The former problem is difficult to evade, as amputations have no room in the Aristotelian worldview. In 1540, the teachings of Galen and Hippocrates were treated almost as absolute truth, as this was the medical curriculum taught and not publicly questioned. Physicians were responsible for learning how planetary arrangements in the celestial sphere influenced one’s temperament as determined by a specific balance of humours, and would prescribe a regimen to cure most illnesses resulting from imbalance of humours. Treatment was usually, exercise and eating vegetables. Bloodletting and leeching were more invasive procedures, which made it possible to reduce blood, one of the four humours, to its normal levels for an individual’s specific balance. …show more content…
This knowledge can justify the physician’s attempt at amputating a limb. That is, it can be a permanent solution to the King’s ulcer but the physician must know how it works. Since amputations had been rare until 1540, the physician would have had little to no prior experience with observing or performing amputations. Dissections were never done, anatomy was almost disregarded in medical school as other aspects of natural philosophy were deemed of greater importance (Lett, 1943); thus, the physician would have no way of knowing how the procedure could be problematic, lead to haemorrhaging and death. (Hernigou, 2014) The court physician must explain his best option is to practice an amputation with ligature to ensure the surgeons can be guided to do it properly, and how deal with complications that may arise for the King’s survival. Although it is something that religious authorities may not condone, as it can be seen as mutilating the body, the physician must argue that the body is already being mutilated by having ulcers that expose tissue underneath the skin. Instead, the physician must convince adversaries he is trying to prevent any further mutilations by foreign species such as insects through an amputation. Also, he can appeal to the adversaries of King Henry’s liberal nature considering his many marriages and also his interest in medicine. Moreover, since the Church of England was more open-minded than the traditional Roman Catholic Church, it is not necessary to declare the physician’s act as heretic