Paper short abstract:

The paper uses a case study to illustrate how different factors create contingency in the history of science. As the analysis shows, the battle between professional groups to control anaesthetics by advocating either mesmeric or ether pain relief was intertwined with wider socio-cultural issues.

Paper long abstract:

The history of science reveals the contingent nature of scientific development. At crucial moments, when rival approaches present themselves, this contingency is more salient. The triumph of one alternative over the other is never predetermined. The paper analyzes a moment of history when innovative methods, incidental discoveries, professional and cultural frontlines and business interests influenced the subsequent history of the emergent field of anaesthesia.

'Animal magnetism' or 'mesmerism' referred to a wide range of practices that arrived to Britain in the 1830s. As a result of public shows and famous medical cases, the technique became notorious. After November 1842, when a well-publicized amputation of a leg under mesmeric anaesthesia took place, the debate was focused on pain relief. Gaining control over pain relief would yield greater reputation and potential financial profit for the practitioner, and, for the 'mesmeric camp', a victory in the effort to turn a practice of dubious fame into a respectable medical technique. Hence, four years later, when the news about ether anaesthesia arrived to London, the novel method was immediately seized and promoted by the opposing camp. Ether was used not only as an alternative to but also as a weapon against mesmerism. However, it had undesired side-effects, including fatalities, and was therefore open to attacks. With no licensing schemes, ether could be used indiscriminately, which led to demands from the medical profession for a limitation and regulation in its application. As the paper shows, efforts to control anaesthetics were intertwined with wider socio-cultural issues.