Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

peduncles, &c. and ascended even higher than the top of the stem; a good deal resembling an amusing experiment sometimes practised in the theatre, and often by boys, by means of powdered resin and a burning candle, &c. Immediately after the combustion, the surrounding atmosphere became tainted with odoriferous effluvia, exactly similar to what the healthy flowers, though much stronger, emit. July 13, I repeated this experiment, at the same hour as before. The evening was fine, but the plants were wet with the afternoon's rain. Scarcely any noise was produced; the experiment not succeeding as before.

At another time I brought home a raceme of flowers, and after it had stood with its end placed in water for two hours, I approached a burning candle to it, and little explosions followed. I replaced the raceme in the water, and next morning darkened my room, and made the same experiment, but heard no explosions. Since the 13th of July, I have frequently repeated the first experiment, but never have succeeded nearly so well as at first; a little hissing noise, attended with a small flame, only occurring now and then, occasioned in consequence of the bursting, I imagine, of the glands of new flowers; which, from their not being before developed, remained uninjured, during former experiments.

On examining the plants after the combustion, I observed that the glands were completely destroyed; and thus I was led to suppose, that the resinous fluid which they contained was burnt during the explosion; and not that hydrogen, or any inflammable vapour was exhaled. Since after-experiments never succeeded so well as the first; and because the smell of hydrogen was never present, either before or after the experiment, I think I am strengthened in my opinion. At the same time, however, I confess, that I am not completely satisfied with my own observations, and therefore wish that some one, who has convenience, would not only repeat the experiments, but communicate the result of them to the public, and thus either ascertain the truth of what I have reported, or annul it altogether.

CRITICAL

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

OF

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

IN THE

DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHYSIC, SURGERY, AND MEDICAL PHILOSOPHY,

Observations on Ophthalmia, and its Consequences. By CHARLES FARRELL, M. D. 8vo. Lond. 1811. pp. 138. Murray.

DR. FARRELL arranges his work under "Introductory Remarks," and two Parts; the first containing three, and the second four Chapters: and its object is, to investigate the causes concurring to produce the ophthalmia which has appeared with such severity in the British army, to establish a division of this disease into varieties, and to institute a method of cure adapted to each variety.

Though instances of ophthalmia are to be met with in all places, and under every accidental circumstance of society, whether civil or military; yet the disease here noticed does not seem to have been known, at least in modern Europe, prior to the year 1801, or the landing of the British troops in Egypt. It is an observation made by our author, that the prevalence of ophthalmia in the British army followed the landing of the troops in that country; and that " Egypt is, perhaps, the part of the world, in which all the causes of ophthalmia, arising from soil and climate, exist in the greatetst abundance and force." He considers the peculiarities of the soil and climate of Egypt as sufficient to account for the prevalence of the disease in that country; and he admits, or seems to admit, though he professes not to be able to determine how far, that this combination of causes may contribute to the production of a species of ophthalmia, which by frequency and inveteracy, or other means," may acquire the power of propagating itself by contagion: and he sees nothing contrary to analogy in the supposition, that the violent species of ophthalmia, observed at present among our troops, is contagious. This fact he corroborates by the French army having suffered as much, or more, than ours, by this disease while in Egypt. The complaint accompanied this army to France, and is not, even yet, Dr. Farrell believes, eradicated. Here is the time and the place of its first appearance in the

66

armies of Europe stated, the causes that combine in the soil and climate of Egypt to produce it, the probable reason of its becoming contagious deduced from its frequency and inveteracy arising out of those causes, and the actual fact asserted of its being disseminated among our troops by contagion; yet Dr. Farrell objects to its being denominated Egyp tian Ophthalmia.

If we see no reason to reject the term Egyptian Ophthal mia, but rather to adopt it on the ground of Dr. Farrel's statement, we are not to be considered as advocates for the erroneous influence that names may produce. In this instance, however, we are not aware that this term has improperly directed the practice.

It is contended, and we believe with truth, that this dis ease, though it may be contagious, is inflammatory; and that its danger is in proportion to the violence of the inflam mation. Nor does it appear that those practitioners who understand it best, and admit its contagious property, have been influenced in their treatment of it by the name; for the most active remedies employed against inflammation have been used to an extent in this ophthalmia, that would have been considered as bold to rashness, in any other disease.

in

"Though I have gone thus far," Dr. Farrel says, endeavouring to establish an Egyptian origin for the violent species of ophthalmia which has latterly excited so much attention, still I can see no reason why a violent inflammation of the eyes should not occasionally take place in other countries. I fear the fashion of putting down the ophthalmia observed in Egypt as a disease sui generis, and as considering it as different from every other inflammation of the eye, met with in Europe, has had some share in disturbing our opinions as to the true nature of the disease, and consequently leading us away from the right method of treating the disease."

