423

GUY’S HOSPITAL.

REMARKS ON THE ACCOUNT IN THE

"STUDENTS NUMBER" OF THE LANCET.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,—Having been a regular subscriberto THE LANCET from its commencement,I flatter myself you will not refuse to no-tice the few remarks I wish to make. Imust say I felt much surprised in your latenumber, called " The Students Number,"to find that many of your assertions re-

specting Guy’s Hospital were, to speakplainly, untrue, illiberal, and unjust. Havingbeen a pupil at Guy’s, and well aware ofthe great advantages it possesses, I can-not but think that the remarks you havemade must have their origin in a spiritof partiality very different from what Ishould have expected from the " Editor ofTHE LANCET." You seem, Sir, entirelyto forget that by thus holding up Guy’sHospital as a school where no useful pro-fessional knowledge is to be gained, youare doing great injury to those who arenow practising, or about to commence

practice, after having studied at thathospital. Many unthinking persons willsay, after reading your " Advice to Stu-dents," " I shall not employ Mr. --, ashe was at Guy’s Hospital, and, therefore,cannot haveacqmred the necessary infor-mation." I therefore beg to assert from

my own personal knowledge, that students,at Guy’s Hospital, have far greater oppor-tunities of acquiring a good educationthan at almost any hospital in London,and that the lecturers, some of whom arethe very first in the profession, are re-

markable for their great kindness and un-remitting attention to their pupils.

Now, Sir, I trust to that impartialitywhich has so long been your boast to giveinsertion to this note, which is not dictatedby any other feeling than that of regret atthe incorrectness of your assertion, aris-

ing, I hope, from an imperfect knowledgeof the facts ; and with sincere respect foryour universally-acknowledged talents, Ibeg to subscribe myself your constant

reader,A LATE PUPIL OF GUY’S HOSPITAL

[As the complaint exhibited in the aboveletter was expressed in general terms, werequested that our correspondent wouldnotice particular errors, when we werefavoured with the following communi-cation-]

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

Sir,-In your last number, I hoped tohave found the communication I for-warded to you respecting the seemingprejudice you manifest against Guy’s Hos-pital, and the ill effects it would produceamong those students who have beeneducated there. Instead of allowing it toappear, you say, that if I can point outany error in your remarks, it shall be in-serted I beg leave, therefore, to saygenerally, that your report is erroneousfrom beginning to end, erroneous in theassertion, -that there are no clinical lec-tures, with the advantage of clinical wards,(under excellent regulations), erroneousin the implied irregularity of the physi-cians and surgeons, unfair in the totalomission of any of the complimentary re-marks on the different lecturers, as ob-served in the reports of the other schools,and untrue with respect to the assertedsecrecy of their proceedings. You en-

tirely pass over the names of Messrs. Cockand Hilton, two of the best demonstratorsin London, and to whose kind instructionsand unremitting attention every pupil inthe class can give testimony; you omitto mention the acknowledged fact, of Mr.B. Cooper being one of the greatest fa-vourites with his class of any of the ana-tomical lecturers; you are silent as tothe great merits and uniform kindness ofDr. Addison, and to the estimable qualitiesof the other numerous lecturers. No men-tion is made of the great number of pa-tients admitted into this hospital affordingthe student an opportunity of seeing everyspecies of disease, or of the thousands whoare attended as out-patients, nor is therea word respecting the Physical Societywhich holds its meeting there. In short,Sir, to be plain, I must say your report wasnot such as I should have expected froman impartial writer, and am sorry to sayhas been taken notice of by many of yourreaders as displaying a great want of thatcandour and fairness which have generallydistinguished you. Should you do me thefavour of giving impartial insertion to thisor the last week’s note, you will confer agreat obligation on

Your constant reader,A LATE PUPIL OFGUY’S HOSPITAL.

We offer Guy’s hospital the benefitof the publication of these letters, and theofficers of that establishment shall shortlyderive the benefit of our comments thereon.From want of space we are again obligedto exclude from this Number an explana-tory contradiction of their contents.-ED. L.

424

BARON DupUYTREN, whose illness weannounced in last week’s LANCET, has sofar recovered as to be able to commence a

journey to Italy, where he intends to passthe winter, but the right side of his faceis paralyzed, and his friends dread muchthe occurrence of hemiplegia.

CORRESPONDENTS.

