second, cure the disease the best possible way for the patient. This means the least harmful and least painful way for the rest of the patient's mind and body. Not only will the physician be making it easier for the patient to help him combat the disease (Epidemics, par. 5) by easing his mind and body, but he will also be helping his reputation and the reputation of his art in general.

Hippocrates believes that not anybody can become a good physician, or even a bad physician. In Law, Hippocrates lays down some basic traits that are needed in a person who wants to be a physician. He writes,

"Whoever is to acquire a competent knowledge of medicine, ought to be possessed of the following advantages: a natural disposition; instruction; a favorable position for the study; early tuition; love of labor; leisure. . . He must also bring to the task a love of labor and perseverance, so that the instruction taking root may bring forth proper and abundant fruits." (Law, par. 2)

A physician must grow up with these qualities instilled in him. Hippocrates believes that one can tell if a person is going to be a physician during his childhood. Not everyone has a natural disposition and a love of labor innately born in them. If a physician-to-be does not have these qualities, his patients and peers will be able to clearly see this by his actions and results (i.e. his fruits). According to Hippocrates, it takes a unique type of individual to become a physician, let alone a good physician.

Of course, Hippocrates also believed that a physician held many other responsibilities. Many of these are ethical responsibilities found within The Oath. He writes,

". . . I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. . . I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art." (The Oath)

Hippocrates believes that a true physician will pass on the secret of his art to those that wish to know, but only to those that possess the talents and qualities which would make a good physician. He believes that a physician is also a teacher. Hippocrates also holds the belief that no physician should ever help a patient die, nor should he help with an abortion. Both of these two situations help form Hippocrates' philosophy.

Hippocrates' philosophy of medicine is Medicine itself. He believes that the interaction between patient, physician and disease is the key to understanding Medicine. This philosophy, or Art, is best accomplished and understood when the physician has certain qualities innately born within him, and when he cures his patients to the best of his ability, but with the least amount of pain to the patients. He believes that knowledge of the body depends upon the knowledge of the whole man. He believes that the physician has to act ethically.

This philosophy of Hippocrates has generally stood over the centuries, but yet there have been many other philosophers, writers, and doctors who have, over the years, slightly changed Hippocrates' philosophy to fit their own, or who have amplified his philosophy.

Biographer James Boswell agreed with Hippocrates that physicians were also teachers. In his biography of Samuel Johnson, Life of Johnson, he writes,

"What is implied by the term Doctor is well known. It distinguishes him to whom it is granted, as a man who has attained such knowledge of his profession as qualifies him to instruct others. . . A Doctor of Medicine is a man who can teach the art of curing diseases." (Johnson)

Thus, anyone who is granted the title "Doctor of Medicine" has the ability to teach others who have the qualities and temperament that is desired in a physician. What Boswell does not necessarily agree with Hippocrates is that all physicians have the responsibility to teach others their art. Boswell believes physicians are "qualified" and "can teach" others their art, but they are by no means responsible for teaching others. By Boswell's time, the late eighteenth century, there were most likely enough physicians who were qualified and had the desire to teach others that not all physicians had the responsibility of instructing those who wanted to learn.

Like Hippocrates, there are many men after him that believe a physician should help all those who need his help. This meant helping those that were less fortunate then them or even those that were offensive to or enemies of the physician. For example, Chaucer writes,

". . . as for us surgeons, it belongs to us that we do for everyone the best that we can, when we have been retained, and that we do no harm to our patients. Wherefore it happens, many times and oft, that when two men have wounded one another, the same surgeon heals them both. " (Tale of Melibeus, par. 10)

Chaucer, through his characters, believes that the role of the physician is to help all those in need. It does not matter whether the person is an enemy or a friend. It is the physicians duty to help the patients to the best of his ability without harming them further. Sigmund Freud also believes this way. He writes,

"The physician who is called in to treat a case of pneumonia has no need to consider whether the patient is a good man, a suicide, or a criminal; whether he deserves to remain alive, or whether it is for his advantage to do so." (New Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, lect. 34)

In a sense, this philosophy to help all those in need of a physician insists that the physician be ethical without passing ethical judgment on the patient

Although not necessarily agreeing with this philosophy, Charles Darwin does recognize that physicians help all those in need. He writes,

". . . and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. . . The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." (Descent of Man, chap. V)

Darwin recognizes that physicians act only for the good of the patient, no matter how they emotionally feel towards the patient. He also recognizes that if physicians do neglect those who are helpless and less fortunate, it would be because of the presence of evil. If the physician did work with this sense of evil, he would not be a good physician according to Plato (Protagoras, par. 345) as he would have lost the knowledge of the art of medicine.

