The hypodermic use of quinine : a dangerous experimental medication, and rarely justifiable / by Stephen Rogers.

  • Rogers, Stephen, 1826-1878.
Date:
1874
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The hypodermic use of quinine : a dangerous experimental medication, and rarely justifiable / by Stephen Rogers. 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.

    6/18 (page 4)
    bers, whose risks, from the very common untoward results of this unnatural style of giving medicines, are especially great. Dr. Lente commences his article by quoting sentiments expressed eight or nine years ago, by an anonymous reviewer in the American Journal of Medbcal Science. As it is ap- parently a part of the history of Dr. Lente’s remarkable pa- per, it will be interesting to know what works on hypodermic medication the said anonymous reviewer reviewed. They were: 1. “Hypodermic Injections in the Treatment of Disease,” by Antoine Ruppaner, M. D. 2. “ Speedy Relief of Pain by the Hypodermic Method,” by Charles Hunter, Surgeon, London. 3. “ Clinical Experiences with Hypodermic Injections,” by Dr. Lorent, Bremen. 4. “Hypodermic Injections of Medicines,” by Dr. Eu- lenberor. o That part of the review which Dr. Lente has selected as a theme for his paper, relates to this method of administering quinine, and reads as follows : “We think it would be difficult to exaggerate the impor- tance of the improvement in our art, to those portions of our country scourged by malaria, and we cannot refrain from again urging an investigation of its merits upon the profes- sion, requiring as it does no complicated apparatus, no trained skill in delicate manipulation, but simply a spirit of enter- prise, careful observation, and candid report of results.” The italics are our own, and we think it well to at once call attention to the fact that, though Dr. Lente adopts this as his text, and declares that he is “ fully in accord with its senti- ments,” he at once proceeds to show how totally untrue are its leading allegations, those which we have italicized, lie asserts that he has been two whole years endeavoring to sur- mount some of the difficulties attending this vaunted improve- ment in our art, which this reviewer speaks of as requiring little or nothing but “ a spirit of enterprise.” The details of his labors and experiments to obtain a proper solution of the drug, the minute account of the manner of its use, and the description of the instrument, are convincing evidence that