The report on this case gave rise to frequent discussions in the Academy, extending over several months, and the Academy ultimately confirmed the above conclusions, but not without considerable opposition from M. Blandin, M. Jules Guérin, and other members. M. Malgaigne, the reporter to the commission, and others, who strongly supported the first of the above propositions, founded their argument chiefly on the assertion that chloroform always produces intoxication and insensibility before death; but this is incorrect, as I have explained above; and I took occasion to make the following remarks on this point about the time when the discussion in the Academy of Medicine took place. I said: “I have several times made animals—small birds, mice and rabbits—breathe air saturated with vapour of chloroform at the temperature of the atmosphere, and the consequence has always been that, after attempting for a few seconds to escape from the capacious jar in which they were enclosed, they suddenly exhibited signs of distress, and died without any interval of intoxication or insensibility, in periods varying from less than half a minute to a minute after their first exposure to the vapour.”[73] The power of chloroform to cause sudden death without previous insensibility is now, I believe, generally admitted. The French call this kind of fatal action _sideration_. With regard to the second conclusion of the commission, if it had been really true that the surgeon put only fifteen to twenty _drops_ at the most of chloroform on the handkerchief, one would have been inclined to admit it; but with the quantity actually employed, and the strong sensation of choking it occasioned just before death, one must, in connection with other cases, and with what is known of the action of chloroform, attribute the fatal event to this agent, rather than to the surgical operation, which was not of a serious nature.