When reading about the history of medicine, one often comes across old theories of anatomy and the origin of diseases which sound hair-curlingly wrong by modern standards but were apparently believed for a long time, such as “humorism”. This makes me wonder if doctors practising on the basis of such ideas were any good in the sense of having a decent (better-than-random) chance of improving the conditions of their patients.
So suppose you live in a medieval or early modern city and have some medical condition; something that’s seriously threatening to your life if left untreated but which can easily be treated by modern medicine. You consult a doctor of your day; a “real” doctor, with a degree from a reputable (in its day) medical school. Was there any realistic chance of cure, or would the doctor simply give you some treatment that makes you feel as if something is done but which doesn’t actually help, and your chances of survival are the same as if you were left to your own devices?