Search

Professional historians generally treat the phrase 'what if' with pardonable scorn. It is a speculation which necessarily will never be tested in the real world. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable likelihood that, if typhoid fever had not carried off Frederick Akbar Mahomed at the age of 35, clinical research in Britain would have been both stronger and more highly developed at the beginning of the 20th century. Indeed, if he had lived to continue his most ambitious project, we would have had access to a unique source of clinical and epidemiological data 70 years before anything similar was contemplated.

The pioneering work of Richard Bright, who introduced the concept of the renal origin of cardiovascular disease, initiated the continuous unfolding of knowledge on renal disease and its close interrelationship with arterial hypertension in the 19th century. Hypertension as a clinically and pathologically defined entity, however, was not established. The partial elucidation of the problem that the diseased kidney was sometimes the cause and sometimes the consequence of elevated blood pressure is not only fascinating but also remarkable, given the crude techniques available to physicians at that time. Subsequent workers came to regard 'Bright's disease' as consisting of several conditions differing in clinical manifestation and pathology. In particular, Johnson and Gull and Sutton drew attention to the small blood vessels in renal disease. Only the invention of a clinically applicable method of measuring blood pressure indirectly allowed Mahomed and Allbutt to show that hypertension may occur in the absence of renal disease. They paved the way for a clear separation of hypertensive renal disease from other forms of 'Bright's disease', culminating in the classification introduced by Fahr and Volhard.

British successors of Richard Bright came to regard the disease which bore his name as consisting of several distinct clinical and pathological types, one of which was referred to as contracted granular kidney. The insidious nature of this form of the disease, the lack of clear-cut precipitating factors and, above all, the associated cardio-circulatory disorders gave rise to much speculation and debate. Whether the renal disease or the vascular disease was the primary and essential change was a question which sharply divided eminent Victorian physicians and gave rise to a bitter quarrel between Sir George Johnson and Sir William Gull. The anser to this conundrum, that the kidney was sometimes the cause and sometimes the consequence of circulatory disease was suggested by Mahomed's discovery of essential hypertension but confirmation had to await the invention of a clinically useful sphygmomanometer.