Negotiating Value: Comparing Human and Animal Fracture Care in Industrial Societies

At the beginning of the twentieth-century, human and veterinary surgeons faced the challenge of a medical marketplace transformed by technology. The socio-economic value ascribed to their patients – people and domestic animals – was changing, reflecting the increasing mechanisation of industry and the decreasing dependence of society upon non-human animals for labour. In human medicine, concern for the economic consequences of fractures “pathologised” any significant level of post-therapeutic disability, a productivist perspective contrary to the traditional corpus of medical values. In contrast, veterinarians adapted to the mechanisation of horse-power by shifting their primary professional interest to companion animals; a type of veterinary patient generally valued for the unique emotional attachment of the owner, and not the productive capacity of the animal. The economic rationalisation of human fracture care and the “sentimental” transformation of veterinary orthopaedic expertise indicates how these specialists utilised increasingly convergent rhetorical arguments to justify the application of innovative fracture care technologies to their humans and animal patients. Keywords: Fracture care, Industrialisation, Veterinary History, Human/animal relation

Droperidol has comparable clinical efficacy against both nausea and vomiting

Background. Droperidol is commonly noted to be more effective at preventing postoperative nausea (PON) than vomiting (POV) and it is assumed to have a short duration of action. This may be relevant for clinical decisions, especially for designing multiple-drug antiemetic regimens