Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred S. Taylor.

Alfred Swaine Taylor

Date:: 1850

Credit: Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred S. Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

Title Page

33/694

to this: What inference can we draw from the chemical detection of poison in food ? All that a medical man can do is to say whether poison he present or not in a particular article of food: he must leave it to the authorities of the law to develop the alleged attempt at administration;—hut if the poison have been actually administered, then we should expect to have the usual symptoms. With regard to the detection of poison in the matters vomited from the stomach, this affords no decisive proof that it has been swallowed, except under two cir- cumstances: 1. When the accuser actually labors under the usual symptoms of poisoning, in which case there can be no feigning, and the question of imputa- tion is a matter to be established by general evidence. 2. When the matters are actually vomited into a clean vessel in the presence of the medical attendant him- self, or of some person on whose testimony perfect reliance can be placed. CHAPTER III. OX THE EVIDENCE OF POISONING IN THE DEAD BODY—PERIOD AT TVniCH POISONS PROVE FATAL—CHRONIC POISONING ACCUMULATIVE POISONS—POST-MORTEM APPEARANCES PRODUCED BY THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF POISONS REDNESS OF THE MUCOUS MEM- BRANE MISTAKEN FOR INFLAMMATION ULCERATION AND CORROSION SOFTENING— PERFORATIONS OF THE STOMACH FROM POISON AND DISEASE. Supposing that the person is dead, and we are required to determine whether the case be one of poisoning or not, we must, in the first instance, endeavor to ascertain all the particulars which have been discussed in the last chapter, as in- dicative of poisoning in the living subject. Should the deceased have died from poison, the circumstances of the attack, and the symptoms preceding death, ought to correspond with the characters already described; and, in these investigations, it is well to bear in mind the following rule: There is no one symptom, or pa- thological condition, which is peculiar to poisoning; but, at the same time, there is no disease which presents all those characters which are met with in a special case of poisoning. [It should be observed that the evidence of medical men is frequently required to determine whether the deceased came to his death by poison, or from some other cause. (See 1 McNally, 329-335.) When this evi- dence is given, the facts on which the opinion is grounded must be stated. (JDicJc- erson v. Barker, 9 Mass. Rep. 245.)—Gr.] The additional evidence to be de- rived from the death of the person may be considered under the following- heads :— 1. The time at which death takes place after the first occurrence of symptoms.— This question it is necessary to examine, because the more common poisons, when taken in fatal doses, generally produce their fatal effects within certain periods of time. By an attention to this point, we may, in some instances, be ■ enabled to negative a charge of poisoning, and in others to form an opinion of the kind of poison which has been taken. In a court of law, a medical prac- titioner is often required to state the usual period of time within which poisons prove fatal. It is to be observed, that not only do poisons differ from each other in this respect, but the same substance, according to the form or quantity in which it has been taken, will differ in the rapidity of its action. A large dose of strong Prussie acid, i. e. from half an ounce to an ounce, may destroy life in less than two minutes. In ordinary cases of poisoning by this substance, a person dies, i. e. all signs of life have commonly ceased, in from ten to twenty minutes: if he survive half an hour, there is some hope of recovery. In the cases of the

Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred S. Taylor.

Licence and re-use

Contents