We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
While the stories and hidden histories of the dead stand at the heart of this book, it is important to frame these narratives against the restrictions and permissions of the ‘laws’ that governed matters of consent, harvesting and research in modern British medical research. This seemingly simple endeavour is considerably complicated by the fact that as well as direct legislation on these matters, medical practice and the ‘rights’ of the dead and dying are shaped by legislation in other areas of criminal, civil and administrative law. Official and unofficial ‘guidance’ and long-established customs also have purchase on these matters. In turn, the fact that much ‘law’ merely clarified or amended previous legislation rather than repealing it, means that ‘the law’ becomes ‘the laws’. Thus, there is often considerable scope for differential interpretations of legal permissions at any chronological point. In this sense, law matters very much for the interpretation of the stories that we will go on to encounter in the rest of this volume. This second chapter therefore explores complex issues of legality, legislation and informed consent
To discover the anatomist who first identified the upper oesophageal sphincter.
Method:
The authors searched dozens of antique anatomy textbooks kept in the old section of the ‘Vincenzo Pinali’ Medical Library of Padua University, looking for descriptions of the upper oesophageal sphincter.
Results:
The oesophageal sphincter was drawn correctly only in 1601, by Julius Casserius, in the book De vocis auditusque organis historia anatomica… (which translates as ‘An Anatomical History on the Organs of Voice and Hearing …’), and was properly described by Antonio Maria Valsalva in 1704 in the book De aure humana tractatus… (‘Treatise on the Human Ear …’).
Conclusion:
Anatomists Casserius and Valsalva can be considered the discoverers of the ‘oesophageal sphincter’.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.