Eyesight and Other Senses

[OliveOil_Med]

A while ago, I started a thread talking about wizards with disabilities (Blindness, deafness, etc.). Some people argued that because of magic, there would not be very many wizards with disabilities. But then I thought back to Harry, James, and Dumbledore who all wear glasses in the series. If magic were capable of curing blindness, it seems that it could easily cure simple poor eyesight.

So I wonder, what are the limits magic has towards healing in terms of disability as well as other injuries and ailments?

[ahattab33]

I've always thought it was rather strange they weren't healing poor eyesight. They could mend spells gone bad, fix bad teeth, and the lot...It always seemed that the eyeglasses by Dumbledore were a character trait, but once Harry arrived at Hogwarts, and was living among the Magical community, that they'd fix him up. In addition, Arthur wore glasses as well...is it a personal preference, like Hermione with her teeth because her parents didn't want her to get them fixed?

There's not even a floor at St. Mungo's to deal with common, regular sickness (Headaches, flu, etc.), though I suppose the reason for this is because it can be dealt with by a regular witch or wizard through potions or other common cures.

This has always bugged me, as I wear glasses would like to think as a witch, I could fix it up!

~Amanda

[Tim the Enchanter]

A while ago, I started a thread talking about wizards with disabilities (Blindness, deafness, etc.). Some people argued that because of magic, there would not be very many wizards with disabilities. But then I thought back to Harry, James, and Dumbledore who all wear glasses in the series. If magic were capable of curing blindness, it seems that it could easily cure simple poor eyesight.

So I wonder, what are the limits magic has towards healing in terms of disability as well as other injuries and ailments?

I think wizards have the capability to cure eyesight with magic, but they lack the knowledge as to how. I've never gotten the impression that wizards really knew all that much about how the body actually worked (to paraphrase Ron: "Docters? You mean those Muggles who cut people open? Nah, they're Healers."). For one thing, they seem to think performing surgery to be barbaric, and prefer using potions and spells. I think they can cure symptoms, but not necessarily the root of problems because their understanding of the human body is not as good as Muggles.

Concerning eyesight, it might be that wizards have tried waving a wand around and said, "eyesgetbetterius!" or some spell like that, but have always been' puzzled why nothing worked. If they really understood how the eye works, they could perform some sort of magical Lasik surgery, but that seems to be beyond their comprehension.

Either that, or Rowling just didn't think things through.

Tim the Enchanter

[OliveOil_Med]

Yes, Rowling didn't think things through might be a good literary answer, but let's play the 'Let's figure it out for her' game on this thread!

I sort of agree with Tim that wizards may not have a very good understanding of how the eye works. In general, I feel like the wizarding world has a poor understanding of human anatomy and how everything works. It may be one of the few areas where modern Muggles have surpassed them.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some Healers still use leeches to decrease severe swelling.

Just how advanced to you guys think wizards are in terms of understanding human biology and the mechanics of the human body?

[Tim the Enchanter]

Just how advanced to you guys think wizards are in terms of understanding human biology and the mechanics of the human body?

Not very.

Again, wizards are portrayed as having an aversion to any sort of cutting up or piercing of the body - like how Molly Weasley scolds Arthur for his 'stitches'. Also, considering Ron's reaction to Muggle doctors, I assume that because wizard's haven't bothered cutting people open to figure out how they work, they won't have a very good understanding of the human body. They might even still be working with the humoural theory!

So, I think they could adequately cure someone with the flu, for instance - use spells/potions for headaches, coughing, etc. But if wizards were faced with things like pancreatic cancer or kidney failure, I think they'd be utterly lost. They might not even know what the kidney actually does, come to think of it.

Tim the Enchanter

[Almara]

I agree with Tim here - I really don't think they know much about the human body at all. Perhaps a select few Healers did some research by themselves out of curiosity, but I can't imagine it going much further than that. After all, no Natural Sciences or other similar subjects are taught at Hogwarts, and, after Hogwarts, witches and wizards seem to get career-specific educations, so where would they learn about bone marrow and pancreas?

[OliveOil_Med]

But it has also been argued that wizards are incapable of catching most Muggle illnesses such as cancer, and that is why they are able to live so long. Think of just how much of the wizarding population has been able to live into their hundreds.

How do we explain that?

