Leprosy : $b in its clinical & pathological aspects — John Shaqi
Leprosy : $b in its clinical & pathological aspectsHansen, G. Armauer (Gerhard Armauer)
Science
Leprosy : $b in its clinical & pathological aspects
Hansen, G. Armauer (Gerhard Armauer)
Leprosy
Only after the work of Danielssen and Boeck can one say that Leprosy
entered the ranks of the scientifically investigated diseases. At
that time, in 1840, when they commenced their investigations, Humoral
Pathology held the field. Most diseases were ascribed to changes in
the blood, and they therefore endeavoured to establish that there was
in lepers a change in the blood which they regarded as the cause of
the disease symptoms, especially the node formation. These changes
in the blood they believed were caused by unfavourable conditions of
living, and as they were not able to find any convincing evidence of
the power of infection of the disease but several of its limitations to
certain families, they drew the conclusion that Lepra, as they called
it, might appear spontaneously, that is to say, that the sanguineous
dyscrasia which led to leprosy could be developed under unfavourable
conditions of life, but that it was in most cases hereditary. It must,
however, be noted that Danielssen always regarded Leprosy as a specific
disease, described it as such, and sought for a specific cause, and
the fact that he did not find it must be ascribed to the circumstance
that microscopical technique and microscopical aids, especially the
immersion lens, were at that time either insufficiently developed, or
not yet discovered. The teaching of Danielssen and Boeck was everywhere
adopted, especially their view of the heredity of the disease. The fish
diet and damp cold theories are only attempts to explain the so-called
spontaneous development of the disease, and they are founded on the
fact that Leprosy is chiefly present in littoral districts and on
islands.
Of other Norwegian investigators, the late Dr. Hjorth held the view
that Leprosy could not be ascribed to a specific cause, and that it
was certainly not hereditary. Dr. Holmsen regarded it as a specific
miasmatic and non-hereditary disease, and finally Prof. Lochmann stated
that it was specific, contagious, and hereditary. While Danielssen
and Boeck always required a leprous ancestor in order to recognise a
case as hereditary, and when this was not forthcoming, found in the
presence of the disease in other branches of the family, proof of its
heredity, Biedenkap, as he was unable in many of his cases to determine
the existence of leprous ancestors, widened the definition of heredity
by assuming that unfavourable conditions of life might produce in the
organism conditions which became hereditary, and showed themselves in
later generations as leprosy. In the year 1869, Dr. Drognat-Landré
published a book with the title, _De la contagion seule cause de la
propagation de la lépre_, in which he sought to prove that heredity had
nothing to do with the spread of Leprosy. That is, according to our
view, the right standpoint, as we shall endeavour to demonstrate.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account