An inaugural dissertation : being an attempt to disprove the doctrine of the putrefaction of the blood of living animals. Submitted to the examination of the Rev. John Ewing, S.T.P. provost; the trustees, and medical professors of the University of Pennsylvania, for the degree of Doctor of Medicine; on the 8th. day of May, A.D. 1793. By Adam Seybert, of Philadelphia; honorary member of the Philadelphia, and member of the American, medical societies. [One line from Leviticus].

Date:
M,DCC,XCIII. [1793]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An inaugural dissertation : being an attempt to disprove the doctrine of the putrefaction of the blood of living animals. Submitted to the examination of the Rev. John Ewing, S.T.P. provost; the trustees, and medical professors of the University of Pennsylvania, for the degree of Doctor of Medicine; on the 8th. day of May, A.D. 1793. By Adam Seybert, of Philadelphia; honorary member of the Philadelphia, and member of the American, medical societies. [One line from Leviticus]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    7/80
    INTRODUCTION. TH E Opinion, that the blood became putrid in many Difeafes, is of ancient date. It has been embra- ced, with various modifications by moft of the feels in Medicine. It particularly engaged the attention and be- lief of the learned Boerhaave, who publicly taught it in the celebrated fchool of Leyden. Under the impofmg authority of his name, and by means of his induftry, it was diffufed throughout almofi the whole globe. It be- came the theme of the vulgar $ and at this day has many great and illuftrious names to fupport it. There have been, however, at different times, a few Medical Philofophers, who, although they adopted it in fome inftances, feem to have had doubts refpeffing the truth of the doftrine, and to have rejected it in their ex- planations of many difeafes. In this clafs may be reck- oned the celebrated Hoffmann, who explained the pheno- mena of many diforders without any regard to the ftate of the blood: He was followed in this by the great Cullen, who, in his fyftem, attends lefs to the fiate of the fluids in difeafes than any of his predeceffors. The doftrine has of late been wholly denied by the very ingenious Dr. Mil- man in his treatife on the Scurvy ; and entirely rejected by the late fagacious Dr. Brown of Edinburgh, from his Syi- tem of Medicine. Many phyficians appear to have adopted the fentiments of thefe gentlemen j fo that at prefent there is