This essay studies the variation between the ways in which physicians wrote about their patients in private and their presentation of these case histories to the wider world in print. Focusing particularly on the case of Andrew Duncan, who founded the Edinburgh Public Dispensary in 1776, this paper will investigate the differences detailed in Duncan's handwritten case notes with the ways in which he chose to portray these patient cases in his published works. This paper will argue that not only does Duncan demonstrate a tendency to exaggerate the positive outcomes from his treatments but also his published works simplify the diagnoses performed on dispensary patients. The self-editing which is apparent in his medical publishing includes the omission of details of the range of complaints individual patients suffer from and exclusion of certain disease categories, including hysteria, from the printed record. This paper will argue that a historiographical focus on printed material such as disease studies and annual reports can result in the distortion of information regarding diagnosis, medical outcomes, and the relationship between patient and practitioner during the eighteenth century.

中文翻译：

---

私下和印刷品讨论患者：18 世纪药房的记录

这篇文章研究了医生私下描述患者的方式与他们将这些病历以印刷品呈现给更广阔世界的方式之间的差异。本文将特别关注于 1776 年创立爱丁堡公共药房的安德鲁·邓肯 (Andrew Duncan) 的案例，探讨邓肯手写的案例说明与他选择在其出版作品中描绘这些患者案例的方式之间的差异。本文将争辩说，邓肯不仅表现出夸大其治疗的积极成果的倾向，而且他发表的著作简化了对药房患者的诊断。在他的医学出版物中明显的自我编辑包括从印刷记录中省略个别患者所遭受的投诉范围的详细信息，并排除某些疾病类别，包括癔症。本文将论证，将历史学重点放在疾病研究和年度报告等印刷材料上，可能会导致 18 世纪有关诊断、医疗结果以及患者与从业者之间关系的信息失真。