Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B.

  • Bowditch, Henry I. (Henry Ingersoll), 1808-1892.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    13/32 (page 13)
    and from them deduced his results. He did not, because he could not, observe in England or America. Hence all that Louis or any of his friends would contend for, is, that an analysis of his facts gives the re- sults for the disease known under the name of typhus or typhoid fever in Paris. Our commentator proceeds, and states his astonishment at finding Louis generalizing too quickly. “ The first thing,” he says, “ that excites our surprise, is the broad affirmation that a lesion of the glands of Peyer may be taken as the anatomical characteristic of typhoid fever, because, &lc. ***** Here, in this second generalization, is one important foundation of our author’s renown. He had thus iden- tified himself with an unexplored disease, and presented it as an isolated affection which may always be distinguished from the group with which it is allied by a comparatively unimportant lesion of structure. * * * * * * gut ]et us inqUire how far our author has been sustained in the foregoing generalization by the observations which he has elicited from others. We allow that this may seem a work of supererogation to the most enlightened of the profession in Europe, but it is necessary to the purposes of this essay that the subject should be considered.” How truly condescending on the part of our learned commentator to be thus willing to instruct us simple Americans in what, were we all as learned as Dr. Paine, or as “ the most enlightened of the profession in Europe,” we should doubtless be very well versed ! But we will not quarrel with the self-complacency of the doctor, but proceed to criticize some of the quotations from the authors whom he cites to prove his position. First, we shall speak of “this unimportant lesion of structure.” Among the ablest and worthiest, and the one upon whom Dr. P. rests his greatest hopes, is Chomel. In the first place Chomel everywhere, in the volume before us,# speaks of Louis as the “ savant,” and “ able observer,” and of his work on typhous fever as “ a model.” And what are his results ? Let us listen to Dr. Paine’s description of them, and afterwards learn the truth. He says (p. 683) that Chomel “has seen the same alteration of the glands of Peyer as attend typhus, in scarlatina and other affections (sujets morts d’affections differentes.)” We are sorry to see such a lamentable deficiency in the fairness which we expect in one who quotes. The reader doubtless will suppose, from what we have extracted from Dr. P.’s remarks, that Chomel believes that the peculiar lesion of the intestinal follicles ascribed by Louis to the typhoid affection, can be found in many diseases. Now we deny * I.ccons de Clinique Medicale, par le Prof. Chomel. Paris : 1834.