Remarks on hydrophobia : read before the Philadelphia County Medical Society, May 23, 1883 / by Charles W. Dulles.

  • Dulles, Charles W. (Charles Winslow), 1850-1921.
Date:
1883
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks on hydrophobia : read before the Philadelphia County Medical Society, May 23, 1883 / by Charles W. Dulles. 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.

    5/14 (page 3)
    3 totle says all animals bitten by a mad dog become mad. The inference is that they do this in a reasonably short time, as they die after being bitten by venomous ser- pents. But after a while the idea of an incubation comes in, and grows and changes until its length is variously estimated from half a day to twenty—even to forty—years. Finally, as was natural, while the notions in regard to the causation and the charac- ter and order of the manifestations of hydro- phobia underwent such change, the methods of treatment multiplied and became more remarkable. Pliny recommended eating the raw liver of the dog that did the bit- ing, or the saliva from under his tongue. Celsus advised throwing the victim of hy- drophobia unexpectedly into a pond, when j if he could not swim he was to be allowed to sink, and if he could he was to be held under until he was filled with water. Charms, mummeries, and nostrums—some of the most repulsive character—were constantly employed both to avert the out- break of hydrophobia and to cure the fully- developed disorder. Bleeding, saturation with mercury, and such medicines as bella- donna, opium, prussic acid, and the venom of the viper, were used, not to speak of the heroic method of suffocating the subject of hydrophobia between two feather beds for his own good and for the safety of others. Thus, under a constantly-accumulating supply of testimony and with an ever-in- creasing pretension to knowledge, the ig- norance of the medical faculty in regard to hydrophobia grew more and more pro- found. Here and there a writer rejected some egregious absurdity; but the current of misapprehension and error grew stronger and broader until it swept before it even the best intelligences so lateasthe beginning and middle of the last century. Towards its end protests began to be made and efforts to extricate the subject from the mass of falsehood with which it was en- cumbered. But how mistaken some of these efforts were may be gathered from the fact that so able a man as the late Dr. Rush regarded hydrophobia as a malignant fever, —though this ought not to be stated with- out adding that he, with the modesty of true greatness, acknowledged that he might have been misled by the principles of fever he had adopted, and hoped the reader might not be discouraged by his errors from using his reason in medicine. The present century has supplied almost everything that can be considered of value in forming a correct opinion of the nature of hydrophobia. This is largely due to the advances that have been made in experi- mental pathology and veterinary science, and more than all to the incomparable re- searches of both veterinarians and medical men connected with the French Academy of Medicine during the last thirty years. The outcome of these researches has led Doleris to the roseate opinion that our pathological knowledge concerning rabies “ is but little behind that which we possess about the majority of diseases of the same order thus far studied.” But it is not necessary to go so far as this to do justice to our own age, for it is not without its own faults of pretension and credulity, and if we examine the state of knowledge in regard to hydrophobia as it is represented by the most recent writers, we find that it is still dark, confusing, and unsatisfactory. As to its causation, for example, we find that Virchow admits the possibility of contagion by the handling of sabres used to kill rabid dogs. Decroix, so recently as 1863, felt called upon to eat the flesh of a rabid dog, both raw and cooked, to dis- prove that this could communicate hydro- phobia. Vernois, about the same time, said it could be conveyed from man to man; and Bollinger admits the possibility of its communication by the migrations of small animal parasites. As to its incubation, while Dolan says this varies from one to three months, and that there is a scientific certainty of escape if an outbreak does not occur within a year, Trolliet credits a case where the period was less than a day; Doleris says fifteen months is as long an incubation as is indubitable; Bollinger is credulous up to two years; while Drs. Harrison Allen and H. C. Wood, of this city, had in 1S81 a case they considered one of hydrophobia where the inoculating bite occurred three and a half years before; and Sir William Gull (.Lancet, November 17, 1877, PP- 745, 746) records a case that came under his own observation in which he says the period of incubation was thirteen years. A consideration of the symptoms attrib- uted in most recent times .to hydrophobia discloses no less confusion than exists in regard to its means of communication and period of incubation. There is a certain