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.

    19/32 (page 19)
    he cannot trace out through some lesion of structure, he declaies, in this identical paragraph, that he does believe in disease of function without appreciable alteration of structure. Dr. Paine may hope to escape the imputation of falsehood, by using the word “ insinuate. But let any candid reader read the sentence which Dr. Paine has written, and he would say that Louis really believed that diarrhoea could not occur without lesion of structure, but that he was afraid to say it openly, and therefore merely “ insinuated ” it. We must say that we feel in- dignant when such accusations are made against this author, for they show either wilful blindness or total ignorance on the part of the accuser. But let us see the original and translation. “ Observons que ces sueurs si copieuses indiquent un derangement des fonctions de la peau, aussi remarquable par son degre que par sa duree ; que ce derangement, qu’il soit sympathique ou du a une autre cause, n’en est pas moins reel, et a lieu sans alteration sensible de la structure de l’organe qui en est le siege ; qu’ainsi qu’une fonction peut etre plus ou moins alteree pendant long temps, sans que 1’organe qui en est charge offre de changement appreciable dans sa texture. Remar- quons, encore, qu’a defaut de faits qui prouvassent d’uue maniere directe que le devoiement peut avoir lieu sans lesion appreciable dela membrane muqueuse de l’intestine, cela serait a presumer a raison de l’analogie qui existe entre des sueurs copieuses et une diarrhoea plus ou moins forte. Nous ne disons pas evident, pareeque, dans notre maniere de voir l’analo- gie ne peut servir qu’a indiquer de nouvelles recherches, a aller a la ren- contree des faits, et jamais a les suplier—autrement, ce seroit conclure de la possibilite d’une chose a son existence, ce qui est absurde.”—(Re- searches on Phthisis, s. 259.) “We remark that these copious per- spirations indicate a derangement in the functions of the skin, as remarka- ble in degree as in duration ; that this derangement, whether it be the result of sympathy or of any other cause, is not the less real on that account, and occurs without any appreciable alteration in the structure of the organ in which this derangement occurs. And thus we find that a function may be more or less seriously altered for a long while, and at the same time the organ, which is the origin of the function, may present no appreciable change of structure. We would likewise ob- serve, that in the absence of facts which directly prove that diarrhoea may occur without any appreciable lesion in the mucous membrane of the intestine, we might presume that to be true in consequence of the analogy which exists between copious perspiration and severe diarrhoea. We do not say that this is proved (evident, Fr.), because we think that