On chloroform in midwifery practice / by Charles Kidd, M.D.

  • Kidd, Charles.
Date:
[1864], [©1864]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On chloroform in midwifery practice / by Charles Kidd, M.D. 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.

    4/12 (page 4)
    uterine muscular action, from which Dr. Johns dissents; but this, after all, is but a misuse of words: it is in reality a question of dose. In small doses chloroform acts exactly as Dr. Ferguson says; but in large doses, as Dr. Johns alleges, explaining the passing observa- tions also of Dr. Murphy and Dr. Barnes, that they too found version diflScult under the early stages of anesthesia; but no one whatever no\v doubts the effect of a large dose. Dr. Robert Lee and Dr. Ramsbotham, it is stated, have reason to fear epilepsy and puei'peral mania from chloroform; but the only clear, way of understanding these views is to hear either of these autihgrities outdoing even Dr. Johns in their dread of chloroform, and to see that puerperal mania may occur as a coincidence; it may come on whether chloroform is given or not. More than one of our higher midwifery authorities in London, so quoted in books, are Bupposed to be thus unfavourable to chloroform; but some, like Sir C. Locock, have admitted that they have not attended midmfery cases since chloroform came into use. It is only fair to the younger men to say of the older, they admit that they have no experience, and wish for none of this poisonous drug. Yet my friend Dr. Brown-Sequard recommends it as a cure for epilepsy, and Simpson as a cure in puei'peral mania—these very diseases where it was believed to be fraught with peril by Dr. Lee or Dr. Eamsbotham. A useful and practical debate on anesthetic aid in midwifery took place in the London Obstetrical Society, at the end of the year 1860, consequent on my reading a few observations on Obstetrip Operations to the society. The following are notes of that debate, Dr. Tanner stated that he had never found chloroform do harm, but much good; and it sensibly shortened the after period of con- valescence. If he feared hemorrhage, he gave a large dose of ergot, towards the close of the labour, and did not object to the use of chlor,oform as well. Dr. Barnes doubted the necessity of using chlo- roform in forceps cases and turning; he had given it in a case.qf adherent, placenta, and -witnessed great prostration from it. He had been especially gratified Avith its use in cases of great nervous exciteT, ment, and where convulsions seemed to impend. He believed he^ had thus averted convulsions, and had certainly accelerated labour. He. would like to know what progress chloroform had, made iji. Germany, where interference in labour was so much more general, Dr. Gream made a full recantation of all his former opinions so opposed to chloroform: he believed there is no city in the world where chloroform is now so much used in midwifery, and amongst