On some of the most important diseases of women : with other papers / prefatory essay by R. Ferguson.

  • Robert Gooch
Date:
1859
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On some of the most important diseases of women : with other papers / prefatory essay by R. Ferguson. 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.

    293/302 (page 231)
    Mediterranean turn round upon lier, and compel every vessel from her ports to perform quarantine before entering their ports?—a conduct which they do not observe towards the vessels of Holland, wliich undergo no quarantine at all. On inquiring of the Dutch authorities in tliis country, we learn that the Dutch have quaran- tine laws, but that, when a vessel arrives fi-om the Levant with a clean bill of health, they are not always strictly enforced. Dr. Granville, who seems to have taken much pains to ascertain the fact, gives the following as the result of his inquiries, in his letter on tliis subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Dutch trade in the Mediterranean, in former times, suffered much from the Algerine cruizers; in consequence of wliich, the Dutch merchantmen trading in the Mediterranean were, from the early ages of the Eepublic, dii-ected to assemble at Leghorn, from wliich port they sailed, under convoy, to Holland. Tliis arrangement leads to considerable deten- tion at Leghorn, which, although originally intended as a- security against pii-ates, served, in point of fact, the purpose of a quarantine, Leghorn being, as is well known, the port, of all others, in which the quarantine regulations were the most perfect, and most rigidly observed. In addition to tliis, whenever any Dutch vessel quitted a port where the plague was raging, the Dutch consul at that port refused her a 'passe-port de mer,' without which she was not safe in sailing through the Mediterranean, nor was she admitted into Holland. It would be an endless task to go tlu'ougli what may be caUed the collateral absurdities in the reasoning of the anti-contagionists— yet we must mention one or two instances. Thus, it is said that the doctrine of contagion is selfish and inhuman, and prevents the due performance of the duties of the healthy to the sick; while the doctrine of epidemic diseases remedies the evil. Yet the same persons say,— ' People are attacked (with the plague) in proportion as the ' inhabitants of unaffected expose themselves to the air of affected ' places. The visits of the inhabitants of an unaffected to an affected ' place is [are] attended with a cerifa?^ increase of sickness.''—West. Bev., No. Y, p. 14..5. Is it possible that they should not see that their objection applies more strongly against this doctrine than against that of contagion;