Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:12:52.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A barrier to medical treatment? British medical practitioners, medical appliances and the patent controversy, 1870–1920

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2016

CLAIRE L. JONES
CLAIRE L. JONES*
Affiliation:
School of History, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX, UK. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From the late nineteenth century onwards there emerged an increasingly diverse response to escalating patenting activity. Inventors were generally supportive of legislation that made patenting more accessible, while others, especially manufacturers, saw patenting culture as an impediment. The medical profession claimed that patenting represented ‘a barrier to medical treatment’ and was thus detrimental to the nation's health, yet, as I argue, the profession's development of strict codes of conduct forbidding practitioners from patenting resulted in rebellion from some members, who increasingly sought protection for their inventions. Such polarized opinions within the medical trade continue to affect current medical practice today.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Owning Health: Medicine and Anglo-American Patent Cultures , December 2016 , pp. 601 - 625
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Saundby, Robert, Medical Ethics: A Guide to Professional Conduct, London: Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd, 1902 Google Scholar.

2 The Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Surgeons had ethical statues for their members, and the American Medical Association adopted a formal code of ethics in 1847, but the British Medical Association only adopted certain resolutions.

3 Styrap, Jukes de, A Code of Medical Ethics: With Remarks on the Duties of Practitioners to Their Patients, and the Obligations of Patients to Their Medical Advisers; also on the Duties of the Profession to the Public, and the Obligations of the Public to the Faculty, London: J. & A. Churchill, 1878 Google Scholar; 2nd edn 1886; 3rd edn London: H.K. Lewis, 1890; 4th edn 1895. Prior to de Styrap's publication, the profession relied on the famous inaugural work on medical ethics, Thomas Percival's Medical Ethics; or A Code of Institutes and Precepts Adapted by the Professional Conduct of Physicians and Surgeons, reprinted in Leake's, Chauncey D. Percival's Medical Ethics, Baltimore: William & Wilkins Co., 1927 (first published 1803), pp. 61–205 Google Scholar.

4 Saundby, op. cit. (1), p. 9.

5 De Styrap, op. cit. (3), p. 50.

6 Here I extend Lorraine Daston's definition of the ‘moral economy’ of science to the web of collective social values that shaped and functioned in the organized system of medicine. Medicine's moral economy also included collective social values regarding the economic market. Daston, Lorraine, ‘The moral economy of science’, Osiris (1995) 10, pp. 2–24 Google Scholar. For moral economy in plant breeding see Charnley, Berris, ‘Seeds without patents: science and morality in British plant breeding in the long nineteenth century’, Revue économique (2013) 64, pp. 69–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Baker, Robert, Porter, Dorothy and Porter, Roy, The Codification of Medical Morality: Historical and Philosophical Studies of the Formalization of Western Medical Morality in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, vol 1: Medical Ethics and Etiquette in the Eighteenth Century, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993, p. 16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Among studies on the medical profession are Freidson, Eliot, Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge: With a New Afterword by the Author, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988 Google Scholar; Loudon, Irvine, Medical Care and the General Practitioner, 1750–1850, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986 Google Scholar; Perkin, Harold, The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880, London: Routledge, 1989 Google Scholar; Reader, William J., Professional Men: The Rise of Professional Classes in Nineteenth-Century England, London: Basic Books, 1966 Google Scholar; Waddington, Ivan, ‘The development of medical ethics: a sociological analysis’, Medical History (1975) 19, pp. 36–51 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Waddington, The Medical Profession in the Industrial Revolution, Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1984 Google Scholar.

9 Digby, Anne, Making a Medical Living: Doctors and Patients in the English Market for Medicine, 1720–1911, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 Google Scholar; Dupree, Marguerite, ‘Other than healing: medical practitioners and the business of life assurance during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’, Social History of Medicine (1997) 10(1), pp. 79–103 Google Scholar.

10 Loeb, Lori, ‘Doctors and patent medicines in modern Britain: professionalism and consumerism’, Albion (2001) 33, pp. 404–425 Google Scholar; Bartrip, Peter, ‘Secret remedies, medical ethics, and the finances of the British Medical Journal ’, in Baker, Robert (ed.), Historical and Philosophical Studies of the Formalization of Western Medical Morality in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, vol. 2: Anglo-American Medical Ethics and Medical Jurisprudence in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 191–204 Google Scholar. As has been extensively outlined elsewhere, patent medicines were rarely patented but were a legacy of the ‘letters patent’ first issued by King Charles I.

11 Gabriel, Joseph M., Medical Monopoly: Intellectual Property Rights and the Origins of the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Gabriel, op. cit. (11), pp. 113, 153.

13 My recent monograph is among the first publications to address the patenting of medical tools: Jones, Claire L., The Medical Trade Catalogue in Britain, 1870–1914, London: Pickering & Chatto, 2013, particularly Chapter 7Google Scholar.

14 For example, Church, Roy and Tansey, E.M., Burroughs Wellcome & Co.: Knowledge, Trust and Profit and the Transformation of the British Pharmaceutical Industry 1880–1940, Lancaster: Crucible, 2007 Google Scholar.

