I have however sufficiently expatiated on this point, which ought to be considered before the others, as being more general. I now proceed to examine the accidents that induce surgeons to amputate in order to prevent a mortification. There are some who have carried their precipitation, in this respect, to such a length, as to cut off limbs upon the spot, that have been considerably bruised, before they tried any other remedy: A piece of cruelty I cannot in any shape approve of[20]. FOOTNOTES: [16] Mr. Sharp, to the best of my recollection, was the first who solidly proved the impropriety of operating on the sound part, while the mortification continued to gain ground. This excellent doctrine not being as yet universally acknowledged, it is very much to be wished, that the additional authority of so judicious a surgeon as Mr. Bilguer, may contribute to give it fresh weight, in order to render it general. TISSOT. [17] I shall transcribe Mr. Bilguer's own words. _Quo quidem loco non possumus, quin observemus, signum illud corruptionis quod a deffectu sensûs desumi solet, per illustris Halleri experimentis, quodam modo incertum redditum esse, quibus quippe evictam periosteorum insensibilitatem esse multi clarioque viri putant. Nostra de his rebus experimenta fere cum Halleri doctrina congruunt, nisi Pericraneum numquam non sensibilissimum deprehendimus_. [18] See, on this subject, the memoir of M. Haller, on the sensible and irritable parts, T. 1. 4. [19] Sammlungen, &c. a performance which ought to be generally read. [20] This practice has also been condemned by others. See the collection of pieces which put in for the prize conferred by the royal academy of surgery. T. 3. p. 490. It is there observed that every amputation performed immediately after the hurt, is generally dangerous in its consequences. I know that a soldier, who had his arm cut off in the field of battle, after the affair of Prague, died the third or fourth day after the operation. SECT. XX.