Report of the trial, Cooper versus Wakley, for libel / from the notes of W.B. Gurney ; with remarks on the evidence, by Bransby B. Cooper.

  • Cooper, Bransby Blake, 1792-1853.
Date:
1829
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial, Cooper versus Wakley, for libel / from the notes of W.B. Gurney ; with remarks on the evidence, by Bransby B. Cooper. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    4/190
    announced by an offensive notice in the Lancet. In the following number the promised report appeared, cast in- to something- of a dramatic form, and combined with sun- dry touches of drollery and ridicule, very singular, con- sidering- the nature of the subject; but consistent enough with the motives of the reporter. The article in the Lancet, to invite the attention of the public, was announced on the day of its publication by two of the morning papers. The design of this report was, to insinuate that Mr. Cooj3er had failed to reach the bladder of the patient in his first attempt, with the knife; that he consequently failed in his first at- tempt to reach it with the forceps; that he lost his presence of mind ; that his second attempt with both knife and for- ceps, was equally unsuccessful ; that he then used the cut- ting gorget without reaching- the bladder; that the knife, the forceps, or the gorget, and probably all of them, had been thrust between the bladder and the rectum; and, finally, that the parts, upon examination after death, exhibit- ed appearances which confirmed these insinuations. Had they been true, Mr. Cooper must indeed have been deficient in the most ordinary degree of skill and science in his pro- fession ; a degree of skill and science which no surgeon, educated at a considerable hospital, can fail to possess, un- less there be some defect in his intellect, or his senses. But the insinuations were, one and all, entirely false and groundless. A contradiction of them was published, un- known to Mr. Cooper, by a considerable number of the pupils, who had been present at the operation, and were indignant at the misrepresentation. This gave occasion to a second publication in the Lancet, in which the death of the patient was, in distinct terms, ascribed to the want of skill in the operator. Moreover, he was declared to be generally incompetent in his profession, and unworthy of his station, as Surgeon at Guy's Hospital; his appointment to which, was charged to be owing to his connexion with