The American Practitioner and News. Vol. XXV. No. 3. Feb. 1, 1898: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Medicine and Surgery — John Shaqi
The American Practitioner and News. Vol. XXV. No. 3. Feb. 1, 1898: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Medicine and SurgeryVarious
Science
The American Practitioner and News. Vol. XXV. No. 3. Feb. 1, 1898: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Medicine and Surgery
Various
Medicine -- Periodicals
A prominent point in the consideration of this comparative abandonment
of the lancet is presented in the question: Has there been such a change
in the type of the acute inflammatory diseases from three or four
generations ago as to render the abstraction of blood less necessary and
less useful? There are plenty of sound, hard-headed old doctors who will
give a negative reply to this query; and occasionally we may notice some
of them putting themselves in print to that effect. A Baltimore
practitioner not so very long ago said: “The necessity for the use of
the lancet is as great at the present time as it ever was in the past;
the type of the disease has undergone no such changes as to render the
abstraction of blood unnecessary or improper in the successful
management of all cases attended with a full, tense, and quick pulse.”
Others speak the like; but the majority of opinion is not pronounced in
that direction, but rather adverse. Conversations during a forty-four
years’ practice with men who began their professional calling sixty
years ago, when the lancet was in often call, is to the import that
there _has been_ such a change in diseases as renders the frequent
resort to blood-letting less important than formerly; that there is less
of the sthenic type in even inflammatory fevers, a more general
disposition to take on what we call typhoid forms, and thus depletion,
either by the evacuation of blood or the exhibition of reducing drugs,
is not so beneficial in even the acute inflammatory diseases as
formerly. This is the view that has been entertained by a large part of
those who began practice half a century or more ago, and this view has
been sustained by a large amount of written authority; but it does not
go to the extent of justifying that degree of abandonment of bleeding
that has prevailed for the last forty years. The general opinion of
to-day is, that while positions like that taken in the quotation given
are too positive, on the other hand our _practice_ is quite too lax; for
while we still believe in blood-letting to some extent, we but seldom
make use of it. Now as to the _why_.
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