Embed Size (px)


  • 280

    claims, thought that their battle had been won by the vote ofApril, 1850, and the celebrated circular which followed it. Iwas one who thought otherwise. I foresaw the difficulties whichthat circular wolild create-difficulties which would seem to besuggested by the very words in which it was drawn up. I feltassured that the battle must at some future time be fought overagain. Well, that time has come; let us gird on our armour forthe fight, and God defend the right! Magna est veritas et pre-valebit!

    I am, Sir, yours obediently,. -

    MICHAEL HEALY, M.D., F.R.C.S.I. Ennis. March. 1503.




    To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-In THE LANCET for Feb. 12, two or three cases of

    fracture of the leg are reported, in the treatment of whichdivision of the tendo-Achillis was practised, to facilitate re-duction, rendered difficult by " the considerable separation of thefragments, and the insurmountable traction of the muscles."The cases occurred in the practice of Surgeons Shaw and

    Hilton, whose reputation renders it probable that other meanshad failed before this operation was resorted to. Still, as nomention is made of any means but extension, I may be permittedto draw the attention of your readers to two other directionsmuch insisted on by Dupuytren, which I believe to be constantlyneglected, and the importance of which was very manifest in acase I shall briefly append. These directions are-to place thelimb in the position in which the muscles are most relaxed, andto draw the attention of the patient from his leg by questioninghim concerning his health, &c.At the end of the year 1849, a gentleman, accustomed to in-

    dulge freely in spirituous drinks, fell down whilst intoxicated,and fractured the bones of the leg immediately above the ankle-joint : the action of the gastrocnemius drew the whole foot back-wards and caused great deformity. I did not see him for two orthree days after the accident, when, in addition to the spasmcaused by malposition of the bones, he was suffering fromdelirium tremens. Long and persevering attempts to reduce thelimb by force had been made, with the effect oniy of increasingthe resistance of the muscles. Instead of any further extension,while the patient was on his back, I supported the foot andankle on my hand, flexed his thigh on his body and his leg onhis thigh, when, without extension or pressure, the bones imme.diately returned to their natural position. I could then slowlylay the leg down on the bed and confine it in splints withoutdisplacement. On several occasions I reduced the limb, with thesame ease, in this way. This was rendered necessary by hisremoving, in his delirium, the bandages and splints. At last, toprevent him disturbing the position of the bones, the limb wasencased in plaster of Paris, which was replaced by starch ban-dage at the end of a week. He did very well after this, and wasnot much more than the usual time in recovering with a soundlimb.

    I am, Sir, your obedient servant,Liverpool, March, 1853. JAMES HAKES.



    THE following correspondence has lately taken place betweena member of the Hull Protection Association and the secretary ofthat body. It may be right to state that Dr. King is M.D. Edin.,L.R.C.S. Edin., and L.S. A.:-

    [COPY.]North-street, Charlotte-street, Hull,

    Feb. 28th, 1853.DEAR SIR,-Some days since a letter was shown me, addressed

    by the Solicitors of the Hull Medical Protection Society to aqualified practitioner here, not a member of the ApothecariesCompany, threatening him with prosecution unless he joined thatbody within six months, or ceased to dispense his own medicines.I have also learned that similar letters have been received byother members of the profession. Though myself a member ofthe Society, I was not aware that such instructions had beengiven to vur solicitors ; and though I do not doubt that they haveacted in conformity with resolutions carried at a meeting fromwhich I was absent, I hope you will not consider me intrusive ifI respectfully request you to inform me whether this proceedinghas received the final and irrevocable sanction of the Society.

    I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,KELBURNE KIXG.

    H. Munroe, E:q., Secretary of the HullMedical Protection Society.

    [COPY.]North-street, Feb. 28th, 1853.

    DEAR SIR,-In answer to your note, I beg to inform you thatthe resolutions relative to persons practising as apothecarieswithout the licence were passed at a general meeting of theSociety, at which You were present, though you came in ratherlate. Any information I can give you I shall be glad to do,viv voce, as it is much easier than letter writing.

    In haste, yours truly,Dr. King.



