Historical surgery; or, the progress of the science of medicine: on inflammation, mortification and gunshot wounds.

  • Hunt, John.
Date:
1801
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Historical surgery; or, the progress of the science of medicine: on inflammation, mortification and gunshot wounds. Source: Wellcome Collection.

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

    43/442 (page 13)
    Under this fuppofuion we may in feme degree account for the inaccu- racy and inattention with which he has treated this part of the fubje6i:, and whatever Mr. Pott has faid in favour of the bark in mortifications in genera], mufi; certainly appear premature, fo long as Mr. Sharp’s opinion ftands on record without notice or refutation. No one, who is in the leafl acquainted with the profeffional character of the parties, will ever fuppofe that Mr. Sharp’s critical enquiry would ef- cape Mr. Pott’s attention; on the contrary, Mr. Pott in his book on her- nia which was publilhed about fix years afterwards, examines fome of Mr. Sharp’s opinions with fuch pointed accuracy, as evidently proves that the treatife on hernia, was either intended as a refutation of fome of Mr. Sharp’s opinions, or a further illuftration of the fubje61:. On the operation of amputation the objeft of the two Writers was very different, and the language of each is pointedly expreffive of their refpec- tivc intentions. Mr. Sharp, with fcientific views, addreffes himfelf to the rational and well informed part of the profeffion; whereas Mr. Pott, in a lefs limited fiyle of popular difeuffion, has addreffed the public at large. We find the fubjeft of mortification fo far examined, as was neceffary to prove that amputation could not be made ufe of with fafety in any flage of the difeafe, but with this decifion the enquiry ceafes. On this part of the queftion he perfe61;ly coincides with Mr. Sharp, who, in my opinion, had faid all that w”as neceffary more than thirty years before, and yet his opinion is never quoted, his arguments never referred to, nor his name ever mentioned. E On