- Email: [email protected]
GLASGOW MEMORIAL TO LORD LISTER.
625 housed in the Pathological Department GLASGOW MEMORIAL TO LORD LISTER. temporarily of the Royal Infirmary. When the Memorial Committee realised that the decision of the directors of the Royal Infirmary to THE movement to commemorate the great services ’i, of Lord Lister in the city in which he made, and put demolish the ward was irrevocable it was decided to into practice, the discoveries which have done so FiG. 2. much for the alleviation of human suffering, originated a when committee far back as as February, 1912, of citizens was appointed to promote the memorial and obtain the subscriptions therefor, but owing to the war the prosecution of the scheme was interrupted. The appeal for funds was most generously responded to, and the scheme generally met with the most unqualified approval. Subscriptions were received from individuals and scientific societies in this country and abroad. Various suggestions were made as to the most fitting manner in which Lord Lister’s One of the memory should be commemorated. proposals which received almost universal "support in the was the preservation of the old " Lister Ward Glasgow Royal Infirmary, with the idea of making the ward a medical museum not only for the housing of personal relics of Lord Lister and of his period, but also to demonstrate the evolution of the science and art of surgery since his day. However, the managers of the Royal Infirmary declined to entertain the proposal and caused the historic ward to be -
demolished, notwithstanding widespread protest not only from the citizens of Glasgow but from scientific men
and scientific bodies all
over
the world.
In
FiG. 1.
LORD LISTER.
apply the funds at the committee’s disposal to the erection of a statue of Lord Lister to be placed in the Kelvingrove Park, immediately below the University of Glasgow, of which he was at one time so distingusihed an ornament, and on a site adjacent to the one occupied by a similar statue of his old contemporary and colleague, Lord Kelvin. This statue, designed by Mr. Paulin, A.R.S.A., which shows on Lister in his robes, seated, was unveiled Sept. 17th by Sir Hector C. Cameron. emeritus professor of surgery in the University of Glasgow,, and one of the last survivors of Lord Lister’s housesurgeons and assistants. No more appropriate choice could have been made than of one who throughout his life retained the affection and regard of his great master. e In the course of his speech Sir Hector Cameron gave an interesting account of the surgery class in the University of Glasgow in 1862, when Lister was professor. " One of my fellow students," he said, " was Frederick Trendelenburg. Some years ago, in a letter which I received from him, he observed that. while we all regarded. Prof. Lister with great and admiration, none of us could foresee that he would one day’change surgery from the very bottom.’ This was a just remark. All of us, indeed, felt conscious that wewere listening to new and valuable lessons not yet in print, but little realised how great their value was or what unspeakable blessings w ere to flow from their development in the near future. It was not, however, until 1865 that Lister began to develop his antiseptic system of wound treatment. His subsequent achievements were not accomplished without indomitable perseverance and a marvellous patience in the face of great opposition from the majority of the leaders of his profession, especially in his own country. From the very first he was under no illusion in regard to the inevitable and hostile criticim which his doctrines must evoke, especially from those who were prejudiced by a life-long familiarity with the older teaching and the former methods of practice. Years later Lister said on one occasion that
respect
STATUE the
course
IN
KELVINGROVE PARK.
’
of their labours the committee collected-
largely through the personal efforts and enthusiasm of Mr. A. E. Maylard, who until recently was the senior surgeon of the Glasgow Victoria Infirmarya number of valuable objects of interest and other relics relating to the life and period of Lord Lister, including several portraits of him ; photographs of the
houses
and
institutions
with
which
he
was
connected ; several documents and autograph papers ; his robe, hoods, and trencher ; a hundred of his books ; models of old operating tables and various instruments; specimens of the dressings used by Lord Lister ; examples of sprayss and other apparatus which belonged to Lord Lister, and various pieces of old This collection is at present furniture.
