There were even people who felt this way about anesthesia too. To survive in that era, they had to believe that suffering was somehow good for healing (or at least good spiritually) and talked about anesthesia as if it were cheating the natural god-given order.
I think this might be revisionism. A lot of people feared early anesthesia because it was far more dangerous than today.
I also notice people will make note that 'eccentrics' from the 1940s-1950s hated air conditioning but it helps to understand it was a dangerous technology that regularly injured and killed people back then, especially in its earlier days the adults of that period were children during. AC didn't get safe until fairly recently in the 70s, 80s and 90s. It would catch fire or leak poison that killed people in their sleep. Some people just saw it as an unnecessary risk. Same with early fridges. When they leaked, that leak could be fatal as poison or explosion.
It wasnt until later that these technologies got safer and even now today, we consider full anesthesia a last resort and will always try to get away with local or twilight anesthesia because full anesthesia does regularly injure, disable, and kill people. Evolution didnt design us to be trivially "shut off" like this. Injecting us with substances like that will always come with risk.
In other words, a lot of those people weren't mindless luddites, but people who assessed their personal risk and said "nope, not worth it." I think that's perfectly fine.
I'd argue the revisionism of today and the ego justifications of the time were just that, ego protection. Its far easier to say "Well, I'm tough, I don't need that," then "I'm scared of that." The former is rewarded in our individualist capitalist society. The latter is vulnerability and honestly which is often only punished in a society like ours. We see it today with people with limited access and affordability to healthcare in the USA putting off care or engaging in various home remedies, alt-medicine, supplements, or conspiracy-culture-esque pharma drugs gotten cheaply via the gray market.
Its under documented. People having side effects and injuries from these drugs post-surgery are just told to "deal with it." Modern medicine is quite an improvement from the past but it still involves a great deal of risk, especially when we put people fully under.
Ahh. "Trust me bro" science! No, no I don't think I will. I think I will trust the actual data.
> People having side effects and injuries from these drugs post-surgery are just told to "deal with it."
Well, generally once something has already occurred, yes, that is the reality. Just like with my damaged spinal cord. I now have to "deal with it" because you can't go backwards. Also "just deal with it" does not imply a lack of documentation that it occurred.
> but it still involves a great deal of risk
Yes, just not the level of risk claimed. In fact, not anywhere close in the modern age.
> especially when we put people fully under.
I've zero doubt. That said, I've had more generals than 99.9% of people ever will and i'm still alive and injury free so yay for modern medical science.
