Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B.

  • Bowditch, Henry I. (Henry Ingersoll), 1808-1892.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B. 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.

    21/32 (page 21)
    tom of more or less considerable alteration of structure.’ From this assumption, lie reasons analogically that £ haemoptysis (with certain ex- ceptions), whenever it occurs, renders tubercles in the lungs infinitely probable.’ ” So much for Dr. Paine’s assertions. Let us see how the matter really stands. Louis commences the paragraph upon haemoptysis (Phthisis, s. 231) by stating that 57 out of 87 patients had it. He then states, 25 had it copiously. Again he asks (s. 233), cc Are we, however, to consider the haemoptysis, especially when copious, which precedes cough and expectoration, as a precursor of tubercles, or simply as a symptom which reveals their presence?” He then states, that for nearly three years lie bad constantly asked all his patients in refeience to this symptom, and he found, that except in the phthisical patients, and those who had received injuries of the chest, or in whom the cata- menia were disordered, none had haemoptysis. And he continues thus. “ We think, therefore, that haemoptysis, except in the cases above mentioned, at whatever period it may occur, makes it infinitely probable that tubercles exist in the lungs. We do not say that this is certain, because there have been many well-attested facts which are fortunate exceptions.” Moreover (he continues, in the next paragraph), “ analogy favors this proposition. For when a haemorrhage,” &c. And he ter- minates the paragraph thus : “ But let us cease with these few remarks [that is, reasonings from analogy] which are intended much less to supply facts, than to excite to investigation.” Really, if Dr. P. did not put forth such pretensions to learning and candor, we might apply to him much harsher epithets than those we have already used. Does not that man deserve severe rebuke, when under pretence of stating an argument in reference to a subject, he dares entirely to reverse the order, and uses a remark made by the author for the purpose of exciting others to investigate, as if it were the chief corner stone of the author’s argument? We heartily detest such trickery. Our commentator seems to be unwilling that M. Louis should dare use the word experience, unless he has numbers to prove it—so bigoted does he seem to suppose our author is in regard to the numerical method. For instance—on p. 699, we find, ££ Here is another example of adhe- rence to£ rigorous facts,’ and of the uses which our author makes of analogy, where questions of the most vital and general nature are concerned. Thus : 1 Experience shows us, that in spite of these striking and indisputable differences between persons most resembling one another, 999 out of