A report on laceration of the cervix uteri / by T. B. Harvey ; stenographically reported for the Indiana State Medical Society at Indianapolis, May, 1883.

  • Harvey, T.B.
Date:
1883
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A report on laceration of the cervix uteri / by T. B. Harvey ; stenographically reported for the Indiana State Medical Society at Indianapolis, May, 1883. 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.

    5/20
    LSCERSTION OF THE CERYIX 'UTERI. BY T. B. HARVEY, M. D., OF IN DI A.NAPOLIS. [Stenographically reijorted.] Mr, President and Gentlemen—The subject of laceration of the cervix uteri has never, I believe, been reported upon or discussed in this Society. It is comparatively a new subject, of which nothing was definitely known until 1862, when Dr. T. A. Emmet, of ISTew York, discovered what he regarded as laceration. The older members of the profession know that prior to that date we were in the habit of looking upon what is now regarded as laceration as inflammation, ulceration or hypertrophy, and for fifteen years we had been following the views and treatment of Henry Bennet, of London. This was natural; Bennet had conferred a great favor on the profession by discovering as early as 1845 that certain diseases of the cervix which had been regarded by the French and En- glish authorities as epithelioma, and for which amputation had been performed, were, in his opinion, simply inflammations, and so he removed these maladies from the domain of malignant diseases. Those who have had experience in this matter, will remem- ber the great reputation that amputation of the cervix once held as a cure for malignant disease. We now well know that genuine malignant disease of the uterus is generally fatal, and amputa- tion only delays death, while prior to the discovery of Bennet, malignant disease was regarded as of frequent occurrence, and amputation was regarded as the proper treatment. For years the profession followed the views of Bennet, treating such cases by cauterization, and it remained for Dr. Emmet, in 1862, to discover that what was regarded by Bennet as inflammation was really laceration, and that a little surgical