being
626 ’ he had often thought that if he did deserve any credit at all it was at the time when, perfectly convinced of the truth of the principle on which he acted, and persuaded also of the enormous importance to mankind of being able to carry out that principle in practice, he worked for years together with exceedingly little encouragement from his professional brethren. There were two great exceptions, however, his father-in-law (Prof. Syme, of Edinburgh) and his students.’ The Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is chairman of the Lord Lister Memorial Committee, presided at the ceremony, and amongst those present were the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Sir Donald MacAlister, Principal of Glasgow University, Sir William Watson Cheyne, ex-President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Sir Harold J. Stiles, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, Prof. T. K. Monro, President of the Royal Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow, Sir Thomas Oliver, of Newcastleon-Tyne, Lord Blythswood, and Lord Maclay. "
little value, and thought that proper treatment and accurate diagnosis ought to have saved the patient’s life. He had not given a certificate as he had not attended during the illness. An aunt of the mother corroborated her evidence as to Dr. Hadwen having said there was little the matter with the child on the morning of the 9th. Dr. R. B. Berry, city medical officer of health, said he had received no notification of diphtheria affecting the Burnham’s house from Dr. Hadwen. Dr. W. Washbourn gave details of the condition shown by post-mortem examination. Death, in his opinion, was due to diphtheria and pneumonia. Leaving bacteriology out of the question, he thought a medical man should at least have suspected diphtheria from the clinical symptoms. Dr. Washbourn, crossexamined on behalf of Dr. Hadwen as to the incident of the child getting water from the kitchen, said that it might have resulted in a chill From the condition and brought on pneumonia. of the bronchial tubes and the adherent membrane he would ascribe death to diphtheria rather than to
pneumonia. A neighbour, whom
the mother had told about the child fetching water, and who had communicated with Dr. Hadwen’s solicitor, also gave evidence. Dr. Hadwen, who was called and cautioned, declared himself willing to give evidence, and contradicted INQUEST VERDICT AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN. the statements of the mother in several particulars, AN inquest was held recently at Gloucester upon the stating that his visits had been longer and his examibody of Nellie Burnham, 10 years of age, the daughter nations more detailed than she had described. He had of a steel presser, working in America, who died on attended a brother and sister of the deceased in July, August 10th. At the conclusion of the evidence the and had found in them no symptoms of diphtheria, a returned written that " verdict the child jury after considering the question whether they were died from diphtheria and pneumonia, and that from it. On August 1st he had found the Dr. Hadwen failed to show competent skill and suffering deceased suffering from a bad cold, had considered the special attention, in consequence of which failure the question of diphtheria, and came to the conclusion child died." The coroner (Mr. G. Trevor Wellington) that her case was similar to that of her brother and said that this in law was a verdict of manslaughter sister. He described her symptoms and his treatment and committed upon his warrant Dr. W. R. Hadwen in detail, stating that he had found the latter effective to take his trial at the next Gloucester assizes, in similar cases. He had felt the child’s pulse, usually allowing bail. Since then Dr. Hadwen has been looking at the throat at the same time, on each brought before the magistrates and remanded on occasion that he had been to the house. He mainbail upon the same charge, only formal evidence tained that it was easy to diagnose diphtheria, as the being given. membrane could not be mistaken. He did not take a At the inquest the evidence of the mother was to the swab because the diphtheric bacillus was found in every effect that she called in Dr. Hadwen on August 1st kind of sore-throat and in the majority of healthy to see the deceased child, who had a bad throat and throats. Several questions were asked as to this talked thickly. Dr. Hadwen ordered a gargle of by the coroner, Dr. Hadwen maintaining.his opinion warm water and vinegar. He examined the child’s and saying finally, " I should like to point out that the throat, chest, and back. He saw the child again on modern germ theory is all bosh." He said that there the 4th and 6th, and told her to paint her throat with was no clinical symptom or physical sign of diphtheria glycerine as she could not gargle. On the 9th Dr. in the deceased from first to last, but that when he Hadwen saw the child at 10.30 A.M., made an exami- saw her on the 9th there Was a marked change in her nation, and, according to the witness, said that there condition and " inflammation of the right lung, known was scarcely anything the matter, and that the child as croupous pneumonia." He had tried to find out would soon be well. She also said that he was in the the cause of the change, but had not been told of the house for only five minutes. He told her to give the child going downstairs. He had not told the mother child, who could not keep down the milk which he had that there was little the matter. Such a suggestion ordered previously, milk diluted with water. A was absurd. He had advised her to give milk, and consultation of relatives was held during that day, said it was the child’s only chance, but had avoided as the result of which Dr. E. S. Ellis was called in and frightening the mother as well as he could. He was He diagnosed diphtheria emphatically of opinion -that the child contracted saw the child at 10.15 P.M. and pneumonia, and held out little hope of the patient pneumonia in going downstairs and died from living. She died soon after midnight (12.50 A.M., pneumonia. The witness expressed at length his August 10th). The witness said she had suspected views on the bearing of the conditions observed by diphtheria, but had not said so to Dr. Hadwen. him and those revealed by the post-mortem examiDr. Hadwen had attended other children of hers, nation upon this point. who since he did so had been removed to the isolation The coroner, in addressing the jury, explained the hospital. Recalled later, she admitted in cross- distinction between negligence and gross negligence examination that the child two days before her death as affecting their verdict, and drew their attention to had got out of bed and gone down barefoot to the the contradictions in the evidence. They had to kitchen to get a drink of water, and that she had not determine (1) whether diphtheria was the cause of told Dr. Hadwen of this. death ; (2) whether there was negligence by reason of Dr. Ellis gave particulars of his examination failure to use competent skill and/or to give sufficient of the deceased whom he found suffering from attention; (3) if they thought there was negligence, diphtheria, bronchitis, and pneumonia. He had little did they think it was gross ? Finally, did they expectation that the child would recover, and notified believe that the negligence caused contributed to or the case as diphtheria. If he had found the earlier accelerated the death of the deceased ? The jury’s symptoms described by the mother he would have answer, which it will be observed does not follow taken a swab, also pulse and temperature. He strictly the lines suggested by the coroner, is given criticised the treatment ordered by Dr. Hadwen as of above.
