If the rottenness of the bone demonstrates that the limb cannot be saved, which almost always happens, if the patient has been improperly treated, we must amputate, if the strength of the patient be sufficient to support this dreadful expedient, and amputate on the sound parts. It is true, that amputation in this case is a doubtful remedy, but nevertheless as there is no other, and as there is no symptom in the patient that forbids its use, it is a remedy. If the patient be weak, the case is desperate, as he is not able to support the operation on the sound parts, and as nature is not in a condition to effect a separation of the dead from the live flesh, if only the mortified part be cut off. In so dangerous a case, the method I would take, would be, after providing against any hemorrhage of the larger vessels by a proper ligature, to lop off all the gangrened useless mass, not actually through the quick itself, but very near it; afterwards I would endeavour to stop the progress of the infection by internal medicines and suitable dressings. I would support his strength by a proper regimen; if it increases, we may be sure a separation of the soft parts that are mortified will ensue naturally; after which, it will be easy to saw off the little stump of dead bone that was left. The wound may then be cicatrised, by means of epulotic applications, and such as we have recommended for bones when laid bare, § X. This practice is not only conformable to sound reason, but what is more, it is confirmed by repeated experience; since we find among the collectors of observations, but few instances of amputation succeeding, when it was performed while a mortification continued to gain ground, or while the patient was feverish; but a much greater number of successful cases, when amputation was performed late, and when the disease had abated naturally: A variety of examples may be seen in the work of Mr. Schaarschmid[19], which I have already quoted. It will, perhaps, be objected to me, that I am inconsistent with myself, since I have just proposed one method, and actually follow another; but this objection will vanish, if it be considered in the first place, that if a person has been thus judiciously treated from the beginning, and does not recover, a cure will almost never be effected, after the cruel expedient of amputation. In the second place, that all those who are under a necessity of submitting to this dangerous operation, on account of their having neglected themselves, or having been unskilfully treated, have no reason to complain of the art, or of those who understand it, but of their own negligence, or of the ignorance of those into whose hands they have had the misfortune to fall. And in the third place, that in opposing amputation on the sound parts, and in testifying my abhorrence against the needless pain which accompanies it, I do not at all condemn the amputation of what is absolutely mortified.