North American Medical and Surgical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, July, 1826Various
History
North American Medical and Surgical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, July, 1826
Various
Medicine -- Periodicals
2nd. It is also said in support of this opinion, that where anasarca is
idiopathic, it is attended with fever, but that this latter does not
exist, when the disease follows ascites. This difference appears to us
to be very readily explained by the fact, that the disease in the former
case, is more acute, and that the heart sympathises more actively with
the irritated cellular tissue, than in the second case, when the disease
is milder, or more gradual in its progress.
3d. It is also maintained, that when anasarca is idiopathic, there
exists a large quantity of serum in the urine; and this is brought
forward in order to distinguish these cases from local dropsies. But it
is also admitted, that serum is found in the urine in cases of anasarca
following ascites. Consequently, if there be none in cases of simple
ascites, and if it only appears when anasarca supervenes, the only
conclusion that may be drawn from these facts, is, that anasarca is the
only form of dropsy, in which serum is absorbed, and passed off by the
kidneys; and if there be a greater quantity discharged when anasarca is
primary, it is only because the disease is more violent, and generally
more extensive. But, surely all this is far from proving, that primary
anasarca is a general disease, and owes its origin to a primary arterial
excitement of the whole system. When fever exists first, and terminates
in dropsy, who has proved, that there existed no local irritation
producing the fever, and that the hydropic irritation has not supervened
by metastasis. This takes place in scarlatina and other eruptive
diseases, which Dr. A. would surely not be justified in calling general
diseases. Dropsy follows the suppression of cutaneous diseases,
unattended with fever; consequently, when there happens to be a febrile
excitement, we are at a loss to know, why we should call this latter to
our aid, in our explanation of the dropsical effusion, and not account
for it on the same principle, as we did in the former cases; namely, by
metastasis. If febrile symptoms are sufficient to make us regard a
disease as general, then there is no local disease, except when
apyretic.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account