- Email: [email protected]
REPLY TO MR. O'SHEA'S LETTER ON TREAT MENT OF A FRACTURED RADIUS
112 in fact next to nothing. The fever was, at Bermuda, supposed to have been introduced by a royal mail steamer, probably the Tweed, which vessel had left St. Thomas bnt a few days before, and on board which several cases had occurred. The great mortality among the convicts, &c. may reasonably be ascribed to the crowded state of the men, and their intemperate habits, when compared with those of the Bermudians. T remain vours. &c. &c.. A SUBSCRIBER AND LOOKER-ON.
REPLY TO MR. O’SHEA’S LETTER ON TREAT MENT OF A FRACTURED RADIUS BY A FELLOW OF THE COLLEGE.
To the Editor of THE LANCET. letter of Mr. O’Shea, in THE LANCET of last SIR -The week, bearing the aspect of an attack upon the fellows of the college, seems to me neither written in good taste nor calculated to benefit the profession in general, or the majority of the profession in particular, as opposed to the council and fellows, and therefore to demand some sort of refutation. I have seen with pain the various letters that have appeared of late "in the Times, signed " M.D.," and " Apothecary," and General Practitioner," the former accusing the apothecary of following his profession by intrigue, and the others retaliating by imputing ignorance to all physicians and surgeons indiscriminately. The letter of Mr. O’Shea is but an addition to these attacks, which must be deemed by all wise men in the profession as highly detrimental to the profession at large, and injurious to the writers themselves, at the same time that they are gross exaggerations, bearing neither the aspect of truth nor the shadow of probability. I do not mean to insinuate that Mr. O’Shea has told an untruth ; I have not the slightest doubt that he has stated the story precisely in the same words as it was related to him by the patient Catherine Pretty. But all who have any knowledge of the practice of hospitals know full well that the fractures are never put up by the surgeons, and those who have any knowledge of the poorer classes know bow easily they misrepresent what is said to them by the medical attendant ; and I may add that, although hospital surgeons owe their appointments more to their pedigree than to their talents, yet the practice that they obtain by those appointments, and the lessons they learn from the blunders that they make, are quite sufficient to infuse more than ordinary practical knowledge into men of ordinary abilities, and to render them quite as likely to be correct in their diagnosis of fractures as Mr. O’Shea. The only conclusion, therefore, at which I can arrive is, that either Mr. O’Shea has overlooked an obscure case of fractured radius, or, which is more probable, that some pupil, and not a fellow, of Bartholomew’s, has been guilty of mistaking a sound limb for a broken one. With regard to the method of putting up a fractured radius, the splints should not extend further than the wrist, and the hand be allowed to bang, that the weight of it may counteract the action of the pronator quadratus. But, Sir, I write these remarks not so much to enter into the question of the best method of apply. ing splints to a fractured radius, which, as far as I have seen, medical men in general are quite competent to accomplish, as to direct your attention, and that of the medical public, to the injurious results that are likely to follow from these throat-cutting epistles to one another. It is a singular and anomalous state of things, that while men of the first eminence, of the most varied talents, and ol the most cultivated minds, unconnected with the profession, such as Pope, Johnson, Parr, and others, have borne witness to the great talents, the extensive information on general subjects, and the uniform kindness of medical men, they themselves are blazoning forth to the public thai neither talent, kindness, nor even common honesty, is to bE found among them. The best method of rooting out these evils, and of ministering to the " diseased minds" of the profession, is a subject well worthy the consideration of thf great aggregate meeting, and so I leave it for the present,
subscribing myself your obedient servant,
April 10,
1844.
NASO. ’
PROVINCIAL
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL.
To
Dr. ROBERT J. N. STREETEN, Editor of the Provincial Medical Journal. scurrilous attack on the " Provincial Medical SIR,—A Journal’’ having appeared in the second number of the new LANCET, in the form of a letter professedly written by one of the oldest members of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, and dated Nottingham, March 27, 1844, we, the undersigned, being the whole of the Nottingham members of that association. hereby declare that no one of us wrote, or was in any way cognisant of, the letter in question. We remain, Sir, your obedient servants, JOHN CALTIIROP WILLIAMS, THOMAS WILSON, FRANCIS SIBSON, M.D., JOHN HIGGINBOTTOM, Sur- ROBERT DAVISON, J.. N. THOMPSON, Surgeon, gt’on, CHARLES STOUR, M.D., G. M. W 11 ITE, Surgeon, BOOTH EDDISON, HENRY TAYLOR, M.D.
