Correspondence and editorial comments on the points at issue between Dr. Tweedie & Dr. Murchison concerning identical passages in their respective works on fever.

  • Charles Murchison
Date:
1863
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Correspondence and editorial comments on the points at issue between Dr. Tweedie & Dr. Murchison concerning identical passages in their respective works on fever. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by King’s College London. The original may be consulted at King’s College London.

    23/44 (page 19)
    Murchison it tnere we J „ , onHsfied with the omission t » w.** alluded to. _ m aua > hich has elapsed between SU,i'ifutervno? D^Twehie's lectures at the Collage of Physician., publication, Dr. Murchison has been on constant and ^io“ and has never made the stagMest reclame ^ Mfotred t0 statemcii ma e ; these circumstances, we feel bound in ^Iv^hat our reviewer would not have made the statements he has done had he been aware of the facts now stated by 1. wee ie. He took the case as it stood before him in t e ^0l h t D authors • and was certainly totally ignorant of the fact that Ur. Murchison had unreservedly placed his notes and^toes” We Tweedie’s hands when Dr. Tweedie was preparing his ecUnes. V* must add, however, that the reviewer was naturally led ^error by the remark on the subject made m the preface of Di. Murchison s work, and that it was under the misconception thus occasioned tha he was led into making the charges, which were not warranted y the facts of the case. Editor.] VI. LETTER FROM DR. MURCHISON TO EDITOR OF “BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL,” PUBLISHED JANUARY 3RD, 1863, WITH REMARKS BY THE EDITOR. Sir —The letter from Dr. Tweedie in your last number, together with your comments thereon founded upon his statements, demands a reply from me. I have at the same time to express surprise, that you should have passed a judgment on the case, upon the assertions of one side only, notwithstanding the unbiassed opinion arrived at py your reviewer. I have important corrections to make on those assertions, which must lead your readers to a different conclusion. 1. It is not the fact that I drew up my statistical tables, either at the suggestion, or on the plan, or under the directions of Di. Tweedie, nor that I undertook the work for his lectures. I had begun the analysis of the data contained in the records of the Fever Hospital, as an independent research, months before I heard or knew of Dr. Tweedie’s intended lectures. Dr. Tweedie may know when he formed his decision; but he is not, and cannot be, a com- petent or credible witness as to when I formed my design, and began the execution of it. Dr. Tweedie asked me to ascertain for him the sexes and mean ages of one hundred cases of typhus and typhoid fever; and on my reminding him that I was already en- gaged in a much more extended inquiry, he expressed a wish to avail himself of the results for his lectures. The internal cvictei^co