Talk:Caduceus as a symbol of medicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kareena.agni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Raw Material
Etymology [will source later with OED]: God name Mercury, from merx ("merchandise"). The name of the god comes from the same root as merchandise, market and mercantile. Still need citation supporting discussion of this point in context.

Reference to Caduceus in Homer, Odyssey, V, 47-48

William K. Emerson, Encyclopedia of United States Army Insignia and Uniforms, University of Oklahoma Press, 1996, pp 181-182

"The Medical Department adopted a 1-inch-high gilt caduceus […] as its insignia in 1902. For the service uniform, officers wore the device in bronze […]. The caduceus, two serpents intertwined on a winged staff, was carried by Mercury, the god of commerce. Shortly after the surgeon general announced the caduceus as the medical symbol, critics said it was not appropriate, even though the caduceus had been used intermittently as various US Army insignia, starting with the chevrons for hospital stewards in 1851. The debate was important because it was apparent to all of the officers that the insignia was to become the device for the expanding Medical Department. The critics were unhappy with the caduceus as the medical insignia, and they stated that the single serpent looped about a staff was properly associated with Aesculapius, the Greek god of healing.

"The Army and Navy Register of 28 June 1902 noted the argument about the appropriate insignia. Giving the badge an unusual interpretation, the editor wrote of the caduceus: "The rod represents power, the serpents stand for wisdom and the two wings imply dilligence and activity, qualities which are undoubtedly possessed by our Medical officers. The design, however, does not lend itself easily to a Corps emblem." The dispute over the appropriateness of a caduceus continued for many years but never flared into a raging controversy.

''[…] [Lengthy quote from old journal here, defending caduceus as a sign of non-combatants used to establish neutrality, and hence appropriate for non-combatants on the field. The article in defense of the caduceus states that it was chosen for neutrality, not medicine, and points out that the majority of the medical corps personnel are not even doctors.]''

"The army influence in selecting the caduceus carried over to civilian physicians in the early 20th century, and many civilian medical personnel still use the caduceus as a symbol. Since World War II, many doctors have begun to display the Aesculapian staff. When the U.S. Air Force created a new medical insignia, it adopted the staff of Aesculapius, with a single serpent, as the device for medical personnel."

A.H. Burkitt, "On Tradesmen's Signs of London" in: Journal of the British Archaeological Association, Volume 9, London, 1854, pp 40-59

Article discusses tradesmen's signs in London that have for the most part fallen into disuse. Author discusses signs in use prior to the mid-18th century.

"Of the heathen deities and their attributes we find Mercury, or his caduceus, appropriate in trade, as indicating expedition [travel for the purpose of business]. Esculapius, his Serpent and staff, or his cock, for professors of the healing art […]"

Leslie S. Wilson, The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East, 2001 Can't view this title, but it appears to deal with the putative babylonian origins of the caduceus in one section. Might use to balance against Frothingham/Ward claims.

Mark P. O. Morford, Robert J. Lenardon, Classical Mythology, 2007

"Some are outraged that the caduceus as a symbol of commerce and even worse should be associated with medicine. (Hermes was also a god of dishonest eloquence and thievery.) Others suggest that Hermes' caduceus may today be as appropriate an emblem for medicine as the staff of Asclepius. After all, the important business of medicine grows ever more complex, with advertising essential for competitive marketing. So one medical doctor, Glenn W. Geelhoed, poses the dilemma: "Each of us physicians may choose what the profession should mean, and [between two serpent symbols representing very competitive ideals] adopt a symbol that is appropriate to…" [Can't get page number or rest of quote through Google, page number also needed].

Luke Van Orden, MD, Where Have All The Healer's Gone?: A Doctor's Recovery Journey, Writers Advantage, 2002, p 129

"The caduceus has been the official emblem of medicine for four centuries or more. For the ancient Greeks, the winged staff with two serpents entwined was the symbol of Hermes, messenger of the gods and conductor of souls to Hades. Hermes was also the god of travelers, merchants, music, luck, eloquence, cheats and thieves. The earlier Babylonians regarded serpents as symbols of wisdom, healing and fertility. The later Romans used the winged staff as a symbol of truce and neutrality.

"Well, so much for the caduceus. Somebody obviously got the wrong symbol for modern medicine–or did they? The caduceus seems to be an appropriate symbol for modern commercial medicine. Of particular relevance are the functions of escorting souls of the dead, wisdom, fertility, commerce, luck, eloquence, cheating and thieving. These have become symbolic of how medicine evolved in the late Twentieth Century.