[Karaley Dargen]

But it has also been argued that wizards are incapable of catching most Muggle illnesses such as cancer, and that is why they are able to live so long. Think of just how much of the wizarding population has been able to live into their hundreds.

How do we explain that?

That's because they have a naturally longer lifespan – Rowling said that somewhere. How old did Dumbledore get –*180 or something? That has nothing to do with cancer or the flu, that's Wizarding genes.

Apparently Wizards can catch at least some Muggle illnesses, as they do get colds, for example. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't get more serious "Muggle" illnesses too; maybe you can rule out cancer, because their genes are different or something, but really, I don't see why they shouldn't get illnesses just like we do. Or maybe they have a different name for them?

Maybe a Muggle wouldn't get Dragon pox or Spattergroit because those illnesses attack only Wizarding genes, and maybe there are some illnesses that only attack Muggle genes, but I don't see any reason why it should be like that for all of them. My grandparent's dog died of cancer –*why should a wizard be more different from a Muggle than a dog?

[Tim the Enchanter]

But it has also been argued that wizards are incapable of catching most Muggle illnesses such as cancer, and that is why they are able to live so long. Think of just how much of the wizarding population has been able to live into their hundreds.

How do we explain that?

How are wizards immune to cancer? Being wizards doesn't make them superhuman.

The way I see it, wizards are good at curing symptoms, but their general ignorance of human anatomy prevents them from curing the root of the problem. So a wizard with cancer might have all of his symptoms attended to, but he'd still have cancer.

So why do wizards live so long? Well, I think that's another Rowling thing. Frankly, I don't see how so many would live into their hundreds, even with magic.

Tim the Enchanter

[OliveOil_Med]

Maybe the fact is that they are good at making the symptoms of deadly disease disappear temporarily, but because they have a very weak understanding of anatomy, they are not able to cure the disease completely.

So with this logic, it might be possible for a wizard to live with what would be a deadly disease for decades. This could certainly explain why Ron's great Aunt Muriel is always in such a bad mood.

[Northumbrian]

Wizards can “mend broken bones in a trice,” and they can regrow teeth (easily, apparently) and bones (with more difficulty).

Personally, I doubt that they have a very weak understanding of anatomy They certainly have a good understanding of the skeleton and there is no evidence that their knowledge of the rest of human anatomy should be much worse.

Nor do I see any evidence to support the theory that They might even still be working with the humoural theory! None of the healers in the books make any reference to the humours or to keeping the body in balance.

(to paraphrase Ron: "Doctors? You mean those Muggles who cut people open? Nah, they're Healers."). For one thing, they seem to think performing surgery to be barbaric, and prefer using potions and spells.

Personally, I think that cutting people open is barbaric and, for most Doctors, it’s a last resort.


The way I see it, wizards are good at curing symptoms, but their general ignorance of human anatomy prevents them from curing the root of the problem. So a wizard with cancer might have all of his symptoms attended to, but he'd still have cancer.

So why do wizards live so long? Well, I think that's another Rowling thing. Frankly, I don't see how so many would live into their hundreds, even with magic.

I disagree. Healers aren’t Doctors. The simplest explanation (in my opinion) is to assume that their name is their job description; wizards seem to be literal.

The human body is (usually) very good at repairing itself. Left untreated, even broken bones will mend, though not particularly well. Muggle “complimentary medicines” from acupuncture to homeopathy don’t actually do anything, they simply rely on the fact that the human body tends to repair itself over time.

In my opinion, healers use magic and potions to encourage the body to repair itself, they speed up the natural repair process and encourage re-growth of things that human medicine “knows” can’t be re-grown. That could (possibly) even include a cure for cancer, but I’d be happy to argue either way if there was a good story in it.

What healers can’t do is improve on the pre-existing conditions. If you’re born with poor eyesight, or poor hearing, you’re stuck with it. If you’re deaf, and your ear is chopped off by a sword, the healers can re-grow the ear, but you’ll still be deaf. The same applies to eyes (sorry ahattab33) or even a congenital heart condition. I’d argue that magic is better than medicine except with regard to “birth defects” (this would also explain JKR’s (later deleted) reference to a witch with a hare lip in CoS).

Longevity could similarly be explained by assuming that wizards repair mechanisms are better than Muggles, and their cells degenerate more slowly. With this logic it might be possible for a wizard to live with the natural degeneration of old age, creaking bones etc., for decades. This, too, could explain why Ron's great Aunt Muriel is always in such a bad mood.

