Certainly nothing can be more open and explicit than the account
given by Dr. Peirson, of Salem, of the cases seen by him. In the
first nineteen days of January, 1829, he had five consecutive
cases of puerperal fever, every patient he attended being
attacked, and the three first cases proving fatal. In March of
the same year he had two moderate cases, in June, another case,
and in July, another, which proved fatal. "Up to this period," he
remarks, "I am not informed that a single case had occurred in
the practice of any other physician. Since that period I have had
no fatal case in my practice, although I have had several
dangerous cases. I have attended in all twenty cases of this
disease, of which four have been fatal. I am not aware that there
has been any other case in the town of distinct puerperal
peritonitis, although I am willing to admit my information may be
very defective on this point. I have been told of some 'mixed
cases,' and 'morbid affections after delivery.'" [Footnote:
Remarks on Puerperal Fever, pp. 12 and 13.]
In the "Quarterly Summary of the Transactions of the College of
Physicians of Philadelphia" [Footnote: For May, June, and July,
1842.] may be found some most extraordinary developments
respecting a series of cases occurring in the practice of a
member of that body.
Dr. Condie called the attention of the Society to the prevalence,
at the present time, of puerperal fever of a peculiarly insidious
and malignant character. "In the practice of one gentleman
extensively engaged as an obstetrician nearly every female he has
attended in confinement, during several weeks past, within the
above limits" (the southern sections and neighboring districts),
"had been attacked by the fever."
"An important query presents itself, the doctor observed, in
reference to the particular form of fever now prevalent. Is it,
namely, capable of being propagated by contagion, and is a
physician who has been in attendance upon a case of the disease
warranted in continuing, without interruption, his practice as an
obstetrician? Dr. C., although not a believer in the contagious
character of many of those affections generally supposed to be
propagated in this manner, has, nevertheless, become convinced by
the facts that have fallen under his notice that the puerperal
fever now prevailing is capable of being communicated by
contagion. How, otherwise, can be explained the very curious
circumstance of the disease in one district being exclusively
confined to the practice of a single physician, a Fellow of this
College, extensively engaged in obstetrical practice, while no
instance of the disease has occurred in the patients under the
care of any other accoucheur practising within the same district;
scarcely a female that has been delivered for weeks past has
escaped an attack?"
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