"The authentic symbol of medicine is the staff of the Greek god of medicine, Asclepius. This was a stout staff with one serpent entwined, and there was no ambiguity of symbolism as is the case with the winged staff. Western medicine is thought to have begun with the Greek Hippocrates (c. 460-377 BCE), who founded the healing cult of Asclepius."

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE:

Andrew Weil, Health and Healing: The Philosophy of Integrative Medicine, Houghton Mifflin, 2004, pp 45-46

"Medical historians sometimes say that the caduceus should not be the doctor's emblem, that it became so by confusion with another symbol, the staff of Asklepios, a plain staff with a single snake coiled around it. […] It may be that the staff of Asklepios is a logical badge for the doctor, and even that the wand of Hermes got mixed up with it somewhere along the way, but I consider the caduceus a far more appropriate symbol, because it embodies an esoteric truth that must be grasped to gain practical control over the shifting forces that determine health and illness."

'''Gerald D Hart, The Earliest Medical use of the caduceus. CMA Journal, December 9, 1972, vol 107'''

Discussion of the history of the Caduceus in medicine, including some uses in occulists potions in the 3rd century 

Additional possible citations - need to source
Below is a list of sources it might (or indeed, might not) be useful to consult. If anyone has links to these or copies available, please post below:

Vanderhooft E., Caduceus: the staff of Asclepius or Hermes. Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc. Department of Orthopedics, University of Utah, USA. 2004 Fall;67(4):22-6.

Jones KB. The staff of Asclepius: a new perspective on the symbol of medicine. WMJ Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 2008 May;107(3):115-6. Link found:http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/_WMS/publications/wmj/issues/wmj_v107n3/107no3_jones.pdf

[Article in German] Stengel H., The staff of Aesculapius. Symbol of the art of healing and of the doctor. MMW Munch Med Wochenschr. 1975 Apr 4;117(14):597-600.

Metzer WS., The caduceus and the aesculapian staff: ancient eastern origins, evolution, and western parallels. South Med J. Department of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. 1989 Jun;82(6):743-8.

Frey EF. The caduceus and the staff of Aesculapius from antiquity to the present. Tex Rep Biol Med. 1978;36:1-15.

Pearce JM., The caduceus and the Aesculapian staff. QJM. 1995 Sep;88(9):678-9.

Aronson SM., One snake or two? R I Med. 1992 Nov;75(11):509-10.

Geelhoed GW., The caduceus as a medical emblem: heritage or heresy? South Med J. 1988Sep; 81(9):1155-61.

Organisations using Caduceus vs RoA
I'm not sure if this is worth putting in the article, but I think it would be worth having a table of organisations using caduceus as opposed to Rod of Asclepius. Would be helpful first however, to have lists of those using each. A start made below, please feel free to add. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rod of Asclepius
 * American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 * American Hippocratic Registry
 * American Medical Association
 * American Medical Student Association
 * American Osteopathic Association
 * American Veterinary Medical Association
 * Army Medical Department of the U.S. Army (AMEDD)
 * Association of American Medical Colleges
 * Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
 * Australian Medical Association
 * British Medical Association
 * British Royal Army Medical Corps
 * Canadian Medical Association
 * Canadian Forces Medical Service
 * Royal Australian Army Medical Corps
 * Star of Life, symbol of emergency medical services
 * World Health Organization
 * Australian Veterinary Association
 * Malaysian Medical Council
 * Medical Council of New Zealand
 * MedicAlert
 * Pakistan Army Medical Corps
 * United States Air Force Medical Corps
 * World Health Organization

Caduceus
 * Medical Corps (United States Army)
 * Army Nurse Corps (United States)
 * United States Public Health Service

Other
 * American College of Physicians

More source material

 * Williams, Nathan W. 1999. "Serpents, Staffs and the Emblems of Medicine", JAMA 281:475. full text free link


 * Bunn, John T. 1967. "Origin of the Caduceus Motif" JAMA 202(7):615-619. free full text link

Feeble Atheism
The oldest existing original documents that speak of a serpent on a pole are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which describe a serpent of bronze raised up on a pole. When snake-bite victims looked at it, they recovered. All older sources are either purely symbolic descriptions, without textual descriptions at all, or they are rewrites of ancient literature to which the original documents no longer exist. Competent scholars always admit an existing original before dubious duplications. And, Truth is free. Credentials have no bearing on Truth.