    [COPY.] ]North -street, Charlotte-street, Hall,

    March 1st, 1852.DEAR SIR,--Your letter of yesterday contains the information

    which I desired to obtain. I became a member of the HullMedical Protection Society when it was first projected, in thehope that it would exercise a favourable influence on the generalrelations of the members of our profession. I am convinced thatthe course at present pursued by the Society is not calculated topromote that good feeling which ought to exist between themembers of a liberal profession. I know that it is at variancewith the general feelings of the profession, and I have ascertained,by personal inquiry, that it is not approved of by the great bodyof physicians and surgeons in practice here. Under these cir-cumstances, I am, however reluctantly, obliged to request thatyou will withdraw my name from the list of members of the HullMedical Protection Society.

    I am yours faithfully,H. Munroe, Esq., Secretary of the Hult KELBURNE KING.

    Medical Protection Society.






    To tlte Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-As the following correspondence

    " involves matterswhich concern the profession generally, I shall feel obliged if youwill give it a place in the first number of your valuable journal.

    I am, Sir, your obedient servant,Montrose, March, 1853. S. LAWRENCE.

    Copy 0/* Corresponedence betwixt Mr. LAWRENCE, Surgeon, and, Mr. BURNESS, Surgeon, Montrose.

    Montrose, Feb. 23, 1853.DEAR SIR,-I am informed by Joseph Leighton, Orange-lane,

    who has been under my care for an injury of the head, receivedon Friday morning last, the 18th instant, that, after my visityesterday, you called upon him and undid the dressings which Ihad applied about half an hour previously, and which I had leftspecial instructions should not be interfered with.

    I shall feel obliged if you will be kind enough to inform me ifthis is really the case, and if so, on what grounds you consideryourself warranted in taking such an unusual and unprofessionalstep. -1 am, yours faithfully,To J. Burness, Esq, Surgeon, Montrose. S. LAWRENCE.

    Montrose, Feb. 23,1853.DEAR SIR,- In answer to yours of to-day, I beg to inform you

    that my examination of Joseph Leighton yesterday was made bythe order of Mr. Forsyth, Procurator-Fiscal for the county.

    If you are disposed to question the right of Mr. Forsyth to issuesuch an order, or if you feel yourself in any way aggrieved, Iwould advise you to correspond with him, as I have nothing todo in the matter beyond discharging my duty in conformity withthe instructions which I receive.-Yours truly,Samuel Lawrence, Esq. JOHN BURNESS.

    Montrose, Feb. 24, 1853.DEAR SIR,-I was favoured with your letter of yesterday.

    You have admitted the fact of having interfered with a patient atpresent under my care, and have endeavoured to vindicate your

    procedure by alleging the order of Mr. Forsyth, Procurator-Fiscal for the county.

    Permit me to say that such " order" will not justify the conduct

    of which you have been guilty. To intrude yourself into thehouse of a patient whom you knew to be under my charge, with-. out any previous communication with me, and to compel that

    patient, even against his remonstrance,* to submit to your ex-* Mr. Barness has published a certificate from Leighton, denying that he

    refused to submit to an examination of his head. Leighton, however, re-asserts before credible witnesses that he did refuse when first asked, andyielded at last reluctantly. But the professional offence complained of isunaffected either by his consent or refusal.-S. L.

  • 281

    amination, was not only a breach of professional etiquette, but a-violation of all propriety and decorum. It was your duty to haveso far respected courtesy and the well-understood laws whichregulate the members of our profession in their dealings witheach other, as to have addressed to me a request that I wouldafford you an opportunity of making the examination of mypatient, which you say you were authorised to institute. Hadsuch request been made to me, and your authority exhibited,then-whatever I might have thought of the absurdity of yourattempting to report upon the character of an injury which youhad not seen till one hundred and eight hours after its inflictiott-I should have considered it my duty to have offered you everyfacility for your examination which I deemed not incompatiblewith the well-being of my patient. It is right that you shouldknow that the order of Mr. Forsyth, Procurator-Fiscal for the !,county" cannot absolve you from the obligation to act towardsyour professional brethren with ordinary respect and propriety.As I consider this correspondence to involve matters not merely

    of personal or of professional interest, but such as affect the publicgenerally, I hold myself at liberty to make whatever use of it Imay deem prop