Wexler Anna
J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2017 Apr 1;72(2):166-192. doi: 10.1093/jhmas/jrx001.
This paper focuses on the history of a portable shock-producing electrotherapeutic device known as the medical battery (1870-1920), which provided both direct and alternating current and was thought to cure a wide variety of ailments. The product occupied a unique space at the nexus of medicine, consumerism and quackery: it was simultaneously considered a legitimate device by medical professionals who practiced electrotherapeutics, yet identical versions were sold directly to consumers, often via newspaper advertisements and with cure-all marketing language. Indeed, as I show in this paper, the line between what was considered a medical device and a consumer product was often blurred. Even though medical textbooks and journals never mentioned (much less promoted) the home use of electricity, every reputable electrotherapy instrument manufacturer sold a "family battery" for patients to use on themselves at home. While a handful of physicians spoke out against the use of electricity by the laity-as they felt it undermined the image of electrotherapy as a skilled medical procedure-existing evidence suggests that many physicians were likely recommending the home use of medical electricity to their patients. Taken together, this paper shows how the professional ideals of electrotherapeutics were not always aligned with physicians' actual practices.
本文聚焦于一种名为医用电池（1870 - 1920年）的便携式电击产生电疗设备的历史，该设备可提供直流电和交流电，并被认为能治愈多种疾病。该产品在医学、消费主义和江湖医术的交汇处占据了独特的位置：从事电疗法的医学专业人员同时认为它是一种合法设备，但相同版本却经常通过报纸广告并使用包治百病的营销话术直接卖给消费者。事实上，正如我在本文中所展示的，被视为医疗设备和消费品之间的界限常常模糊不清。尽管医学教科书和期刊从未提及（更不用说推广）家庭用电，但每一家著名的电疗仪器制造商都出售一种“家用电池”，供患者在家自行使用。虽然少数医生公开反对非专业人员使用电——因为他们觉得这有损电疗法作为一种专业医疗程序的形象——但现有证据表明，许多医生可能在向患者推荐在家使用医用电流。综上所述，本文展示了电疗法的专业理想并非总是与医生的实际做法相一致。
