- Browse/Search the Program
Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
- Information Menu
Search Tips
- Navigation and Settings Menu
Personal Schedule
Sign In
The Fight Against Medical Heterodoxy: T. R. Allinson and the General Medical Council, 1892.
Mon, July 13, 4:15 to 5:45pm, EICC, Floor: Level 1, Ochil Suite 2English Abstract
The establishment of the General Medical Council (GMC) in 1858 is commonly seen as an important milestone for the professionalisation of British medicine, consolidating regional medical registers and aiding the public in differentiating between licensed physicians and those unqualified to practice. New powers afforded to the Medical Council by the Medical Act allowed it to add and remove names from the register, however the ambiguous clause of the “infamous conduct” could serve as a political instrument to eliminate from the profession those individuals who posed a threat to its carefully cultivated reputation. Traditionally, historians argued that those charged with “infamous conduct” have often been involved in commercial tradesmanship, motivated by monetary self-interest. This growing group of practitioners was often the result of financial and political inequality within the profession. The case of Thomas R. Allinson (1858-1918), who was struck off the medical register in 1892, presents a complicated case of an individual who was both an entrepreneur and an ideologue, advocating for preventative medicine and openly criticising drug-based therapeutics. By investigating his life, medical writings and professional decisions, the focus of this paper is to examine the medical heterodoxy within the profession against the backdrop of the growing political influence of the elite practitioners. The hearing at GMC in 1892, in which Allinson lost his license to practice, will serve as the heart of this paper. Further examination of the interests of the Council members and the deviation of the line of questioning from the formal charges will present an example where non-elite practitioners had a limited ability to shape the officially sanctioned intellectual boundaries of the profession when their views challenged elite consensus.