Deep Cut: The Story of Spring Lancets and Medical Change

• Post Date: 10/22/2025
• Author: Norah Harson, registration assistant
• Reading Time: 15 minute read

• Collections tag
• In-Depth tag

A Tiny Tool with a Larger Story

Spurlock Museum’s collection of spring lancets is among the museum's most peculiar group objects. The elegant design of these brass objects often sparks curiosity due to their small size fitting comfortably within the hand’s palm. However, the decorative aspects of spring lancets may distract from their unsettling role in the history of Western medicine. These instruments were designed for medical bloodletting, a long enduring medical practice that removed patients' blood in hopes of curing a number of ailments. Today, bloodletting is largely understood to have been deeply harmful to patients, with many famous deaths attributed to the practice including the United State’s First President George Washington.

To perform the bloodletting procedure, these spring lancets deployed a compact blade with a mechanical spring in order to incise a specific vein. The compactness of these tools made them portable and easy to use, a desirable quality for physicians who commonly traveled for at-home patient visits. However, these small objects reveal more than the day-to-day needs of 1800s physicians. Spring lancets reflect a pivotal moment in the history of Western medicine when the long-standing practice of medical bloodletting faced increasing scrutiny and medical communities faced the tension between belief in tradition and discoveries in science.

Bloodletting: A Practice Older Than History

The beginnings of bloodletting likely take root prior to the written record. Long before the development of written medical theory, early humans may have targeted blood due to its overtly visible nature, performing procedures with nails, wooden sticks, and later rocks. Today, the earliest written record of bloodletting can be found in the Ebers Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian medical text dating to around 1550 BCE. At this point, healers had advanced to specialized instruments, including flint blades and, later, copper instruments.

The bloodletting practice was later embraced and expanded upon by Hippocrates, the Greek physician who proposed humoral theory. This theory suggested the body's four humors, blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile, functioned as the fundamental forces governing the human body. According to Hippocratic theory, health was achieved through the balance of these humors, and disease resulted from their imbalance. In this framework, illness could be remedied by restoring harmony through the removal of excess humors, or "plethora."

Another influential Greek physician, Galen of Pergamon, further developed this thinking by identifying blood as the most dominant of the four humors. Galen’s teachings shaped Western medical practice for centuries, especially during the Middle Ages, when bloodletting became a common treatment for almost every ailment. From this point on, bloodletting was a common practice, although at times a controversial one. Many physicians and patients questioned its efficacy, concerned with the side effects of nausea, quickened breathing, and loss of consciousness. However, bloodletting’s extensive tenure within the tradition of Western medicine and the lack of alternative treatments kept it in place for centuries. The persistence of bloodletting in medical practice throughout history offers important insight into how medical knowledge was and continues to be developed, accepted, and challenged.

The Rise of the Spring Lancet

Bloodletting underwent significant changes in the 19th century due to technological innovations, especially in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization created an impulse for developing new tools, materials, and manufacturing techniques that forever changed the production of surgical instruments. Metalworking became more advanced and the expansion of a global capitalistic market promoted competition between craftsmen leading to invention and experimentation between rival artisans. During this time, a variety of bloodletting instruments would be invented, including the spring lancet, scarificator, and mechanical leech.

The spring lancet became the preferred bloodletting instrument by a number of medical communities. Physicians found the mechanical nature of the lancet attractive, as it mitigated the procedural risks present in the thumb lancets that required manual pressure. However, spring lancets may have been preferred by physicians for reasons beyond their procedural simplicity. As previously noted, the practice of bloodletting remained controversial within its history in Western medicine. Following the gradual move away from humoral theory, the practice of bloodletting continued under the belief that the removal of excess blood would reduce inflammation within the body, decreasing most maladies which patients were afflicted with. However, an increasing discomfort with this theory began to stew in the late 18th century. The mechanical nature allowed physicians to distance themselves from this discomfort and the feelings of archaism associated with the practice.

