On gun-shot wounds of the extremities, requiring the different operations of amputation, with their after-treatment: establishing the advantages of amputation on the field of battle. To the delay usually recommended, &c. &c &c., with four explanatory plates / By G. J. Guthrie.

Guthrie, G. J. (George James), 1785-1856.

Date:: 1815

Credit: On gun-shot wounds of the extremities, requiring the different operations of amputation, with their after-treatment: establishing the advantages of amputation on the field of battle. To the delay usually recommended, &c. &c &c., with four explanatory plates / By G. J. Guthrie. Source: Wellcome Collection.

52/446 (page 14)

$would have a fair chance of recovery, if amputation had been performed in the first. He concludes his memoir by upholding* the aphorism of Le Dran, u that when amputation is necessary in a case of gun-shot wound, it should be done as soon as possible after the receipt of the injury as the state of the patient will permit a doctrine that militated too much against the received theory of the day \ and which was therefore rejected, although sup- ported by experience. It would appear almost impossible, that there should be so much difference of opinion upon a subject that might, and could only be decided by actual experiment; it is a proof, however, of the readiness with which the mind may be biassed in favour of any thing, that it may have presupposed from reading and reflection; and how readily ob- servation and experience are made subservient to our opinions. No one can suppose, that any of these authors wrrote what he did not himself believe to be true; and if part of them and their advocates did adopt the sentiments of others, without much actual experience of the subject upon w hich they treated; still many of them must have had sufficient opportunities of ascertaining the fact, if they had attended properly to it. But prejudiced for the most part in favour of delayed amputation, from its coinciding with their opinions, they would not attend to those of its opposers; or, when they did give them a trial, it was not with due attention to \$