N

[OliveOil_Med]

Maybe they have good understand of the skeleton because it is a part of our body that is very physical and it is something that can be studied after a person is dead. Nerves and organs and the like, however, are more complex. Just think of how barbaric the doctor who studied the functions of these parts had to be: disecting a human eye, cutting into a person's brain while they are still alive. These do seem fairly barbaric when they are just said plainly.

Maybe wizards never studied human anatomy as far as Muggles did just because they saw their whole process as barbaric. Sadly, there is no other way to do it, so wizardkind was doomed to remain dreadfully behind Muggles in terms of medicine.

[Inverarity]

I'd like to make a couple of points, because there is some fanon popping up here that I see all the time that annoys me.

1. It is not canon that wizards have an average lifespan of 150+ years!

Yes, Rowling said that wizards tend to live longer than Muggles, and Dumbledore was very old (though not 180!). We can postulate a number of reasons why wizards might have longer average lifespans, but a longer average lifespan is likely to mean 80 or 90 (that's an average, meaning half don't live that long, and half live a bit a longer, and a very few, like Dumbledore, live a lot longer); not 150-180! And Dumbledore seemed to be atypical in every other way, so it doesn't seem likely that he's a typical example of wizarding longevity.

2. It is not canon that wizards are immune to Muggle diseases.

I don't know where this came from. I'm pretty sure Rowling never said it. I guess it's based on the fact that wizards are always described as having "wizarding diseases" like dragon pox and spattergroit, which has led people to assume that they don't get Muggle diseases like measles and colds and cancer.

Well, first of all, how do we know that wizards don't get colds or cancer? Because it's never mentioned in the books? Because we assume magic can cure Muggle diseases (but not wizard diseases)? Maybe, but again -- not in the books.

Secondly, maybe dragon pox is cancer! It seems likely to me that a lot of "wizard diseases" are just names wizards came up with for the same diseases Muggles get. They obviously don't have a lot of knowledge of Muggle medical science, so why would they know what Muggles call cancer or smallpox?

Now, returning to the subject of this thread: wizard clearly can cure some things magically in ways that Muggle medicine can't match. Broken bones and other injuries can be healed overnight. Poison can be neutralized. Probably some diseases can likewise be cured instantly, or almost instantly. But we also know there are afflictions they can't cure. St. Mungo's has long-term care wards. Maybe some of those afflictions are things they just don't understand.

If they can cure broken bones and wounds with a wand, then it's not surprising they consider surgery barbaric. But maybe because they're not so good at internal medicine, they have no idea how to cure an aggressive cancer that won't go away with a Healing Charm. The Muggle treatment (surgery or chemotherapy, which is basically injecting poison into your bloodstream and hoping the cancer dies before you do) would seem quite barbaric to them, because frankly, it is barbaric; it's just the only thing we have right now.

Also, given their infrequent contact with Muggles and the fact that they seem to be behind the times in most respects, a lot of wizards probably still think of "surgery" as what Muggles practiced from medieval times until about a hundred years ago. Until we gained a better understanding of anatomy (and the germ theory!), "surgery" was highly experimental, brutal, and more likely than not to kill the patient. Early doctors tried things like packing wounds with dirt, for example.

[Equinox Chick]

Adding to what Inverarity has said, if you look at the Black Family tree they weren't blessed with longevity. Most died in their sixties/seventies - that's not that ancient.

Also, regarding cancer, in real life most humans who die of old age actually have a form of cancer, but as they get older and their cells don't reproduce the cancer is very slow-growing. Perhaps the Blacks did get cancer which is why they died relatively young.

Okay, eyesight. Well we cure it with lasers, Healers would think that's dangerous, plus they don't have the electricity to work the equipment.

Regarding Dumbledore's age. I thought JK Rowling did say he was 150. Of course that does seem far too old - perhaps she said 115 and we all misheard. But Griselda Marchbanks is older than him because she examined him when he did his NEWTS.

Sadly, there is no other way to do it, so wizardkind was doomed to remain dreadfully behind Muggles in terms of medicine.
Do you think that they're dreadfully behind? There form of medicine seems pretty advanced to me. They can't cure eyesight, but the bone healing, the antidotes for poisons Wolfsbane ... they all seem highly advanced forms of medicine.

