Bubonic Plague In London

There has been perhaps no more widespread illness in recorded history than the last wave of bubonic plague to sweep London. This most recent occurance of bubonic plague, often referred to due to its magntitude and devestation as “The Great Plague,” occurred in London from 1665 to 1666. The plague truly was “great” in the impact it had on London, considering it killed off approximately a quarter of London’s population. The thing that strikes as perplexing is the fact that the plague was handled with such unpreparation, despite the fact that this was not London’s first experience dealing with this plague, it had been occurring on and off for over three hundred years. In addition to the years of experience in dealing with the plague, there had

There was the pneumonic plague, characteristic by a patients chest pain and severe cough. The other main strain of the plague was the bubonic plague, spread by bites from fleas carrying the bacteria, as opposed to pneumonic plague, which was spread by airborn toxins. Once infected a patient would develop characteristic swellings of the lymph nodes (referred to as buboes), followed by a severe fever with symptoms such as headache and vomiting. The main theme in treatment of the plague was the way it was seen by the general population and medical professionals alike. It was seen as a toxin that needed to be physically expelled from the body. This meant that the majority of treatments were focused around “cleansing” the body of the plague, mostly through bloodletting or purposeful vomiting. Bloodletting was a process in which a physician would prick an artery or vein with a surgical instrument, allowing blood to flow out of the patient with the logic that this would cleanse the patient of toxins that were previously present in the blood. The main reason this archaic practice lasted as long as it did was due to the fact there were no alternative treatments; therefore, continued practice of this treatment gave more comfort than outwardly admitting no effective treatments were present at all. Sometimes, bloodletting did show some benefit, but most of this was psychological (placebo effect). The placebo effect is when the patient believes they are receiving an effective treatment, this increase in positivity can have a positive effect on the body. In reality, however, bloodletting proved to do more harm than good. By its nature, draining a person of blood will weaken them, facilitate any existing disease, and possibly cause infection (Parapia, 2008). However, not