Dr Todd and the late member for Ashton : fatal effect of the stimulating treatment of disease (in a letter to the editor of the Medical Circular, February 29, 1860) : to which is added a short account of Dr Todd's professional career, and an epitome of his stimulating doctrine, with an answer to the fallacious charges brought against the author / A.B. Granville.

  • Granville, A. B. (Augustus Bozzi), 1783-1872.
Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Dr Todd and the late member for Ashton : fatal effect of the stimulating treatment of disease (in a letter to the editor of the Medical Circular, February 29, 1860) : to which is added a short account of Dr Todd's professional career, and an epitome of his stimulating doctrine, with an answer to the fallacious charges brought against the author / A.B. Granville. 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.

    29/30 (page 29)
    third opinion wlien things were wearing an encouraging aspect, and that we were perfectly aware of the nature of the complaint, which would only reqxiire suitable nutri- ment, broth, jelly, and, by and by, some wine ? All this, which represented the true state of the case (and the said relative is alive to disprove it, if untrue), it has suited your purpose to ignore. Is that honest ? But granting even that the first amelioration of the patient was the result of brandy, where, in my narrative, do you, Sir, discover any other single instance of subsequent amelio- ration under the infliction of reiterated doses of that brandy until death ? And yet you would have us believe that you approve of such a treatment! And now, as to your insinuation that I did not protest against Dr Todd's doctrine and practice in his lifetime. I tell you it is one which you, as a medical man, ought never to have thrown out, if you have read with attention all that transpired at each consultation with that phy- sician. Do you ever remember being present at any such, in your own practice, in which the medical man in charge of the case has more perseveringiy or uncompro- misingly protested against the erroneous views of the other practitioner called in consultation than I did with Dr Todd ? And did not my immediately subsequent wi'itten protest against the entire treatment, sent to Mr Lavies, and by him forsvarded to Dr Todd, show that I dared let the parties interested know how I disapproved of their doings 1 With regard to the second charge, that I have wantonly brought before the public the present case : confining my- self to the medical bearing of such a charge in discussing it with a medical editor, who ought to know that the sub- ject matter of Dr Todd's doctrine, of which my case is an illustration, had already been brought before the public in one of his contemporaries on two distinct occasions,—I would ask you, since you do not deny the accuracy of my awful facts, whether, in such a case, any consideration ought to induce a physician to suppress them, when they exhibit one of the most striking and undisputed illustra- tions of the pernicious effects on human life of a novel medical treatment ? Is it true that my interference has only served to desecrate unnecessarily the privacy of a family ; or rather does not the fact that the life of a well-