Anyone can say anything. There is only One Truth. Everything else is wrong! Please fix the article. At least the authors can then feign legitimacy and academic authenticity. Fortunately, wikipedia has corralled the atheists where they can't really do damage! I am deeply ashamed of this article. It is linguistic trickery at best and outright deceit at worst. Have some self respect. AwesomeMachine (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, explain to me again why the dead sea scrolls aren't "rewrites of ancient literature?". I don't think anyone claims they're original, so by your logic must be dubious duplications.  A free truth for you there. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Mistakenly used as a symbol of medicine"
While from a historical context I can understand that it was initially used mistakenly, its use as a symbol of medicine could not be any more deliberate nowadays. I am sure the organizations that use it were notified of their error and chose to continue using it. Rip-Saw (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Notified by who? And no, if you read the supporting articles, it seems that many of the users are unaware that they are using it incorrectly. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 04:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In the United States the Caduceus is appropriately used in the current day as symbolic of Medicine and Healing in general. See the referenced list above of organizations that continue to use the symbol. There may have been a historic mistake between the Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius, however in keeping with the descriptive theory of definitions rather than an archaic prescriptive theory, the use of the Caduceus is appropriate to symbolize both Medicine and Healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybordog (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, three organisations then. And one of them is subsidiary to an organisation that has changed from the Caduceus to the RoA.  The article fully describes how it is used, and by who, but also notes the history - all the academic literature (which is cited here) says that is is inappropraite.  Wikipedia only presents what reliable secondary sources already say, otherwise it is WP:OR, and not permitted.  This is not the place to put forward your particular point of view, unless it is supported by high quality references.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The approach of this entire article confuses origin with true meaning. Such was in fact the belief of the ancient Greeks: the root of etymology means 'true':
 * Etymology: &lt; Latin etymon,  &lt;  Greek ἔτυμον (originally neuter of ἔτυμος true): (1) the ‘true’ literal sense of a word according to its origin; (2) its ‘true’ or original form; (3) hence, in post-classical grammatical writings, the root or primary word from which a derivative is formed. (OED, under etymon, n., as referenced in the etymology of etymology, n. via that of etymologe, v.)
 * That principle implies, for example, that no one should be called "doctor" who does not teach:
 * &lt; Old French doctor (-ur, -our, -eur),  &lt;  Latin doctor, -ōrem teacher, agent-n.  &lt;  docēre to teach. (ibid.)
 * It is universally discredited in the language sciences, with which I have a more than passing familiarity. Words and emblems do not generally have intrinsic meanings. Meanings change with time, place, and context. If a "public school" in England is something that Americans would call a "private school", does that mean that one usage is wrong? Of course not. And if the caduceus is commonly used as a symbol of the medical arts in one country, then it has that meaning there.
 * I'm not going to get into an edit war. I haven't the time for it, and it's a bad idea in the first place. But your underlying logic is faulty. Thnidu (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) (edited 04:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi Thnidu, and thanks for engaging. Of course, you are correct that meanings can change over time for some things, although a level of prescriptive use always exists, as otherwise language and symbolism loses its memetic properties (apostrophes are a good example).  I think the article is clear that the usage is common in North America amongst commercial organisations (but not amongst clinicians or professional bodies) - this is an important distinction.  On top of all that, you have the guiding principle of wikipedia being referencing and citation (WP:V, WP:CITE)- we have a number of credible, reliable, academic sources - which are properly sourced in line - who decribe the usage of the Caduceus as "erroneous", "mistaken" and other like terms.  We have not found any literature (and we've looked) which describes the usage as being correct.  Therefore, it would be WP:UNDUE, with the present lit review, to not include this as the prevailing theory just because some people would prefer that it were not the case.


 * Unusually in this case, we can also track the original error that led to the popularisation of the Caduceus in North America, including who made the error, and when. This means this isn't a shift in prevailing attitude, but a specific error, which has been replicated, and which various bodies have been pushing back against ever since (such as the AMA, which changed from Caduceus to RoA for just this reason, as they believed it to be in error).