Physicians interest in promoting a shroud of sophistication is further emphasized through the decorative embellishments seen in the spring lancets of Spurlock Museum’s collection. The spring lancet depicted above features finely engraved linework with elegant curves. Today, these engravings may prompt suspicion as the channels of the engraving may become spaces for bacteria to flourish. Indeed, the appealing mechanism that physicians found attractive of the spring lancet led the tool to be far more prone to the spread of infection. Germ theory was yet to be discovered for the majority of spring lancet’s use, however, some medical communities, like those in England had already grown suspicious of the efficacy of these instruments in their mission to return patients to good health. The discrepancy in patient care priorities in the issue of medical instruments can be called into question in the issue of procedure. It is hard to imagine today why the negative effects of bloodletting were not widely recognized sooner in the history of Western medicine. Indeed, the eventual move away from bloodletting required a cultural and scientific transformation that would forever leave its mark on the history of medicine.

Bloodletting in the Face of Evidence

Although the practice of bloodletting has indeed remained controversial throughout its tenure in medical practice, one fervent advocate propelled bloodletting back into the mainstream in the early 19th century. Benjamin Rush, American founding father, ardently championed aggressive bloodletting. The aggression and drama of Rush’s practice highlights his association with the practice of heroic medicine, which relied on dramatic interventions to shock the body into balance, regardless of the increased risk for patients. The practice of bloodletting had increasingly become a theatrical event rather than a carefully administered medical procedure, glorifying the surgeon rather than focusing on the well-being of the patient.

Shortly after the boom in bloodletting attributed to Benjamin Rush, a French surgeon, Dr. Pierre Louis, published his findings on the treatment of pneumonia with bloodletting. In his study, Louis challenged the notion that bloodletting benefited patients with pneumonia due to an observation based study of over 75 patients. This observation based approach did not immediately end the practice, they laid the groundwork for a broader shift toward evidence-based medicine. Louis’s work, along with similar studies, began to shift the medical community away from traditional methods like bloodletting and toward more empirical, scientifically grounded practices for determining the proper treatment for patients.

Despite factual evidence contesting the procedure, bloodletting remained present in Western medical practice for several more decades. Many physicians resisted the shift to evidence-based approaches, unwilling to abandon long-standing traditions. This resistance reflects a pattern where innovative ideas and methodologies have been slow to take hold, especially when they challenge deeply rooted beliefs. In the case of medicine, this resistance can have dire consequences, threatening the ability for communities to receive adequate care.

By the late 19th century, the tide had turned against bloodletting. As more evidence emerged that bloodletting did not improve patient outcomes, and as new medical treatments like antibiotics began to revolutionize medicine, bloodletting fell out of favor. Pneumonia, which had been one of the leading causes of death in the United States during the 19th century, became much more treatable with the advent of antibiotics. The rise of modern medical practices, such as sterilization techniques and the development of vaccines, contributed to a dramatic reduction in mortality rates from infectious diseases. Today, bloodletting is considered an archaic and inappropriate practice within most of Western medicine. The progress of medicine, as seen through the improved mortality rates and life expectancy, is often cited as a prime example of human advancement. However, it is important to recognize that the shift away from bloodletting was not a smooth or instantaneous process. It required a cultural shift and a scientific transformation that reshaped Western medicine and its approach to patient care.

The Role of Spring Lancets Today

In the Spurlock Museum’s collection, these small, unsuspecting spring lancets hold poignant reminders of both the progress and the pitfalls of medical history. These instruments, though now obsolete in practical application, offer valuable insights into how medical knowledge evolves and how cultural beliefs shape the practices of the time. By examining these objects, we can better understand the complexities of medical history and appreciate the delicate balance between tradition and innovation.

In today’s climate, it is easy to take for granted the existence of our evidence-based medical culture centered on patient care. Yet, as we study objects like the spring lancet, we recognize a dangerous past in which this framework was not yet in place. Investigating these objects in museum collections not only sheds light on the victories of physicians and scientists, but also the mistakes made along the way. The stories held within the mechanisms of sprint lancets provide an opportunity to reflect on contemporary issues regarding evidence based medicine and threats to patient care. We are led to ask how much of our own understanding of medicine is shaped by bias, tradition, and the limits of our current knowledge? This reflection, rooted in empathy and curiosity, helps us understand not only where we've been, but also where we are going.