15 Evidence obtained from Abridgements to Patents, 1888–1909 (London: HMSO 1888–1909).

16 Fritz Machlup and Edith Penrose famously discussed general nineteenth-century debates over patent systems as long ago as 1950. See Machlup, Fritz and Penrose, Edith, ‘The patent controversy in the nineteenth century’, Journal of Economic History (1950) 10, pp. 1–20 Google Scholar.

17 Kirkup, John, The Evolution of Surgical Instruments: An Illustrated History from Ancient Times to the Twentieth Century, Novato, CA: Norman Publishing, 2006, pp. 385–387 Google Scholar.

18 Wilde, Sally and Hirst, Geoffrey, ‘Learning from mistakes: early twentieth-century surgical practice’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (2008) 64, pp. 39–77 Google Scholar. Frampton, Sally, ‘Patents, priority disputes and the value of credit: towards a history (and pre-history) of intellectual property in medicine’, Medical History (2011) 55, pp. 319–324 Google Scholar. See also her paper in this issue.

19 The continual process of medicine was another important form of late nineteenth-century professional rhetoric. See, for example, Hansen, Bert, ‘New images of a new medicine: visual evidence for the widespread popularity of therapeutic discoveries in America after 1885’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1999) 73, pp. 629–678 Google Scholar.

20 For a recent study of eponyms of medical conditions in the twentieth century see Hogan, Andrew J., ‘Medical eponyms: patient advocates, professional interests and the persistence of honorary naming’, Social History of Medicine (2016) 29, pp. 534–556 Google Scholar.

21 Edmonson, James M., American Armamentarium Chirurgicum, 1889 by G. Tiemann, Novato, CA: Norman Publishing, 1989 Google Scholar.

22 ‘A modification of Richardson's sphymograph’, British Medical Journal, 28 March 1903, pp. 738–739 Google Scholar. Allen & Hanburys, Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances, Aseptic Hospital Furniture, London: Allen & Hanburys, 1910, p. 857 Google Scholar.

23 Sheldon, D.L.D., ‘Surgical patents’, Medical and Surgical Reporter, 29 April 1871, pp. 360–362 Google Scholar.

24 Machlup and Penrose, op. cit. (16). A notable recent edited volume that explores the concept that intellectual property restricts invention is Murray, Laura J., Piper, S. Tina and Robertson, Kirsty (eds.), Putting Intellectual Property in Its Place: Rights Discourses, Labor, and the Everyday, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 Google Scholar.

25 Macleod, Christine, Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism and British Identity, 1750–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 Google Scholar.

26 Bartrip, op. cit. (10).

27 ‘Notes on books: instructions to inventors as to obtain letters patent and registering trademarks and designs’, British Medical Journal, 2 November 1889, pp. 988–989 Google Scholar.

28 ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical: repeated inquiries on the same subject’, British Medical Journal, 12 November 1892, p. 1087 Google Scholar; ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical’, British Medical Journal, 22 April 1893, pp. 872–873 Google Scholar; ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical’, British Medical Journal, 27 May 1893, pp. 1136–1137 Google Scholar; ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical: patents’, British Medical Journal, 17 February 1894, p. 383 Google Scholar; ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical: patents’, British Medical Journal, 3 March 1894, p. 495 Google Scholar; ‘Medico-legal and medico-ethical: patents for surgical appliances’, British Medical Journal, 31 August 1895, p. 566 Google Scholar.

29 For more on the patent agent see Swanson, Kara W., ‘The emergence of the professional patent practitioner’, Technology & Culture (2009) 50, pp. 519–548 Google Scholar.

30 The navy's technical ingenuity in terms of surgical instrument design can be traced back to at least the seventeenth century with Woodall's 1617 Illustrated Manual with Equipment for the Sea Surgeon's Chest, which also includes a price list enabling readers to purchase new designs. See Kirkup, op. cit. (17), p. 66. For later instrument inventions from naval surgeons see Burrows, Harold, Surgical Instruments and Appliances Used in Operations: An Illustrated and Classified List with Explanatory Notes, London: Scientific Press, 1910 Google Scholar.

31 H.M, ‘The medical profession and patents’, British Medical Journal, 29 September 1894, p. 732.

32 For example, List, F., The National System of Political Economy, London, 1885 (first published 1841), p. 307 Google Scholar.

33 Moser, Petra and Nicholas, Tom, ‘Prizes, publicity and patents: non-monetary awards as a mechanism to encourage innovation’, Journal of Industrial Economics (2013) 61, pp. 763–788 Google Scholar.

34 It did, of course, inhibit diffusion and thus created a paradox. See Macleod, Christine, ‘The paradoxes of patenting: invention and its diffusion in 18th- and 19th-century Britain, France and North America’, Technology and Culture (1991) 32, pp. 885–910 Google Scholar.

35 H.M, op. cit. (31), p. 732.

36 Tunbridge, Paul, Lord Kelvin: His Influence on Electrical Measurement, London: Peter Penegrinus, 1992 Google Scholar.

37 ‘The patenting of surgical instruments’, The Lancet, 15 August 1903, pp. 481–482 Google Scholar.

