Comment

Being a historian and cardiologist alike and having studied Servetus in depth, the remarks of Hittjo Kruyswijk and Willem van Hoorn are of great value, putting general lines of development in a proper historic perspective. I therefore greatly appreciate their attention and critical reading and welcome their expert opinion on this matter. In general there are two problems that hamper the reading and interpretation of new insight and development in medical history. First there lies a heavy Hippocratic-Galenic burden on the acceptance and implementation of new thoughts and ideas throughout the ages, which were simply put aside when they did not fit in the pre-existing dogmas or teachings, a situation that held till the end of the 18th century, and second the fact that especially in the Middle Ages monastic medicine used to embed medical affairs in a religious treatise. So, in my opinion there always was a tendency to adjust new ideas to existing views, in order not to be literally charged with heresy and that may have influenced the ultimate composition of Servetus’ observations in the first place. …