Medical and the Law.
*
demolished, notwithstanding widespread protest not only from the citizens of Glasgow but from scientific men
and scientific bodies all
over
the world.
In
FiG. 1.
LORD LISTER.
apply the funds at the committee’s disposal to the erection of a statue of Lord Lister to be placed in the Kelvingrove Park, immediately below the University of Glasgow, of which he was at one time so distingusihed an ornament, and on a site adjacent to the one occupied by a similar statue of his old contemporary and colleague, Lord Kelvin. This statue, designed by Mr. Paulin, A.R.S.A., which shows on Lister in his robes, seated, was unveiled Sept. 17th by Sir Hector C. Cameron. emeritus professor of surgery in the University of Glasgow,, and one of the last survivors of Lord Lister’s housesurgeons and assistants. No more appropriate choice could have been made than of one who throughout his life retained the affection and regard of his great master. e In the course of his speech Sir Hector Cameron gave an interesting account of the surgery class in the University of Glasgow in 1862, when Lister was professor. " One of my fellow students," he said, " was Frederick Trendelenburg. Some years ago, in a letter which I received from him, he observed that. while we all regarded. Prof. Lister with great and admiration, none of us could foresee that he would one day’change surgery from the very bottom.’ This was a just remark. All of us, indeed, felt conscious that wewere listening to new and valuable lessons not yet in print, but little realised how great their value was or what unspeakable blessings w ere to flow from their development in the near future. It was not, however, until 1865 that Lister began to develop his antiseptic system of wound treatment. His subsequent achievements were not accomplished without indomitable perseverance and a marvellous patience in the face of great opposition from the majority of the leaders of his profession, especially in his own country. From the very first he was under no illusion in regard to the inevitable and hostile criticim which his doctrines must evoke, especially from those who were prejudiced by a life-long familiarity with the older teaching and the former methods of practice. Years later Lister said on one occasion that
respect
STATUE the
course
IN
KELVINGROVE PARK.
’
of their labours the committee collected-
largely through the personal efforts and enthusiasm of Mr. A. E. Maylard, who until recently was the senior surgeon of the Glasgow Victoria Infirmarya number of valuable objects of interest and other relics relating to the life and period of Lord Lister, including several portraits of him ; photographs of the
houses
and
institutions
with
which
he
was
connected ; several documents and autograph papers ; his robe, hoods, and trencher ; a hundred of his books ; models of old operating tables and various instruments; specimens of the dressings used by Lord Lister ; examples of sprayss and other apparatus which belonged to Lord Lister, and various pieces of old This collection is at present furniture.
being
626 ’ he had often thought that if he did deserve any credit at all it was at the time when, perfectly convinced of the truth of the principle on which he acted, and persuaded also of the enormous importance to mankind of being able to carry out that principle in practice, he worked for years together with exceedingly little encouragement from his professional brethren. There were two great exceptions, however, his father-in-law (Prof. Syme, of Edinburgh) and his students.’ The Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is chairman of the Lord Lister Memorial Committee, presided at the ceremony, and amongst those present were the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Sir Donald MacAlister, Principal of Glasgow University, Sir William Watson Cheyne, ex-President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Sir Harold J. Stiles, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, Prof. T. K. Monro, President of the Royal Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow, Sir Thomas Oliver, of Newcastleon-Tyne, Lord Blythswood, and Lord Maclay. "
little value, and thought that proper treatment and accurate diagnosis ought to have saved the patient’s life. He had not given a certificate as he had not attended during the illness. An aunt of the mother corroborated her evidence as to Dr. Hadwen having said there was little the matter with the child on the morning of the 9th. Dr. R. B. Berry, city medical officer of health, said he had received no notification of diphtheria affecting the Burnham’s house from Dr. Hadwen. Dr. W. Washbourn gave details of the condition shown by post-mortem examination. Death, in his opinion, was due to diphtheria and pneumonia. Leaving bacteriology out of the question, he thought a medical man should at least have suspected diphtheria from the clinical symptoms. Dr. Washbourn, crossexamined on behalf of Dr. Hadwen as to the incident of the child getting water from the kitchen, said that it might have resulted in a chill From the condition and brought on pneumonia. of the bronchial tubes and the adherent membrane he would ascribe death to diphtheria rather than to
pneumonia. A neighbour, whom