Regarding leeches - do you know that in some hospitals they use leeches and also maggots (maggots eat away rotten tissue) as part of the healing process. No, I'm not talking about underdeveloped countries. There are special medical leeches bred for certain forms of medicine in the UK.

Carole

[Northumbrian]

Maybe they have good understand of the skeleton because it is a part of our body that is very physical and it is something that can be studied after a person is dead.

True.

Nerves and organs and the like, however, are more complex. Just think of how barbaric the doctor who studied the functions of these parts had to be: disecting a human eye, cutting into a person's brain while they are still alive. These do seem fairly barbaric when they are just said plainly.

However, you don’t need to cut people up to figure out how organs work. The Weasleys keep chickens, I’m sure Molly puts the occasional one in the pot. Wizards need to eat (Gamp’s Law) and killing and butchering animals gives people a lot of information about how organs work, and what they do.

Maybe wizards never studied human anatomy as far as Muggles did just because they saw their whole process as barbaric. Sadly, there is no other way to do it, so wizardkind was doomed to remain dreadfully behind Muggles in terms of medicine.

There are other ways to do it. Most organ functions can be determined from animal dissections. Muscles can be felt through the skin. Healers dealing with badly broked bones, or goblin inflicted injuries (nothing says leave us alone like an axe in the skull, or a sword through the ribs) will have given healers a lot of knowledge about what falls out of a body when someone else slices it open. Perhaps the wizarding healing texts all date back to the Goblin rebellions.

There is also the possibility that Gellert Grindelwald had his own Josef Mengele, too. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that there are other possibilities.

[Inverarity]

There is also the possibility that Gellert Grindelwald had his own Josef Mengele, too. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that there are other possibilities.

It really does require dissecting bodies to figure out how organs, bones, nerves, muscles, etc., all work together. Of course we have always had a general idea of how organs work, from butchering animals and from seeing wartime injuries and the like. Even ancient people knew where the heart and lungs and stomach were, for example, and had a general idea of what they did (organs like the liver and the pancreas, not so much). But we didn't gain much real knowledge until people starting cutting up corpses and examining them, and doing experimental surgery on live subjects.

[Northumbrian]

According to JKR:

Albus Dumbledore
1881 - 1996
Brilliant and often controversial headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Albus Dumbledore is most famous for his 1945 defeat of Grindelwald and his steadfast championing of Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived. Dumbledore's self-proclaimed proudest achievement, however, was featuring on a Famous Wizards Chocolate Frog Card.

So, he was a sprightly 115 when he died. :)

To agree with Inverarity there is no proof that wizards are immune to Muggle diseases. Hogwarts suffers from outbreaks of the common cold, just like ordinary schools do. But:

But maybe because they're not so good at internal medicine, they have no idea how to cure an aggressive cancer that won't go away with a Healing Charm. The Muggle treatment (surgery or chemotherapy, which is basically injecting poison into your bloodstream and hoping the cancer dies before you do) would seem quite barbaric to them, because frankly, it is barbaric; it's just the only thing we have right now.

Wait a minute, where has it been established that “they're not so good at internal medicine?” It’s a valid opinion, and I wouldn't rubbish a story based on that premise, but is it true? We don’t know.

There is no reason to assume that they are bad (or good) at internal medicine.

In the only long term ward we know about the patients were suffering from mental problems: memory loss (Lockhart), dementia brought on by curses (the Longbottoms), Bode also had memory loss (and thought he was a teapot), and the other resident mentioned (I think) barked like a dog. These aren’t patients suffering from a terminal illness, they’re patients who need constant care for their own safety and well-being. Not evidence either way.

-N-

[Karaley Dargen]

In the only long term ward we know about the patients were suffering from mental problems: memory loss (Lockhart), dementia brought on by curses (the Longbottoms), Bode also had memory loss (and thought he was a teapot), and the other resident mentioned (I think) barked like a dog. These aren’t patients suffering from a terminal illness, they’re patients who need constant care for their own safety and well-being. Not evidence either way.


Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they did walk into the permanent brain damage (or something like that) ward, and not the terminal illness ward. Also, I doubt that there is something like that. Terminally ill Wizards would probably take a happy potion and stay at home, not draw their days out in a hospital, would they?

We never actually see an instance of Muggle medicine being superior to what they do at St Mungos, for example. Like the stitches – they didn't work, did they?

