An ophthalmic retrospect / F. Fergus.

  • Fergus, A. Freeland (Andrew Freeland), 1858-1932.
Date:
[1909]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: An ophthalmic retrospect / F. Fergus. 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.

    7/20 (page 5)
    tlirou^h the chvsses of medicine, only one was mentioned by Sir William Gairdner as due to a definite germ, and that %vas anthra.x. A considerable number of years after I graduated, Professor Koch announced that tuberculosis was due to a bacillus, and from that time the whole aspect of medical practice has been materially altered. No doubt, much remains to be done, but most of the advancement will depend upon the work in the pathological laboratory, for the role of the therapeutist will more and more be to apph' the teachings of biological pathology to the treatment of disease. Lister’s views, correct in themselves, had become prevalent by the time J was a student on the surgical side. We all believed as we were taught, that if certain precautions were taken, germ life was impo.ssible. I, therefore, remember very well the surprise almost amounting to shock which 1 received one morning in the waids of the Royal Infirmary, alx)Ut the year US79. 1 found there a surgeon who clearly believed that the means adopted for the ])revention of micro-organic infec- tion were for the most part inadequate. I remember this suigeon taking a piece of a dressing that had come off’ a wound, which tlressing was well impregnated with carbolic acid, and demonstrating under a high power of the microscope —the first high powei- I had ever seen that, notwithstanding the carbolic acid, the {dece of gauze was simply teeming with micro-organic life. It is almost snperHuous to mention that the surgeon here indicated was William Macewen. It was on that interview and on the work which I then .saw that I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to form my own proce<lure )is regards the surgical ]>art of ophthalmic practice. My early studies oji the clinical side of ophthalmolog}’ were umlertaken in the Gla.sgow Kve Infirmary. 1 had there the opportunity of seeing the work of .several gentlemen of more than average dexterit}' and of great conscientiousjiess, and I conld not help being struck by the fact that a very considerable proportion of the eyes operated on for cataract, either by extraction or by needling, were lost, either from suppuration or from acute irido-cyclitis. I am well under the mark when I say that the percentage of lo.sses was at least 15. I remember three patients in my father’s practice being operated on in the course of two winters: two of these were lost from suppura- tion, the other from irido-cyclitis. On graduation, I at once wont to I’aris, and then on to Holland. The results in the.se countries were better than I had .seen, but still left much to be desired. Meyer, of Paris, was in every respect an expert and good operator, yet again