A letter to Erasmus Darwin, M.D. on a new method of treating pulmonary consumption, and some other diseases hitherto found incurable / by Thomas Beddoes, M.D.

  • Thomas Beddoes
Date:
[1793]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter to Erasmus Darwin, M.D. on a new method of treating pulmonary consumption, and some other diseases hitherto found incurable / by Thomas Beddoes, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by University of Bristol Library. The original may be consulted at University of Bristol Library.

    77/116 (page 71)
    [ 7* ] careful expiration we can inhale two hundred cubic inches. Hence by a moderate effort we can take in from fixty to an hundred cubic inches. Thus we (hall bring more air than ufual within the attraaing diftance cf the blood; and by continuing this procefs, oxygenate the fyftem. The effeft will be promoted by flow infpirations and quick expira- tions. I have thus in a few minutes often produced a more general glow and higher colour on the cheeks than I could impute to the mere increafe of mufcular exertion.-—I fub- join a few queries.—1. Does not the iris generally become more contracted juft before and juft after phthifis ? 2. Though it is impoflible not to perceive the acutenefs of the argument from the habitual dilatation of the pupil to the inirritability of the fyftem, do not fome appearances fhew more decifively ftill that the fyftem about the begin- ning of confumption is highly irritable ? Do we not for iuftance find that ftimulants, as fermented liquors, fet fuch perfons all on fire ? I have fometimes obfervcd a meal of folid food without even fmall beer produce a flow of fpirits apparantly greater than a moderate quantity of wine would in health. In florid confumption in fhort, before great debility comes on, do not weak ftimuli induce difa- greeable burnings, hard pulfe, &c. ?—Even fo, I do not underftand why in an irritable ftate of the body, the iris fhould be unirritatcd. 3. Do not Dr. Fourcroy's cafes compared with thofe above related render it probable that the atmofpheric oxygenc, and not its azote, is prejudi- cial