38 ‘Patents by medical men’, British Medical Journal, 13 June 1903, pp. 1411–1412 Google Scholar; ‘The process of patenting’, British Medical Journal, 6 June 1908, pp. 1403–1404 Google Scholar; ‘Notes on books’, British Medical Journal, 29 January 1910, p. 268 Google Scholar.

39 King, W.G., ‘Awards for medical discovery’, British Medical Journal, 10 April 1920, pp. 519–520 Google Scholar.

40 Searle, Geoffrey R., Morality and Market in Victorian Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998 Google Scholar.

41 Digby, op. cit. (9).

42 Horder, T. Garrett, ‘Intra-professional etiquette: Section of Ethics, Sixty-Third Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association’, British Medical Journal, 14 September 1895, pp. 635–638, 635Google Scholar.

43 Potter, George W., ‘Professional advertising: Section of Ethics, Sixty-Third Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association’, British Medical Journal, 14 September 1895, pp. 638–640 Google Scholar.

44 Owens, J.S., ‘Professional advertising’, British Medical Journal, 9 November 1895, p. 1212 Google Scholar; Black, D. Campbell, ‘Professional advertising’, British Medical Journal, 16 November 1895, p. 1263 Google Scholar.

45 Patentee, ‘The patenting of surgical instruments’, The Lancet (15 August 1903) 162, pp. 508–509.

46 Macleod, Henry, Elements of Political Economy, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman & Roberts, 1858, p. 182 Google Scholar.

47 ‘The patenting of surgical instruments’, The Lancet (15 August 1903) 162, pp. 481–482 Google Scholar.

48 Colt, G.H., ‘Surgical instruments: a disclaimer’, British Medical Journal, 7 May 1910, pp. 1147–1148 Google Scholar.

49 G.H. Colt, ‘Agricultural machine for rolling, mowing and other similar operations’, patent no 941309, patented in the US 23 November 1909; ‘Squash-racket court and the like’, patent no US2107141A, patented in the US 1 February 1938.

50 Horder, op. cit. (42); Potter, op. cit. (43).

51 Turner, William, ‘General Council of Medical Education and Registration, Summer Session, 1900’, British Medical Journal, 2 June 1900, pp. 1346–1360 Google Scholar; ‘H.A. Allbutt v. the General Medical Council’, British Medical Journal, 18 July 1889, p. 88. See also ‘Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Education of the United Kingdom’, British Medical Journal, 2 February 1889, p. 270; ‘Report of the General Medical Council: the case of Mr. T.R. Allinson’, British Medical Journal, 4 June 1892, pp. 1203–1205.

52 Sensibility had been crucial for the medical profession's consolidation since the eighteenth century, but the Medical Act set certain more formal professional standards. See Digby, op. cit. (9); Peterson, M. Jeanne, The Medical Profession in Mid-Victorian London, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978 Google Scholar.

53 Colt, op. cit. (48).

54 Ueyama, Takahiro, Health in the Marketplace: Professionalism, Therapeutic Desires, and Medical Commodification in Late-Victorian London, Palo Alto, CA: The Society for the Promotion of Science and Scholarship, 2010 Google Scholar.

55 Blake, Edward, ‘Respirators and inhalers’, The Lancet (20 May 1882) 119, pp. 845–846 Google Scholar.

56 Ormsby, Lambert, ‘Cranium holder’, The Lancet (14 April 1883) 121, p. 660 Google Scholar.

57 ‘A Patentee not a Practitioner’, British Medical Journal, 3 March 1894, p. 495 Google Scholar.

58 ‘Correspondence’, American Journal of Surgery (1912) 26, pp. 280–281 Google Scholar.

59 ‘Correspondence to Allen & Hanburys from John Duncan Menzies’, July 1895, AH130b, Allen & Hanburys archive, Glaxo plc, London; Abridgements for Patents: Class 81, London: HMSO, 1893–1908, p. 116.

60 ‘Dr. J. Duncan Menzies’, British Medical Journal, 14 December 1895, p. 1531 Google Scholar.

61 Colt, op. cit. (48).

62 For example, Post, Robert C., ‘“Liberalizers” versus “scientific men” in the antebellum patent office’, Technology and Culture (1976) 17, pp. 24–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Robertson, W.G. Aitchison, Medical Conduct and Practice: A Guide to the Ethics of Medicine, London: A. & C. Black, 1921 Google Scholar.

64 ‘Patenting of medical inventions’, British Medical Journal, 24 May 1930, pp. 957–960 Google Scholar.

65 Charnley, John, Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip: Theory and Practice, Berlin: Springer, 1979 Google Scholar.

66 For example, ‘Patents and designs,’ British Medical Journal, 11 April 1931, pp. 641–642 Google Scholar.

67 Royal College of Physicians, Doctors in Society: Medical Professionalism in a Changing World, London: Royal College of Physicians, 2005 Google Scholar.

68 ‘Medical patenting’, British Medical Journal, 10 June 1950, pp. 1356–1357 Google Scholar.