Nottingham, April 6,
1844.
Newhall, near Rotherham, Yorksliire, April 7, 1844. Henry Payne, M.D., of Nottingham, member of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, presents his to the editor of the " Provincial Medical and and informs him that he did not write, and that he does not know who did write, the letter that
respects
Surgical Journal,"
has appeared in the second number of the new LANCET, which reflects on the " Provincial Medical and Surgical
Journal." To Dr. J. N. STREETEN, Editor of the " Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal." %* We refer this communication for the consideration of our correspondent, who, it would seem, committed a heinous offence in dating his letter from Nottingham. Certainly we cannot agree in the statement that it was a scurrilous attack on the " Provincial and Medical Jour. nal ;" and, moreover, we may state that it was one of the most mildly-written communications of about fifty that we have received
on
the
same
subject.
ABUSES IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. To the Editor of THE LANCET. SIR,—As subscriber to the new series of THE LANCET, allow me to submit the following practical questions on medical reform to its readers, as materially affecting the interests of all classes of medical practitioners :I find Sir James Graham is about to introduce a bill to Parliament for the better regulation of the profession, before or after Easter, and as he may at one glance see the grievances under which we are labouring, I trust he will, in some measure, be influenced by a perusal of them in his endeavour to reform our present condition :Firstly, in the present anomalous state of the law as regards medical and surgical corporations, would it not be wise to do away with either the Society of Apothecaries or the College of Surgeons, inasmuch as candidates suffer materially by the superfluous expense incurred by their being obliged to submit to both for examination, in order to qualify them for general practice. Secondly. Is it not shameful, on the part of the. College of Surgeons, to exact attendance on lectures from candidates without examining them on the same?? Thirdly. If Sir J. Graham or any other M.P. desirous of promoting medical reform, would, by an act of Parliament, enforce the strict observance of this rule at the college, of what possible use could the hall be ? Fourthly. Would the examination at the hall, under such circumstances, be of any practical utility to the profession ? Fifthly. As the Society of Apothecaries affords all the privileges necessary to constitute a general practitioner, independent of the College of Surgeons, why have not the latter the same power to grant licences or diplomas to practise generally, when the course of study is similar, or nearly so, in both ? Sixthly. How is it that members of the College of Surgeons cannot enjoy the privileges as those who were in practice before 1815, a
same
REPLY TO MR. O’SHEA’S LETTER ON TREAT MENT OF A FRACTURED RADIUS BY A FELLOW OF THE COLLEGE.
To the Editor of THE LANCET. letter of Mr. O’Shea, in THE LANCET of last SIR -The week, bearing the aspect of an attack upon the fellows of the college, seems to me neither written in good taste nor calculated to benefit the profession in general, or the majority of the profession in particular, as opposed to the council and fellows, and therefore to demand some sort of refutation. I have seen with pain the various letters that have appeared of late "in the Times, signed " M.D.," and " Apothecary," and General Practitioner," the former accusing the apothecary of following his profession by intrigue, and the others retaliating by imputing ignorance to all physicians and surgeons indiscriminately. The letter of Mr. O’Shea is but an addition to these attacks, which must be deemed by all wise men in the profession as highly detrimental to the profession at large, and injurious to the writers themselves, at the same time that they are gross exaggerations, bearing neither the aspect of truth nor the shadow of probability. I do not mean to insinuate that Mr. O’Shea has told an untruth ; I have not the slightest doubt that he has stated the story precisely in the same words as it was related to him by the patient Catherine Pretty. But all who have any knowledge of the practice of hospitals know full well that the fractures are never put up by the surgeons, and those who have any knowledge of the poorer classes know bow easily they misrepresent what is said to them by the medical attendant ; and I may add that, although hospital surgeons owe their appointments more to their pedigree than to their talents, yet the practice that they obtain by those appointments, and the lessons they learn from the blunders that they make, are quite sufficient to infuse more than ordinary practical knowledge into men of ordinary abilities, and to render them quite as likely to be correct in their diagnosis of fractures as Mr. O’Shea. The only conclusion, therefore, at which I can arrive is, that either Mr. O’Shea has overlooked an obscure case of fractured radius, or, which is more probable, that some pupil, and not a fellow, of Bartholomew’s, has been guilty of mistaking a sound limb for a broken one. With regard to the method of putting up a fractured radius, the splints should not extend further than the wrist, and the hand be allowed to bang, that the weight of it may counteract the action of the pronator quadratus. But, Sir, I write these remarks not so much to enter into the question of the best method of apply. ing splints to a fractured radius, which, as far as I have seen, medical men in general are quite competent to accomplish, as to direct your attention, and that of the medical public, to the injurious results that are likely to follow from these throat-cutting epistles to one another. It is a singular and anomalous state of things, that while men of the first eminence, of the most varied talents, and ol the most cultivated minds, unconnected with the profession, such as Pope, Johnson, Parr, and others, have borne witness to the great talents, the extensive information on general subjects, and the uniform kindness of medical men, they themselves are blazoning forth to the public thai neither talent, kindness, nor even common honesty, is to bE found among them. The best method of rooting out these evils, and of ministering to the " diseased minds" of the profession, is a subject well worthy the consideration of thf great aggregate meeting, and so I leave it for the present,
subscribing myself your obedient servant,
April 10,
1844.
