The anti-toxin treatment of diphtheria / by John Glaister.

  • Glaister, John, 1856-1932.
Date:
[1895?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The anti-toxin treatment of diphtheria / by John Glaister. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    27/32 (page 25)
    undoubted diphtheria, it would not only be necessary to inject the serum into its body, but it would be highly expedient to inject smaller doses into the other children, who, perhaps not yet affected, may either have been exposed to the same source of infection, or may be in process of incubation from their sister or brother. To a limited extent, this would be like vaccinating against smallpox where one person was seized with the disease, while those who were in contact with him did not as yet show signs of the disease. There is this, at least, to be said in favour of its use as a preventive, that the operation is trifling, is harmless, and, if aseptic precautions have been taken, without risk. Objections. All the objections that have been urged against the new treat- ment may be divided into two main classes, namely :— I. Those that have been made by persons who object to animals being used for any scientific purpose; and II. Th ose, by certain of the medical pi'ofession, to the effect that the use of the serum is not unattended with uncom- fortable consequences, if not, indeed, grave complications; and, further, that while it is admitted that the anti-toxin is antagonistic to the Loeffler bacillus, the disease which the bacillus produces is, they say, not diphtheria. To the first class of objectors, it may be conceded that the aimless cruelty to animals, whether under the name of a scientific experiment or under any other name, is a thing which is, and ought to be deprecated, by all right-thinking persons; but, on the other hand, where, in the saving of human life, the sacrifice of animal life is necessary, much stronger reasons must be produced to convince a right-minded person that such sacrifice is a sacrilege or a sin; for, whether from a religious or an economic standpoint, human life is always the most important. One cannot help thinking that the deputation which was recently headed by Lord Coleridge, and which protested against the use of animals for the production of the serum by the British Institute of Preventive Medicine, failed to serve a useful purpose when it attempted to interpose between the reasonable use of animals and the cure of one of the most fatal and most dreaded