An exposition of Dr. Collins's misrepresentations of Dr. Hamilton's practical precepts [on midwifery], in a letter addresed to the editor of the Dublin Journal of Medical Science / [James Hamilton].

  • James Hamilton
Date:
1838 [1839]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An exposition of Dr. Collins's misrepresentations of Dr. Hamilton's practical precepts [on midwifery], in a letter addresed to the editor of the Dublin Journal of Medical Science / [James Hamilton]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    17/58 page 17
    Ibund to promote relaxation^ and thus be productive ol the he^i effects,^' On this extraordinary inconsistency I avoid making those comments which I might fairly do from the Doctor’s own decla¬ ration, “ that in no single instance in all those cases, (viz., 16,414,) were any means whatever used to effect the dilatatioti of the mouth of the womb within any given period.” TREATMENT OF LABORIOUS LABOURS. In my letters to the Editor of the London Medical Gazette, I shewed by incontrovertible proofs, that Doctor Collins had misrepresented my opinions on the following important points. Firstly, That by quoting part of a paragraph, and by sup¬ pressing altogether my very minute directions for distinguishing cases belonging to the different orders of laborious labours, he has totally perverted my meaning. Journal, No. XXXI., page 40. Secondly. That upon this manufactured mis-statement he has founded the very serious charge, that I advise the junior prac¬ titioner to be guided as to the safety or otherwise of his patient when in labour, by the number of hourswhich is at direct va¬ riance with what I have published, as your readers will find by looking into my Practical Observations, Part II. pages 45, 46. Thirdly. That he had, in page 41 of your Journal, No. XXXI. misrepresented my description of the phenomena of laborious labour, by interpolating the words tedious^ and an ordinary tedious labour, words which, in relation to laborious labours, are not to be found in my Practical Observations. Fourthly, That Doctor Collins has accused me, in page 53, Dublin Medical Journal, No. XXXI., of having suppressed a most important part of one of his sentences, and asks, ‘‘ is it possible a more distorted view of our practice could be given than this quotation represents ?” The attentive reader will find the very words which I am accused of having suppressed, printed accurately, pages 159 and 160 of my Second Part. Fifthly. That in a note at the bottom of page 55, No. B
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3