An account of a medical controversy in the city of Cork, in which five physicians are engaged; with the remarkable manner of its being hitherto conducted : To which are subjoined two letters from Dr. Mead and one from Dr. Frewin, to the different persons concern'd.

Date:
1749
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An account of a medical controversy in the city of Cork, in which five physicians are engaged; with the remarkable manner of its being hitherto conducted : To which are subjoined two letters from Dr. Mead and one from Dr. Frewin, to the different persons concern'd. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    44/72 (page 36)
    But befidcs this particular Triumvirate, I find by a Paper fubjoin’d to the Reply, that fome more of the Fraternity have allowed themfelve to appear, as the poor Tocls of this fingle Man, and indeed it is the more furprifing, that Men of the lead Un¬ der handing, Ihould pretend to give a Judgment, when they only echo back thefe imaginary Circum- ftances that are contained no where elfe but in Dr. Roger's Diary. Their Opinion is given as to three Particulars, each of which may be eafily cleared up. The firft regards the Bleeding, they fay. Bleeding was improper, becaufe that Day being the 14th ot Mr. Baker's Illnefs was deem'd critical, and a Crifis expeded \ but by whom was it expedited? not by three of the four, fmee they declared they expedited his Death (which was indeed a Crifis of a different kind) and every Circumftance makes it evident, that Dr. Regers gave all the Family lufficient Rea- fon to believe he thought fo too, for no after fay- ings of his, will ever make it appear to any Body that a Crifis was expedited by him, much lefs by the Majority of the four, which is the Senfe in which thefe Gentlemen ought alone to have underftood it, they were indeed, obliged to call it Critical, becaufe Dr. Rogers was pleafed to put it down fo, and to be fure the Exprehion is fo remarkable that it could come from no other Pen. But fuppofmg there was an Inflammation in the Brain, the Evidence of which, I believe, they had not feen, I fancy they would not have then ventured to condemn what both Dr. Mead and Dr. Frewin in their Letters to Dr. Rogers have particularly allow’d of in the Cafe of that Symptom. They next condemn the Change of Mr. Baker s Drink from Pert Whey, which was made without any Water, to Water Sack Whey. Now their Ignorance ot the Inflamation occafioned this other Millake of their , as the Strength of the Pori tended to increase that Infia¬ mation,