 * Hope that makes sense, but happy to discuss. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * I think I have just identified one source of my unease. ISTM that for an article titled "Caduceus as a symbol of medicine", this page is inordinately devoted to documenting the – (I know you consider it an error, but I prefer to call it…) – variation in the usage of the symbol and in the symbolization of the meaning. I would expect to find under this title much more discussion, description, and listing of organizations using the c.a.a.s.o.m., and the issue of variation mostly confined to a single section (e.g., Caduceus as a symbol of medicine).
 * I guess another way of saying this is that the tone of the article is much more disputatious than the title suggests. Every section, nearly every paragraph is not simply "This is a use of the c.a.a.s.o.m." or "This is a step in the development of the c.a.a.s.o.m.", as it is "This is part of the caduceus's usurpation of the role of the Rod of Asclepius a.a.s.o.m.". While it is clearly very well documented, it feels non-NPOV because it is so argumentative. A more appropriate title would be "Misuse of caduceus as a symbol of medicine".
 * (PS: The new reply to template, aka "ping" or "replyto", is a very handy notification device, hint hint!) --Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * - I wasn't aware of the new template, but it is quite useful, thanks! I have no issue with changing the name, i'm sure that when it was created I wanted to call it something similar, but that was against the consensus at the time (i can't find the original discussion, but it'll be out there somewhere). OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bizarrely biased article
Clearly, if an entire nation is consistently using the same symbol to denote the same concept, it can not be termed erroneous. Going by this ludicrous standard dictionaries ought to condemn the phrase "an apron" in favour of the correct "a napron". Wikipedia is not a prescriptive authority, it has exactly no power to call something erroneous. Five sources - their self-righteous asinine prescriptivism notwithstanding - don't stand up well against three hundred million people. If these sources have set out to explain what the caduceus meant two thousand years ago, bravo; if they have set out to outline what it means today, they have failed miserably. 119.12.127.55 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources are peer-reviewed articles, and in fact if you read them, you'll see that the majority of health care professionals in the US use the Rod of Asclepius, only barely more hopsitals use Caduceus than use RoA, leaving it really suppported by the commercial sector.


 * Wikipedia is based on core principles which you may wish to review, including WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR, which mean that we only include information that comes from a reputable third party sources (by which we mean peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, reference works or publications of similar quality - see WP:RS). Pretty much all the published material that exists (other than self-published websites etc. which don't count as reliable) that we've managed to find specifically goes out of its way to mention that usage of the Caduceus is "erroneous", "mistaken" and other similar terms.


 * Because of the core principles, we reflect the state of the literature in this article regardless of whether anyone would like it to be true or not. The article notes that usage is widespread, and that most people don't know that it is based on historical errors, so this is not prescriptive, but descriptive of the current state of affairs.


 * I hope that clarifies this for you, but please do review the core policies linked above, as they are sometimes difficult for new editors to understand. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cybordog here:

Owain, I have referenced for you and argued to you that the editor above is correct. You need to stop changing the page back to erroneous information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybordog (talk • contribs) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have asked you a number of times, but you have still failed to come up with any peer reviewed sources which disagree with the multiple academic peer-reviewed sources already in the article. You need to have these, or it will keep getting reverted. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

With reference to the initial post in this section: by all means let's call a numpire to untangle those nadders under your napron.68.178.50.46 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Straining at gnats
There is a certain amount of tunnel vision being displayed here with all the pedantry and pilpul being displayed with regard to who is responsible for introducing the deplorable "error" of thinking that the caduceus could possibly be used as a legitimate medical symbol. The history is interesting in a small way, worth a paragraph, but why all the covert editorialising and priggish knuckle-rapping? I for one would like to find a little information on the current use of the caduceus by medically-related military organizations (e.g. Dental Corps) and non-medical uses by government agencies (e.g. DSNY). In terms of sheer number of reproductions of the symbol, these uses may well swamp all those nasty "commercial" "misappropriations" of the supposed pure unchanging Platonic ideal. As for the controversy as a whole my take is this: It's a meme. People get it. Get over it. 68.178.50.46 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As for current use, there is a list above here in the talk, and at one point it was in one of the articles, but doesn't make much of a list, as basically the only medical organisations that make the list are three US army corps (even though the AMECC has now switched to RoA). There are a couple of public health ones, which are arguably medical (like DSNY), but that still only gives a really short, really north american list.  As for non-medical use, that wouldn't be in the "as a symbol of medicine" article, which is all about the use of the symbol this way, and the various commentaries on it.  This keeps it to a short section in the main article.  And I don't think anyone has suggested a "pure, unchanging Platonic ideal".  We have, however, suggested sticking to the WP rules of writing what reputable sources say, and they very much focus on 'error' etc. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes,there is a list, OwainDavies and it appears to be cherry-picked by yourself and with the exception of WHO (which is listed twice) and consists solely of nonprofits in former or current British Empire states and unless you are presenting OwainDavies as a "reputable source" can make no claim toward validity or comprehensiveness. Nothing else "makes the list" because you have decided in advance what a "medical organisation" is and those grubby capitalists and benighted non-English-speakers simply didn't make the cut. So the list you provide without a source supports your position? No big surprise. If I aspired to be a "reputable source" that way I could take the time to dig up a list of for-profits who use the caduceus instead of the karykeion. It would be a long one. After all, we don't have National Health here in the colonies.

