Address to the Medical Society of London : together with some correspondence relative to a consultation at Norwich.

  • Murphy, Edward William, 1802-1877.
Date:
1851
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Address to the Medical Society of London : together with some correspondence relative to a consultation at Norwich. 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.

    14/16 (page 14)
    No. VI. Norwich, Oct. 1851. Dear Sir,—I am obliged by tlie favor of your note this morning, but cannot feel that the points on which I was anxious to be informed have been quite satisfactorily answered. You will excuse my repeating the question, Whether a portion of placenta retained after labour cannndergohydatiddegeneration? not whether a portion of already liydatigeiiized placenta remaining can further develope: because in the case alluded to, even granting (which no one here does) that a portion of placenta was left at all by Mr. Cooper, that gentleman is prepared to swear on oath that the placenta removed was in every respect healthy. The fact, therefore, which you have countenanced when you gave a cer- tificate to the effect that Mrs. Gladstone’s symptoms arose from a portion of after-birth left in utero by Mr. Cooper, is that a portion of healthy placenta may remain and become afterwards hydatid. Another ques- tion I ought to have put is, Do youponsider that with a portion of placenta remaining in utero, fresh impregnation could take place within six or eight weeks ? Perhaps you are not aware that there was a fresh impreg- nation, for you admit you were obliged to rest upon the dictum of the homoeopath Bell, but I assure you that such was the case, and the blighted foetus was distinctly seen in the midst of tbe hydatid masses. You have therefore virtually given the profession the opinion that not only can retained pla- centa become hydatid, but fresh impreg- nation can take place, and the new placental structure also become similarly transformed. When I say all the profession is against you, I mean that Mr. Cooper possesses certificates from almost every physician of eminence in London, as well as from several elsewhere, all of which are decidedly op- posed to your presumed opinion. I trust you will not deem me impertinent in asking you to reconsider the opinion you gave Dr. Bell; by it you have not only bolstered up the reputation of a homoeopath, but flown in the face of all honourable practioners, as well as injured the reputation of a higlily respectable and intelligent surgeon. That it has really done the latter I beg to assure you is the case; your opinion has been repeatedly hawked about amid the small gossip of the tea-table, and is the only sup- port which can be adduced in favour of the treatment pursued in this most lamentable case. Allow me to say, that by a revisal or expla- nation of your opinion you might regain the position you are well nigh losing in the es- timation of the profession. At the Brighton meeting I was surrounded by parties anxious to hear about the Gladstone case, and tk condemnation of your share in it was un versal, and given in language which uugure ill for tho favour in which you would be ri garded for the future. Believe me, I write i i good part, for though I have not the pleasui: of a personal acquaintance, the character yo bear for amiability and uprightness of in tention render me anxious that you shoul not in such a cause allow your name to b tarnished as it has been. I remain, dear sir, Yours truly, W. H. Ranking. ; 12, Henrietta Street, Cavendish Square, Oct. 3, 1851. Dear Sir,—I am much obliged by you note, and have only to regret that my firs- correspondence upon Mrs. Gladstone’s case 1 had not been with you rather than Mr Cooper. I have no hesitation in answerin' both your questions. With regard to the first, I do not believe that a portion o: healthy placenta retained after labour can undergo hydatid degeneration, but lam not at all so clear about a placenta that had previously undergone that change, if a por- tion be left behind in the uterus. In Mrs.- G.’s case I was told that it was necessary to remove it after her delivery, that she complained of painful uneasy sensations in the left side, which continued afterwards,- and that her child had only lived a fortnight.' Putting all these facts together, I inferred that the placenta was morbidly adherent in her last confinement in consequence of this disease, and that it continued after her de- livery progressively to show itself. In stating a retained portion of placenta as a cause, I cannot perceive why I should be understood to mean a healthy placenta : 1 did not so state it. The very assumed fact that a por- tion was left behind presumes it to have been i morbid, because, unless with very ignorant persons, no portion of a healthy placenta ■! could be left behind ; while, on the other hand, the most adroit practitioner cannot always completely remove one that is mor- bid. The only difference between tliis and other cases of morbid adhesion was my sus- picion that the morbid cause was hydatids. In making tliis statement I never for one moment intended to cast any reflection upon Mr. Cooper’s treatment; I stated so to him, and would willingly liavo given liim any explanation of my certificate to remove such an erroneous impression. He, however, seemed much more anxious to convict me of an obvious mistake,—to prove that the cause which I assigned could not exist, and, as I perceive, has taken con- siderable pains to obtain the collective opi- nion of the profession against me, by plac- ing before them what is really nut_thc_^