There are others who have different views of medicine and physicians than what Hippocrates believes. Francis Bacon believes that physicians should not only help their patients by curing them, but if that is not possible, should help them die comfortably. He writes,

"I esteem it the office of a physician not only to restore health, but to mitigate pain and dolors; and not only when such mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage. . . whereas in my judgment they ought both to inquire the skill, and to give the attendances, for the facilitating and assuaging of the pains and agonies of death." (Advancement of Learning, Book II, par. 7)

Whereas Hippocrates emphasizes that physicians should never help a patient die even when the patient desires it, Bacon clarifies that it should be a fundamental part of a physician's philosophy of medicine to ease the pain when cure is not possible. Bacon believes that it is the physician's duty to help comfort the patient through recovery or through death. This philosophy then, would argue that physicians have a sense of duty to the patient and to their art (i.e. use everything in their power to help the patient to recovery and when recovery is impossible to ease the injury and even death.). This philosophy has since stood over the past couple of centuries.

Sigmund Freud (1856 -1939) has most recently re-emphasized the role of the physician. He believes in many of Hippocrates' writings, but feels that there is something missing from Hippocrates' philosophy. This missing piece is how the physician himself affects the patient. He writes,

"I say it is hardly avoidable that the personal relation to the physician should not become unduly prominent . . . Indeed, it seems as if such an influence exerted by the physician is a condition under which alone a solution of the problem is possible." (Hysteria, Chap. 4, part I)

He later adds,

"One endeavors to do something humane for the patient as far as the range of one's own personality and the measure of sympathy which one can set apart for the case allows. . . Among the intellectual motives employed for the overcoming of the resistance one can hardly dispense with one affective factor, that is, the personal equation of the doctor," (Hysteria, Chap. 4, part II)

Obviously, Freud believes that the physician is indispensable in the recovery of the patient. Not only indispensable in providing the treatment for the recovery, but also providing a positive influence with which the patient can bond to. Freud believes that it is through this influence and trust that patients have with their physicians that some diseases are cured. Medical treatments are not the only means by which patients are cured of their diseases, but also through the personal influence of their physician.

Through the centuries, the reasons why and how physicians practice the art and science of medicine have been clarified, amplified and even changed. For me, it has been a long and arduous journey looking at and reading what dozens of philosophers, writers, and physicians have said about the practice of medicine. I believe that this discourse on the philosophy of medicine will continually be changing as it has in the past, which I also think is a good thing. If physicians were stagnant and steadfast in their reasons of why they practiced medicine, the art of medicine would most likely die. Although I have not fully realized my own philosophy of medicine, I believe that I now have a solid foundation on which it can grow on. Before I started on this journey, I was not really sure what a philosophy of medicine would mean to a physician, or to me. As I neared the end though, I started to lean towards one end of the spectrum of philosophies. After finishing this discourse, I now know that I tend to behave in a manner much like Plato's freeman doctor. One of the most important reasons why I want to practice medicine is the interaction with patients. Much like the freeman doctor, I want to be able to talk and interact with my patients, and, at the same time, also cure and educate them. Goethe wrote, "That your art many arts doth far transcend," (Faust, ln. 2030) and this is what I want to do. I want to be able to bring all of my talents and my entire personality into my practice of medicine. This, I believe, can only be done through a type of physician much like Plato's freeman doctor. Although the art and science of medicine are continuously changing over time, I know that for right now, my practice of medicine will one of a philosophy like Plato's.

Bibliography

Aristotle. Politics.

Aristotle. Topics.

Bacon, Francis. Advancement of Learning.

Boswell, James. Life of Johnson.

Chaucer. Canterbury Tales. "The Tale of Melibeus."

Darwin, Charles. Descent of Man.

Freud, Sigmund. Hysteria.

Freud, Sigmund. New Lectures on Psycho-Analysis.

Goethe. Faust. Part I.

Hippocrates. Aphorisms.

Hippocrates. Articulations.

Hippocrates. Epidemics.

Hippocrates. Law.

Hippocrates. The Oath.

Hippocrates. Prognotics.

Plato. Charmides.

Plato. Laws.

Plato. Protagoras.

Plato. Republic.

Plato. Statesman.

Plato. Symposium.