As for the "reputable sources" used in the article, there is an over-reliance on Friedlander and a obvious determination to "debunk" examples of CAASOM prior to the mid-nineteenth century but even so it is quite clear that the distinction between caduceus and karykeion was becoming blurred even in midst of all those the dear old classically-educated boys tearfully intoning "God Save the Queen" a hundred and fifty years ago.

This use of the caduceus is not a "mistake", any more than our current use of the Roman alphabet is a "mistake" because it departs from Phoenician norms. It is an established alternative usage and the more interesting question is whether and how fast the caduceus is becoming predominate worldwide. Hate to break it to you Ow, but there a lot more Chinamen and Chinawomen than Brits these days and you haven't uttered a peep about them.68.178.50.46 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue should not be presented as the history of "mistake" from such a provincial perspective but rather as an example of the evolution of a near-universal public symbol whose variant depictions are sometimes attended by controversy.68.178.50.46 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing
This article is so anal it's amazing. The caduceus is now a universally recognized symbol of medicine. There is no "right" or "wrong" about it. Symbols and logos evolve just like languages and it's not surprising, given its antiquity, that this one has too. Whether it's the caduceus or the rod of Asclepius both symbols show the snake on the foreground and a rod in the background. Everyone knows when they see either one that they stand for medical help. I came to this webpage to get some history on the caduceus and not a dose of someone's half-baked opinion on its legitimacy as a symbol of the medical profession. And by the way, the caduceus just looks better (it's more elegant) than the rod of Asclepius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Quotable quotes
You changed the quote from as a result of documented mistakes, misunderstandings and confusion. to well-documented mistakes, misunderstandings of symbology and classical culture, unwillingness to admit error, and general confusion.. May we assume that you extracted these words from the sources, that they are not your own opinions? (even though true!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I apparently somehow missed it was a quote. That's my mistake. I added some of the wording based on several sources in the article, including from two other sections, and not just those cited for the passage. It was an attempt at a more nuanced paraphrased synopsis of the subject, within the lead, rather than any attempt to modify an existing quote. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't miss that it is a quote, because it isn't one - the fault was with my sloppily writing 'quote' when I meant 'text'. [People in greenhouses etc]. What I meant was, since the existing text was supported by citations, the same citations need to support your more specific wording. I'm not really bothered, since what you wrote verges on wp:the sky is blue, but others may disagree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I had considered adding the citations supporting the new wording (particularly the "inability to admit error" and misunderstandings of classical symbology), but as these sources are cited later in the article, I thought it might be a bit repetitive. Mainly, I wanted to avoid WP:CITEBLOAT, though that's always been something I've been on the fence about. As I alluded to somewhat in my earlier reply, aside from "citation overkill", the manual of style (MOS:INTRO) for leads generally discourages any citations at all, aside from statements that are likely to be challenged in a controversial article. This meets that threshold, to be sure, but since there were already citations supporting the existing text (without my clarifications), and the material I added refers to information covered at length later in the article, I erred on the side of minimalism. If consensus is that I should (re-)add the citations found later in the article into that sentence of the lead, I will. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let it stand. That explanation is enough for me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed paragraph that misrepresents medieval alchemist's image
I have removed this paragraph from the article: "The alchemist Salomon Trismosin (C16th), represents the spirit of medicine by the depiction of an old king in a closed flask under the quote Filius natus ex me, maior est me ('Son born by me, greater than me'), while Hermes is riding the clouds in a chariot holding the Caduceus in his hand. Hermes and the Caduceus are here symbols of the journey back to health." because it is clearly false. There is no text above the king; the figure in the chariot is holding a baby in a crescent moon, not a caduceus. Unfortunately, the citation does actually make this assertion but, given that it is so self-evidently false, it is not at all obvious why it should remain in the article. WP:VNT applies just as much to the image itself as to any description of it. (I wonder if the authors relied on Schouten [21, pp. 120–124] and failed to verify the image themselves?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Schouten source is given as "Schouten J (1967) The rod and serpent of Asklepios. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 107–116" but is not (obviously) available via the Wikipedia Library (unlike Antoniou et al., which is). If anyone wants to search for it, feel free. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)