The communication of Dr. Edin-burgh, has been received. In fact, it

reached us at the beginning of last week,but as we knew that it had already ap-peared in another journal, it was laid

aside, that a preference might be given tothose articles which are sent exclusivelyto THE LANCET. A writer, without doubt,has a right to transmit his papers to oneor to several periodicals, and the editorsof those publications have an equal rightto give a preference to those articles whichare sent exclusively to their own publi-cations. The paper of our early and es-teemed correspondent, Dr. Alexander, wasprinted, we find, in one of the periodicalsof last week, and this circumstance wouldhave prevented its publication in THELANCET for some time, had it not beenforwarded by us to the printer, and, ina previous Number, promised insertion.This announcement is due to those valued

correspondents whose papers have beenexcluded from our pages for many weekspast from want of space, and, we canassure them, from that cause alone. Al-though we published a supplemental sheetwith our last Number, we cannot findroom this week for the lectures either ofSir C. Bell, Baron Dupuytren, Mr.Ward-rop, or M. Lisfranc, the communicationsof a great number of correspondents,whose articles are marked for insertion,reviews, which we have prepared of

many new works, or a large number ofhospital reports which await a place in! our pages. In addition to withholdingthese, we are obliged this week to seizethe uplifted arm of the terrific Castigator,and thus actually interpose between crimeand the administration of literary justice.As for secret correspondence and " inter-cepted letters," we have only had time tobreak the seals, and see that there are inour possession many curious addresses onvery delicate subjects.

J. R. M.-Rice has been, and still con-tinues to be, the food of millions, withoutproducing cholera; but does it therefore

follow that, in certain states of the grain,and under certain conditions of the atmo-sphere, that rice has not caused the deathof cholera ?

Mr. Parkinson.- T n spite of all that canbe saie! to the contrary, non-medical persons willcontinue to form opinions on medical subjects, at-though those opinions must, necessarily, be erro-

neous.

OWEN REARDON.—Mr. Tucker, the go-vernor, acknowledges that Ueardon did complaiu tohim, but Mr.’I’. says that this is the only complaintwhich has been made to him during the sixteen yearshe has subsctibed to the lnfirmary, although heha;furnished " recommendations " to a hundred andtiftv persons.Mr. Aaron.—The names and titles in

the list were inserted in THE LANCET prcctsely asthey were received by us, with the exception ofattaching " Mr." to the name of each surgeon, in-stead of " Messrs." to the surgeons generally. Thearrangement stands in the published copy asitdir)in the original. We do not feel authorised to statefrom whom the communication was received, butwe cannot believe that Mr. Aaron wiit feet theslightest ditlicnlty in ascertaining in Birminghamthe natne of our correspondent, who will, pro-bably, when he observes this notice, at once com-municate with Mr. A. on the subject.

A Subscriber.—the report shall appear,but in a condensed foim.

A Subscriber.—W e know that it is greatlyrequired, but at present it would prove too great alabour forus to undertake.

The publication of such anonymouscommunications as the one forwaided by E.W.G..cannot produce aiiv citect. Why does the wtlter

object to the appearance of his name, when thepurpose is to correct a flagrant abuse ? At any

i rate the name of the writer should be furnished forour private information.! If Delta (Bartholomew’s Hospital) willcondense hi, statements into about one-eighth ofthe space occupied by the letter now before us, andfurnish us with his name and address confidentially,we will give hisaiiegations insertion.

Mr. V. is quite just in his complaintagainst the conduct of the practitioners in question,— that is, supposing that his statements are in

every respect correct ; bnt we ca nnot perceive thatthe publication of his letter wouid serve a nseftlpurpose. Men who could act in the mannerstated,are, for the most part, regardless of the opinions "ttheir professional bretllren. The fi I st letter of Mr.V. was mislaid. Respecting the " placenta pre-sentatiutts," we can only say that such a case wouldinvolve two breaches of etiquette,—the tirst, soserious a one as to constitute an instance of malapraxis.

Mr. J. S. Hiley attributes the non-in-sertion of his paper to the right cause. A suthcientportion of the document, however, to tnakc knownhis proposition, which if acted upon wonld v.,e

think prove H’Rful to science, shall be insetted inthe next LANCET. Shonl(1 the object he contem-

ptatLb not be accomplished, our pages shall be opt’nto hia occasional communications.

If Medical examines the back Nos. ofTHE LANCET, he will find all the information heneeds.

ERRATUM.—In the letter of Dr. Clanny, page33ii, line ’21,for state read condition.