NASO. ’
PROVINCIAL
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL.
To
Dr. ROBERT J. N. STREETEN, Editor of the Provincial Medical Journal. scurrilous attack on the " Provincial Medical SIR,—A Journal’’ having appeared in the second number of the new LANCET, in the form of a letter professedly written by one of the oldest members of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, and dated Nottingham, March 27, 1844, we, the undersigned, being the whole of the Nottingham members of that association. hereby declare that no one of us wrote, or was in any way cognisant of, the letter in question. We remain, Sir, your obedient servants, JOHN CALTIIROP WILLIAMS, THOMAS WILSON, FRANCIS SIBSON, M.D., JOHN HIGGINBOTTOM, Sur- ROBERT DAVISON, J.. N. THOMPSON, Surgeon, gt’on, CHARLES STOUR, M.D., G. M. W 11 ITE, Surgeon, BOOTH EDDISON, HENRY TAYLOR, M.D.
Nottingham, April 6,
1844.
Newhall, near Rotherham, Yorksliire, April 7, 1844. Henry Payne, M.D., of Nottingham, member of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, presents his to the editor of the " Provincial Medical and and informs him that he did not write, and that he does not know who did write, the letter that
respects
Surgical Journal,"
has appeared in the second number of the new LANCET, which reflects on the " Provincial Medical and Surgical
Journal." To Dr. J. N. STREETEN, Editor of the " Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal." %* We refer this communication for the consideration of our correspondent, who, it would seem, committed a heinous offence in dating his letter from Nottingham. Certainly we cannot agree in the statement that it was a scurrilous attack on the " Provincial and Medical Jour. nal ;" and, moreover, we may state that it was one of the most mildly-written communications of about fifty that we have received
on
the
same
subject.
ABUSES IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. To the Editor of THE LANCET. SIR,—As subscriber to the new series of THE LANCET, allow me to submit the following practical questions on medical reform to its readers, as materially affecting the interests of all classes of medical practitioners :I find Sir James Graham is about to introduce a bill to Parliament for the better regulation of the profession, before or after Easter, and as he may at one glance see the grievances under which we are labouring, I trust he will, in some measure, be influenced by a perusal of them in his endeavour to reform our present condition :Firstly, in the present anomalous state of the law as regards medical and surgical corporations, would it not be wise to do away with either the Society of Apothecaries or the College of Surgeons, inasmuch as candidates suffer materially by the superfluous expense incurred by their being obliged to submit to both for examination, in order to qualify them for general practice. Secondly. Is it not shameful, on the part of the. College of Surgeons, to exact attendance on lectures from candidates without examining them on the same?? Thirdly. If Sir J. Graham or any other M.P. desirous of promoting medical reform, would, by an act of Parliament, enforce the strict observance of this rule at the college, of what possible use could the hall be ? Fourthly. Would the examination at the hall, under such circumstances, be of any practical utility to the profession ? Fifthly. As the Society of Apothecaries affords all the privileges necessary to constitute a general practitioner, independent of the College of Surgeons, why have not the latter the same power to grant licences or diplomas to practise generally, when the course of study is similar, or nearly so, in both ? Sixthly. How is it that members of the College of Surgeons cannot enjoy the privileges as those who were in practice before 1815, a
same