the mother had told about the child fetching water, and who had communicated with Dr. Hadwen’s solicitor, also gave evidence. Dr. Hadwen, who was called and cautioned, declared himself willing to give evidence, and contradicted INQUEST VERDICT AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN. the statements of the mother in several particulars, AN inquest was held recently at Gloucester upon the stating that his visits had been longer and his examibody of Nellie Burnham, 10 years of age, the daughter nations more detailed than she had described. He had of a steel presser, working in America, who died on attended a brother and sister of the deceased in July, August 10th. At the conclusion of the evidence the and had found in them no symptoms of diphtheria, a returned written that " verdict the child jury after considering the question whether they were died from diphtheria and pneumonia, and that from it. On August 1st he had found the Dr. Hadwen failed to show competent skill and suffering deceased suffering from a bad cold, had considered the special attention, in consequence of which failure the question of diphtheria, and came to the conclusion child died." The coroner (Mr. G. Trevor Wellington) that her case was similar to that of her brother and said that this in law was a verdict of manslaughter sister. He described her symptoms and his treatment and committed upon his warrant Dr. W. R. Hadwen in detail, stating that he had found the latter effective to take his trial at the next Gloucester assizes, in similar cases. He had felt the child’s pulse, usually allowing bail. Since then Dr. Hadwen has been looking at the throat at the same time, on each brought before the magistrates and remanded on occasion that he had been to the house. He mainbail upon the same charge, only formal evidence tained that it was easy to diagnose diphtheria, as the being given. membrane could not be mistaken. He did not take a At the inquest the evidence of the mother was to the swab because the diphtheric bacillus was found in every effect that she called in Dr. Hadwen on August 1st kind of sore-throat and in the majority of healthy to see the deceased child, who had a bad throat and throats. Several questions were asked as to this talked thickly. Dr. Hadwen ordered a gargle of by the coroner, Dr. Hadwen maintaining.his opinion warm water and vinegar. He examined the child’s and saying finally, " I should like to point out that the throat, chest, and back. He saw the child again on modern germ theory is all bosh." He said that there the 4th and 6th, and told her to paint her throat with was no clinical symptom or physical sign of diphtheria glycerine as she could not gargle. On the 9th Dr. in the deceased from first to last, but that when he Hadwen saw the child at 10.30 A.M., made an exami- saw her on the 9th there Was a marked change in her nation, and, according to the witness, said that there condition and " inflammation of the right lung, known was scarcely anything the matter, and that the child as croupous pneumonia." He had tried to find out would soon be well. She also said that he was in the the cause of the change, but had not been told of the house for only five minutes. He told her to give the child going downstairs. He had not told the mother child, who could not keep down the milk which he had that there was little the matter. Such a suggestion ordered previously, milk diluted with water. A was absurd. He had advised her to give milk, and consultation of relatives was held during that day, said it was the child’s only chance, but had avoided as the result of which Dr. E. S. Ellis was called in and frightening the mother as well as he could. He was He diagnosed diphtheria emphatically of opinion -that the child contracted saw the child at 10.15 P.M. and pneumonia, and held out little hope of the patient pneumonia in going downstairs and died from living. She died soon after midnight (12.50 A.M., pneumonia. The witness expressed at length his August 10th). The witness said she had suspected views on the bearing of the conditions observed by diphtheria, but had not said so to Dr. Hadwen. him and those revealed by the post-mortem examiDr. Hadwen had attended other children of hers, nation upon this point. who since he did so had been removed to the isolation The coroner, in addressing the jury, explained the hospital. Recalled later, she admitted in cross- distinction between negligence and gross negligence examination that the child two days before her death as affecting their verdict, and drew their attention to had got out of bed and gone down barefoot to the the contradictions in the evidence. They had to kitchen to get a drink of water, and that she had not determine (1) whether diphtheria was the cause of told Dr. Hadwen of this. death ; (2) whether there was negligence by reason of Dr. Ellis gave particulars of his examination failure to use competent skill and/or to give sufficient of the deceased whom he found suffering from attention; (3) if they thought there was negligence, diphtheria, bronchitis, and pneumonia. He had little did they think it was gross ? Finally, did they expectation that the child would recover, and notified believe that the negligence caused contributed to or the case as diphtheria. If he had found the earlier accelerated the death of the deceased ? The jury’s symptoms described by the mother he would have answer, which it will be observed does not follow taken a swab, also pulse and temperature. He strictly the lines suggested by the coroner, is given criticised the treatment ordered by Dr. Hadwen as of above.
Medical and the Law.
*