Timothy Peters

The retrospective diagnosis of illnesses by medical historians can often be difficult and prone to bias, although knowledge of the medical disorders of historical figures is key to the understanding of their behavior and reactions. The recent application of computer diagnostics to historical figures allows an objective differential diagnosis to be accomplished. Taking an example from clinical neurology, we analyzed the earliest reported cases of Devic's disease (neuromyelitis optica) that commonly affects the optic nerve and spinal cord and was previously often confused with multiple sclerosis. We conclude that in most identified cases the software concurred with the contemporary physicians' interpretation, but some claimed cases either had insufficient data to provide a diagnosis or other possible diagnoses were suggested that had not been considered. Computational methods may, therefore, help historians to diagnose the ailments of historical figures with greater objectivity.

Recent studies have shown that the claim that King George III suffered from acute porphyria is seriously at fault. This article explores some of the causes of this misdiagnosis and the consequences of the misleading claims, also reporting on the nature of the king's recurrent mental illness according to computer diagnostics. In addition, techniques of cognitive archaeology are used to investigate the nature of the king's final decade of mental illness, which resulted in the appointment of the Prince of Wales as Prince Regent. The results of this analysis confirm that the king suffered from bipolar disorder type I, with a final decade of dementia, due, in part, to the neurotoxicity of his recurrent episodes of acute mania.

Francis Geach MD, FRS was surgeon to the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth from about 1765 until he died in 1798. The son of a sail maker, he was born and raised in Plymouth. He was apprenticed to a surgeon in 1745 and probably undertook some medical training in London but he spent his professional career in Plymouth as a naval surgeon and in private practice. Geach had a particular interest in trauma and skin disease and was highly respected as a diagnostic physician, notably of inflammatory disorders, but he also had an interest in local issues including the cause of Devonshire colic. He was noted for the recognition of the skin disease of Francis Beaufort, later Admiral Sir Francis, as Greek leprosy (psoriasis) and for the recognition and support he gave to Sir William Knighton, physician and private secretary to the Prince Regent, later George IV. This article summarises Francis Geach’s genealogy, medical and academic practice, his breadth of interests and his contribution to Devonshire life in the 18th century.

Background: The evidence suggests that brief alcohol-focused interventions, directed at hazardous and harmful drinkers in non-specialist settings such as primary care are effective in reducing alcohol consumption. However, there is a need for further research in the hospital setting. This is a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of a 10-minute brief intervention amongst 'at risk’ drinkers admitted to general hospital wards. Unlike some previous trials, this trial is randomised, used blinded assessors, includes an intention-to-treat analysis, included female subjects and excluded people with alcohol dependence. Methods: A total of 250 'at risk’ drinkers admitted to King’s College Hospital were identified using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Some 154 subjects entered the study and were randomly allocated to the control and intervention groups. Subjects in the control group received no advice about their drinking whilst subjects in the intervention group received 10 minutes of simple advice on reducing alcohol consumption. Recruitment took place between 1995 and 1997. The primary outcome was the AUDIT questionnaire at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were a previous week’s Drinks Diary, questionnaires (General Health Questionnaire, Alcohol Problems Questionnaire and the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire) and laboratory blood tests (gamma glutamyl transferase, mean cell volume and haemoglobin). Results: At 3-month and 12-month follow-up, all participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At both time points there was no evidence of an intervention effect that could be attributed to the brief intervention. Both the intervention and control groups had an improved AUDIT score and reduced levels of alcohol consumption as measured by a subjective Drinks Diary at 3 months which was maintained at 12 months. Conclusions: This study has added further evidence on brief interventions in the hospital setting. In contrast to the recent Cochrane review by McQueen et al., the results of this study do not support the effectiveness of a brief alcohol intervention in general hospital wards. However our study was underpowered and there were flaws in the statistical analyses, and these limitations temper the strength of our conclusions.

Contemporary accounts credit Dr Francis Willis (1718–1807) with facilitating the recovery of King George III from his major episode of acute mania in 1788–9. Subsequently Willis was summoned to Lisbon to advise on the mental health problems of Queen Maria I. This article reports the nature of the illnesses of Maria and her two similarly affected sisters, and uses the program OPCRIT to propose diagnoses of major depressive disorders. The high prevalence of consanguinity and insanity among the Portuguese monarchy and their antecedents probably contributed to their mental health problems. The successive contributions of the Willis family from Thomas Willis (1621–75) to his grand-nephew, Francis Willis (1792–1859), are reviewed; the popular image is somewhat inaccurate and does not highlight their part in the development of psychiatry.

In the 1960s, Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter, mother and son psychiatrists, stated that George III's medical records showed that he suffered from acute porphyria. In spite of well-argued criticisms by Geoffrey Dean and Charles Dent based on their extensive clinical experience of the acute porphyrias, Macalpine and Hunter were able to garnish extensive support for their claims from historians, psychiatrists, physicians and the media circus and their view is now surprisingly widely accepted. Recent research of George III's extensive medical records has shown that Macalpine and Hunter were highly selective in their reporting and interpretation of his signs and symptoms and that the diagnosis of the acute porphyria cannot be sustained. The basis for the false claims and the consequences for historians are considered and indicate that there is now an opportunity to re-assess George III's contributions to events in his reign.

Objectives Two biographies of Admiral Francis Beaufort (1774–1857) have stated that, aged 20–25 years, he suffered from porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) that was ‘cured’ following severe blood loss during a naval skirmish. We have examined the evidence concerning the nature of his skin disease. Design Primary records, most notably Beaufort's correspondence with his family, his journals and his father's diaries were sought out and analysed. Setting This case report is discussed in the context of 18th-century naval medicine and concepts and treatment of skin disease. Results The description of his lesions, their age of onset, their progression and response to treatment, particularly topical tar and associated features are quite inconsistent with a diagnosis of PCT. His mother, Mary Waller Beaufort (1739–1821), consulted Dr Robert Darwin in 1803 about a painful skin disease affecting her legs. Detailed description of the lesions and a contemporary diagnosis are not available but possible diagnoses include chronic psoriasis and stasis eczema. Conclusions A more tenable diagnosis is that Francis Beaufort had chronic plaque psoriasis remitted by bed rest and convalescence in the sunny Mediterranean climate with cessation of alcohol consumption and improved nutrition as well as topical and oral medications.

This research, based on a study of King George III’s medical records and of contemporary diaries of his courtiers and equerries, further confirms the considerable doubt on the claim of Richard Hunter and Ida Macalpine that the King suffered from recurrent attacks of acute porphyria. The present study examines the above records from a psychiatric viewpoint, together with some additional reports, to re-assess the nature of the King’s maladies. It concludes that he suffered from recurrent mania (four episodes), with chronic mania and possibly a degree of fatuity during the last decade of his life. This is in agreement with previous reports that he suffered from manic-depressive psychosis.

The diagnosis that George III suffered from acute porphyria has gained widespread acceptance, but re-examination of the evidence suggests it is unlikely that he had porphyria.The porphyria diagnosis was advanced by Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter, whose clinical symptomatology and historical methodology were flawed. They highlighted selected symptoms, while ignoring, dismissing or suppressing counter-evidence. Their claims about peripheral neuropathy, cataracts, vocal hoarseness and abdominal pains are re-evaluated; and it is also demonstrated that evidence of discoloured urine is exceedingly weak. Macalpine and Hunter believed that mental illnesses were primarily caused by physical diseases, and their diagnosis of George III formed part of a wider agenda to promote controversial views about past, contemporary and future methods in psychiatry.