Dear Victor, I will be happy to work on the "sure best-selling treatise". First please explain to me, what do you state I am claiming? I have a feeling through oversight, you are mis-representing my views. So here is a further explanation on some of the issues.
In 16th / 17th century in Goa, India or Europe how did one define a physician to certify and license? Or was there no certification or licensing? In the 16th / 17th century, vaidyas and hakims were the native doctors, and ipso facto, at best they were homeopaths and aurveydics. Even in 20th century, anyone could claim and act as a 'self-trained' doctor, including the 'compounder' in the doctor's front-office, 'pharmacist' in the 'dawakhana' or a pharmaceutical rep. In the mid-50's, I knew of a "bone-doctor / setter" in Curtorim, who set bones and immobilized fractures with herbal-mix which set harder than plaster. By current dialog on goanet, these are medical quacks. But do not get side-tracked by semantics. I will re-state with emphasis. Today, non-licensed individuals are barred and subject to criminal prosecutions because of the risk-of (WITHOUT ACTUAL) hurting or killing patients. (one may need to read this again for implications). So practicing medicine without a degree and license today is a prosecutable offense; without existence of medical malpractice - unless it is a first-aid in a medical emergency. After reading the above 2-3 times, if you and / or others find the issues still confusing, that is because the subject of medical licensing is complex. Medical licensing, in 16th / 17th century colonial Goa, was made even more difficult because literary and figuratively Western Medicine came in direct contact / interfaced with Eastern Medicine. And both medical practices / systems were are best nebulous, poorly defined and understood by the practitioners themselves; not withstanding Dr. D'Orta writing a book on Indian herbal medicine. Yet a civilized societal govt. has to regulate medical practice and implement preventive medicine for the benefit of its larger society. It is the govt./ authorities' challenges which we should recognize and appreciate. If one accepts modern universally standard medical licensing practices, how does one condemn past (govt.) practices? One needs to understand the dilemma and "the catch 22" of the 16th, 17th, 18th century Goa. Even with different semantics, we need to know the issues before we lump everything as the 'nefarious work / goal of Inquisition', by arm-chair novelists and others who condemn in broad-strokes; and somehow link everything to religion. I submit to you that TODAY'S govt. medical licensing requirements, disciplinary boards and law suits in the USA are a lot ... a lot more onerous that what existed in Goa under the Inquisition regime. For example take a look at this link regarding just one small aspect of medical licensing from DOH (Department of Health) http://www.nyhealth.gov/environmental/radiological/radon/radioactive_material_licensing/docs/part16.pdf While one side claims it is for patient safety; many on the other side claim licensing of doctors, (and lawyers, teachers, electricians, plumbers) are techniques to keep out the competition. Regards. GL ------------ Victor Rangel-Ribeiro responds: Dear Gilbert, Are you now claiming that one of the purposes of the Inquisition in Goa was to stamp out medical malpractice by non-Catholic doctors? If you can document such cases in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, you will have a sure best-selling treatise on your hands. ----------- GL wrote: As I was writing my last response to this thread, I read the posts about the practice of medicine by medical quacks - aka non-certified physicians. Today likely in Goa and India; but definitely in UK, Australia, USA, etc medical quacks are barred and even subject to criminal prosecutions because of the risk of killing patients. The govt action of colonial Goa is condemned, by the same people, who rightly condemn the current medical practices of non-certified medical practitioners. I find this hypocrisy and / or ignorance amusing. I am not claiming that 'certified physicians' of the 16th, 17th, 18th century were practicing 'evidence based medicine' and were always curing patients. All I am claiming is the desire to license physicians in the 20th and 21st century was as significant and important as in the 16th, 17th, 18th century in colonial Goa.