A letter addressed to James Syme, esq., Professor of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, in refutation of certain statements made both by him and others, his advocates, in relation to a case of stricture of the urethra, in which the operation of perineal section was performed / by Francis Burdett Courtenay.

  • Courtenay, Francis Burdett, 1811-1886.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter addressed to James Syme, esq., Professor of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, in refutation of certain statements made both by him and others, his advocates, in relation to a case of stricture of the urethra, in which the operation of perineal section was performed / by Francis Burdett Courtenay. 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.

    6/32 (page 6)
    of your own, or some mercenary scribe in your pay, whose poverty and not his will compels him to obey your instructions. But, Sir, be this as it may, the quotations which it contains from letters purporting to be written by you, referring to a case attended by both of us, are sufficient grounds for my addressing you as I now do,—especially as you are one of the publicly acknow- ledged “ conductors” of the journal in which they have appeared,— as well as for my thus, in the face of the profession and the public, telling you, that from beginning to end, your statements, with RESPECT TO THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE, ARE TAINTED BY REPEATED MISREPRESENTATIONS AND SUPPRESSIONS OF THE TRUTH. I know you, Sir, to be dexterous at fence in your assertions; and the result of the action brought against you by Professor Lizars, shows you to be an accomplished as well as fortunate quibbler. Nevertheless, I have no fear that, ere I conclude this letter, I shall be fully able to con- vince every impartial reader, of the entire truth of every statement I have made in respect to this case, and the perfect good faith with which I have acted throughout. And here I would inform you that, although this letter is addressed to you, it is intended more for the perusal of my contemporaries, and for the justification of my conduct (impugned by you, your partizans, or hirelings) in their eyes, than to you personally. For such is the opinion I entertain of men of your moral stamp, that I feel I could well afford to treat you, your misrepresentations and distortions of facts, with silent contempt, if they were restricted to your own private circle. But, as from the position you have achieved in the foremost ranks of the profession, as well as from the important and influ- ential office you hold of Professor of Clinical Surgery, your state- ments will naturally be received with almost implicit faith by our professional contemporaries, it becomes a duty I owe equally to my own character and to the profession, to show that there has been no misstatement or misrepresentation of facts or sup>pression of truth on my part to your disadvantage, and that consequently you are in no way justified in holding me up to professional odium as you have done in the last November number and in previous numbers of your journal. I would here further have both you and all who may read this