With the author of these "Observations," we see no rea son "why a violent inflammation of the eyes should not occasionally take place in other countries." We know that such a disease does occasionally take place, and we have had the misfortune to see it, in a most violent form, before the Egyptian expedition or Napoleon himself were thought of. But those cases, because they were only occasional and isolated, differed in some essential particular from that general affection of the eyes which afflicted our troops, as well as those of the French army in Egypt; and which was imported into Europe by the French and English armies, on

their return.

Why a form of ophthalmia is endemial in Egypt, Dr. (No. 148.) Farrell

3X

Farrell states generally. The soil and climate of that country he considers as affording the causes for producing ophthal mia, in greater abundance and force than are found in any other part of the world. He believes that these causes have existed from remote antiquity. " All historians, both ancient and modern, who have given accounts of Egypt; and all medical men, both antient and modern, who have written on the diseases of Egypt, agree as to the frequency and violence of ophthalmia in that country." (Page 5.) If this be not strictly correct as to the antiquity of this ophthalmia, yet it is sufficiently substantiated that a disease of the eye, arising out of the preceding causes, has been known for several centuries. That the causes producing this ophthalmia did not operate in Egypt until that country became subject to the dominion of barbarians, is an opinion held by writers of great intelligence. And this is a fact of much importance, as shewing that the origin and propagation of the disease are connected with certain forms of society and habits of human life, conjointly with local peculiarities of climate; and therefore, in a degree, liable to the influence and controul of prophylactic regulations.

Under accidental circumstances of weather, perhaps a more than usual arid state of atmosphere, the prevalence and degree of some particular winds, and especially the increase and exasperation of diseases by war, may be induced an epidemic form of this endemial ophthalmia. Then it will hap pen that a disease, arising at first from external causes, becomes contagious, and propagates itself by a specific virus, either on direct contact with the sick, or in the more concentrated form of fomites; and this, when the remote causes no longer operate.

It is admitted that the ophthalmia here treated of, and which the most positive evidence does not permit us to doubt arose in Egypt, is contagious, and that its progress is in the course above stated. Whether it be a disease sui generis, having qualities peculiar to itself, specific and contagious ab origine; or whether the accumulation and concentration of morbid atoms, elicits or generates a contagious material, is not of much importance as relates to practice. If it is contagious, however acute, or however mild its inflammatory symptoms may be; or how much soever it may be proper to treat those symptoms on the general principles employed for subduing inflammation; the disease does NOT "resemble, in every respect, any other violent inflammation of the eyes, in which the climate or contagion of Egypt could have no share." (P. 7.)

It is here we object to Dr. Farrell's conclusions from his

own

36

own premises. And we object, not so much because we think him wrong in his deduction abstractedly, but that we perceive it to confuse an important fact, and to influence, most seriously, the prophylactic practice. If practitioners are persuaded that the Egyptian ophthalmia does not differ in any respect," from common cases of ophthalmia, however acute, no care will be taken to prevent its propagation by contagion. It will be seen on the slightest reflection, that this opinion is fraught with extreme danger. When we assume, not only on the unequivocal acknowledgment of Dr. Farrell, but on the general opinion as founded on known facts, and particularly on the investigations of Dr. Edmonston, that the disease hitherto known by the appellation EGYPTIAN OPHTHALMIA, is contagious; we cannot for a moment hesitate on the propriety of keeping that fact in view, and of reprobating every change in nomenclature that tends to confuse the disease with others of the same genus, which have no such property.

That names have often led to fallacious conclusions and erroneous practice we readily admit; and that the most sedate and cautious practitioners scrupulously refuse to designate diseases by determinate appellations, we have often witnessed. If this coyness, often arising from motives widely different from an attachment to scientific truth, in some instances may be proper, in others it certainly has an injurious result. The instance before us is of the latter kind. A rejection of the term Egyptian ophthalmia, will induce, indirectly perhaps, but it will induce a false security Though the mode of treating individual cases is entitled to great regard, yet, as the disease is acknowledged to be of foreign growth, and is contagious, it is of still more importance to check its dissemination.

We have seen with regret an endeavour to establish an opinion, not original indeed, for it is found in obscure and almost forgotten authors, that some diseases, rapid in their progress, fatal in their termination, and spreading consterpation and dismay wherever they appear, are not contagious; and that all precautions to prevent their introduction or restrain their propagation, are futile and absurd. Even in this opinion, much as it behoves legislative bodies and the guar dians of public health to adopt it with tear and trembling, there is some consistency, because its authors deny the existence of the contagious principle. But Dr. Farrell admits, and indeed argues for the contagious quality in the Egyptian ophthalmia,* and yet concludes that, in no respect does it *The appearance, in the first British army that visited Egypt, of a more violent species of ophthalmia than had before, at least, been 3 X 2 noticed

« ElőzőTovább »