[ahattab33]

Originally posted by Kara:
Like the stitches – they didn't work, did they?
Just a quick jump in on this discussion: I believe the situation you are referring to was Arthur Weasley, after being bitten by Nagini:

"Do you mean to tell me," said Mrs. Weasley, her voice growing louder with every word and apparently unaware that her fellow visitors were scurrying for cover, "that you have been messing about with Muggle remedies?"

"Not messing about, Molly, dear," said Mr. Weasley imploringly. "It was just -- just something Pye and I thought we'd try -- only, most unfortunately -- well, with these particular kinds of wounds -- it doesn't seem to work as well as we'd hoped --"

"Meaning?"

"Well...well, I don't know whether you know what -- what stiches are?"
....

"Well, you know, they do work well on non-magical wounds," said Hermione fairly. "I suppose something in that snake's venom dissolves them or something..."

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, American Version, page 507

It is never discussed elsewhere, the use of this kind of Muggle remedies on Wizards. Though, as primative technology such as glasses works to correct Harry, Arthur, and Dumbledore's vision, if they had an injury that didn't involve magic, then theoretically they could stitch it up, or have it fixed at a Muggle hospital, if the need arose.

~Amanda

[OliveOil_Med]

Alright, let's just do a quick write-up of what we know wizarding medicine.

Wizarding medicine can fix broken bones (and even regrow bones). It can cure most poisons. They can stop the flow of blood and replenish blood through the use of different potions. They can heal minor sprains and cuts with the wave of a wand.

Wizarding medicine can't regenerate severed limbs, fix eyesight and possible other senses as well. Wizarding medicine can't fix problems that have existed from birth. They cannot regenerate organs such as eyes.

But this has me think: how can it be possible for wizards to create bones out of nothing (Skele-grow), but they can't create whole limbs? Could this possibley relate to the wizarding world's good understanding of bones, but reletively poor understanding of nerves and muscles and all other parts of the body.

[Inverarity]

But this has me think: how can it be possible for wizards to create bones out of nothing (Skele-grow), but they can't create whole limbs? Could this possibley relate to the wizarding world's good understanding of bones, but reletively poor understanding of nerves and muscles and all other parts of the body.

People can regrow lost bone and tissue, but they can't regrow a limb or an organ.

Skele-grow is probably just something that dramatically accelerates the natural healing process. It may be that healing magic is not limited by wizards' understanding of the body, but by what the body can and cannot do on its own.

[Northumbrian]

It may be that healing magic is not limited by wizards' understanding of the body, but by what the body can and cannot do on its own.

I reckon that this is a good working hypothesis.


In my opinion, healers use magic and potions to encourage the body to repair itself, they speed up the natural repair process and encourage re-growth of things that human medicine “knows” can’t be re-grown. That could (possibly) even include a cure for cancer, but I’d be happy to argue either way if there was a good story in it.

What healers can’t do is improve on the pre-existing conditions. If you’re born with poor eyesight, or poor hearing, you’re stuck with it. If you’re deaf, and your ear is chopped off by a sword, the healers can re-grow the ear, but you’ll still be deaf. The same applies to eyes or even a congenital heart condition. I’d argue that magic is better than medicine except with regard to “birth defects” (this would also explain JKR’s (later deleted) reference to a witch with a hare lip in CoS).

Ted Tonks re-grew Harry’s tooth which had been knocked out.

Molly (referring to Fred’s ear) said “I can’t make it grow back, not when it’s been removed by Dark Magic.”

Are they trained healers? Or does “Handy First Aid Hints for Harassed Witches and Wizards” (or whatever) include spells for those minor injuries like losing an tooth, or an ear, or a hand?

-N-

[Karaley Dargen]

It is never discussed elsewhere, the use of this kind of Muggle remedies on Wizards. Though, as primative technology such as glasses works to correct Harry, Arthur, and Dumbledore's vision, if they had an injury that didn't involve magic, then theoretically they could stitch it up, or have it fixed at a Muggle hospital, if the need arose.

Yes – that's partly what I meant, even though I didn't write it ( >.< tired!me). Under normal circumstances, the stitches would probably work like a wound-healing spell, only slower I suppose. But with that injury, they were inferior to the magical healing methods –*so in a way, the wizards are more advanced than the Muggles because they have some potion or something that can help where stitches can't.