In medical history, visibility isn’t always given to those who have most transformed the science and art of healing. Instead, many figures that shaped the foundational pillars of medical systems remain in the shadows, while fictional or idealized versions of real doctors shine brightly in popular culture.
This paradox reveals as much about medicine as it does about us: what do we seek when we look at the figure of a doctor or nurse? Are we drawn to science, power, empathy… or redemption?
Iconic Figures in Medicine
Hypocrates: He stands as the foundational figure of the wise, ethical, and rational physician. Linked to the god Asclepius/Esculapio, his legacy is both real and symbolic, embodying the birth of Western medical thought.
Sigmund Freud: Despite recent criticism of his scientific value, he remains a cultural icon for introspection, unconsciousness, and repressed sexuality.
Popular Figures in Modern Media:
- Dr. Gregory House (TV): A cynical, brilliant, anti-social, and addicted character representing a modern fantasy: the infallible physician whose genius justifies arrogance and cruelty.
- Patch Adams: Symbolizing joyful medicine, tenderness, and laughter. His real history is less known, yet his image has surpassed the fact in collective imagination.
The Unsung Heroes of Medicine
Beyond these icons, there are unseen architects who shaped medical structures. Two non-medical professionals significantly influenced medicine and health systems:
- Florence Nightingale (1820-1910): She founded professional nursing, introduced systematic statistical use in public health, reorganized hospitals, and proposed a preventive, hygienic care model.
- Abraham Flexner (1866-1959): This educator without medical training radically transformed medical education early in the 20th century. His influence persists today: modern medical schools are heirs to his design.
Comparing Iconic and Structural Figures:
Both Nightingale and Flexner were long-lasting reformers, albeit less known. While Nightingale established women’s training schools in health fields before they could become doctors in late 19th century Victorian England, Flexner advocated for scientific, academic, elitist, and male-dominated medicine at the U.S. dawn of the 20th century.
Their differences reflect deeper tensions in our medical relationship. Nightingale focused on care, prevention, hygiene, and systematic observation; Flexner promoted a lab-centered, scientifically detached medicine, neglecting social and relational aspects of patient care.
Who Shapes Medical Memory?
Culture favors charisma, drama, narratives. Yet, I assert without exaggeration that without Nightingale, hospitals would be different. Without Flexner, there’d be no medical education system as we know it today. Often, official history forgets what underpins and remembers what shines.
Perhaps this is why a more critical, comprehensive genealogy of medicine is important. One that includes both the embodiment of our desires or fears—empathy, genius, redemption, power—and those structuring medical systems.
The author is Professor Titular of the Dept. of Public Health, Medicine Faculty, UNAM and Professor Emeritus of the Dept. of Health Measurement Sciences, University of Washington.
