On poisons, in relation to medical jurisprudence and medicine / by Alfred S. Taylor ; edited, with notes and additions, by R. Eglesfeld Griffith.

  • Taylor, Alfred Swaine, 1806-1880.
Date:
1848
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On poisons, in relation to medical jurisprudence and medicine / by Alfred S. Taylor ; edited, with notes and additions, by R. Eglesfeld Griffith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    72/723
    Antidotal treatment.—It was formerly supposed that there were substances which, if taken before or after the administration of poison, would counteract its effects. The old Mithridate was a compound of this description, made up of a variety of aromatic extracts. Its preparation was of the most complex kind, both with regard to the number of its constituents, the proportions in which they were mixed, as well as the precautions to be taken in mixing them. Hence, whenever it failed, which was always when real poison was adminis- tered, the failure was conveniently ascribed to something having been omitted in its preparation. In later times, physicians believed in the existence of what are called in the 'old books jHexipharmics {ktety, to help or assist, and (papf*.*™*, medicine.) The name was applied to substances which were considered to exert a specific action on poisons; i, e. that they had the power, by acting on the constitution, of completely neutralizing their dangerous effects. These superstitious notions disappeared as chemical knowledge began to spread; and then a mode of treatment, founded on the chemical properties of poisons, was first introduced. This class of substances is now known under the name of Antidotes {itirthrti, remedy against poison.) By employing the term antidote, it must not be understood that we mean a specific for any individual poison. The operation of antidotes is purely che- mical, and their great use depends, first, upon their effects being either imme- diate or extremely rapid; and, secondly, on their action being local, i. e. on their producing an alteration in the nature of the poison by mere contact. It is obvious, that unless these substances had an immediate operation, they would be of no service; and we have a very easy and at the same time a sim- ple method of testing their efficacy, by the fact that the same or similar effects ought always to be produced in a common test-glass as in the human stomach. If the alleged antidote do not chemically change the nature of the poison out of the body, it cannot be expected to have any such effect in the body, and hence it should be rejected. It is not here, as in ordinary medical practice, that the substance is given empirically; i. e. without our being able to explain the mode in which it operates: that mode must, in the case of an alleged an- tidote, be made visible and apparent, or we can place no confidence in the treat- ment. Whenever we depart from this principle, we lose ourselves in uncer- tainty; and thus it is, that substances have been frequently extolled as antidotes, and have had a certain repute for a time, but have long since passed into oblivion. Charcoal was formerly given in cases'of poisoning by arsenic, and it was supposed with very good effect. Experience, however, has now shown, that the good effects under such treatment must have been really due to other causes which at the time escaped observation. All toxicologists agree, with the few exceptions to be presently stated, that there is no substance at present known which possesses a specific effect in re- moving the symptoms produced by poison. The so-called antidotes act upon the poison, and not upon the body: their action is, therefore, strictly of a che- mical nature. Some substances, it is true, are useful as stimulants, and act by rousing the nervous system. On this principle we may explain the good ef- fects produced by a strong decoction of coffee in a case of poisoning by opium, or by ammonia, in poisoning by prussic acid. Dr. Christison considers that there are two poisons the secondary effects of which may be subdued by the administration of certain substances. These must, of course, operate by ex- citing in the system an action capable of neutralizing that established by the poison. The remote operation of lead may be sometimes corrected by mer- cury given to salivation, while the violent salivation caused by mercury, may be occasionally corrected by nauseating doses of antimony. (On Poisons, p. 41.) Mr. Allison has more recently stated, that chlorate of potash possesses