A Family of Early English Oculists (1600-1751), With a Reappraisal of John Thomas Woolhouse (1664-1733/1734)

Abstract

Introduction: John Thomas Woolhouse (1666-1733/1734), who practiced in Paris, was part of a family with 5 generations of English oculists. Some historians have derided him as a “charlatan” and have criticized him for adhering to the old notion that a cataract was a membrane anterior to the lens. Methods: We reviewed treatises and digital records related to Woolhouse and his family and the handwritten notes of his 1721 lecture series at the Royal Society of Medicine. Results: We have identified 5 generations of oculists in Woolhouse’s family, by the names of Atwood, Stepkins, Ivy, and Beaumont. Woolhouse taught students from across Europe. He was one of the early proponents in Europe, inspired by Asian medical practices, to perform paracentesis to release aqueous for a new condition called hydrophthalmia. In Woolhouse’s system, some of these cases probably described angle-closure glaucoma. He was the first to attach the name glaucoma to the palpably hard eye in 1707. He may also have been the first to teach that a soft eye was unlikely to recover vision. Credit for these teachings has traditionally gone to one of his students, Johannes Zacharias Platner, in 1745. Some historians have stated that he proposed iridectomy as a theoretical procedure, which was later performed by Cheselden. In fact, Woolhouse described techniques he had performed which today would be called pupilloplasty, synechiolysis, or pupillary membrane lysis. He was also a pioneer in dacryocystectomy for chronic dacryocystitis and in congenital cataract surgery. His writings from 1716 onward repeatedly (and correctly) stressed that most of the patients with visual disorders required depression of the crystalline lens (for what he called glaucoma), as opposed to removal of an anterior membrane (which he called cataract). Conclusions: Woolhouse was a bold ophthalmic innovator and teacher who made major contributions which have lasted to this day. Although he did not admit it, he ultimately adopted much of the evolving understanding of the nature of lens opacities. However, his stubborn refusal to adopt the newer semantics has detracted from a full appreciation of his contributions.