The old methods of treating cancer compared with the new / by John Pattison.

  • Pattison, John.
Date:
[1857]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The old methods of treating cancer compared with the new / by John Pattison. 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.

    11/40 (page 11)
    too dangerous ndieu applied to an external organ, like the breast, Avhat must it be when applied to the tender womb ? If we con- sider the action of caustics, they arc, of course destructive; and, were it possible to confine this destructive action to disease only, their employment might, in some few cases, be advantageous j but it is wholly impracticable to do so. They must destroy sound and healthy as well as diseased textures. If used in the solid form (as potass fusa, or the ])otassa udth quicklime), they immediately liquify, and spread over aU parts in the vicinity of the disease, exciting inflammation, and many of its various results, as ulcera- tion, bleeding, slougliing, and, in many cases, permanent contrac- tion of parts, requiring operations subsequently, to restore them somewhat to their natiu-al condition. Their application is not once only, but of repeated necessity; and the objections to their use, above stated, arc in force on every separate application, Months after the commencement of their use they are as dan- gerous as at first. They are most unsatisfactory with refer- ence to the disease which they attempt to cure, and they are positively dangerous to the healthy structures surrounding that disease. It is acknowledged at present by all accurate observers, that Change in ^lic types of all diseases are changing, and that the Disease. treatment which would have proved beneficial ten or fifteen years ago, is now pretty certain to prove fatal. I refer more especially to blood-letting in the treatment of disease. Tormerly all carried the lancet and the caustic case; tlie former has been thrown aside as dangerous, but I am sorry to say that the more dangerous of the two is still retained. Whether it is OM'ing to atmospheric influence, or to other unknown causes, yet when my mother npplied to Sir U. Brodic, was small-lhe size of a pen. Tlic fact is, that the cancer was the size of a small egg, and had already began to discharge. As this makes a material diflerence, I think you will be glad of a correetion in favour of truth and fairness.” Immediately upon receiving this letter, I wrote to the lady, thanking her for correcting me of an unintentional error. But if it is improper to attempt destroying even a small tumour the size of a pea by this agonising treatment, the attempt made in this case, by Sir Benjamin Brodie, to say the least was injudicious! B 2