Medical testimony in regard to the proper mechanical treatment of joint diseases.

  • Davis, Henry G. (Henry Gassett), 1807-1896.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical testimony in regard to the proper mechanical treatment of joint diseases. 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.)

    6/16
    manifest in the foregoing review, that I may spare myself the disa- greeable task of uttering reproach against him. The following is an extract from a review of A Treatise on Diseases of the Joints, by Richard Barwell, etc., etc., in the American Medical Monthly, December, 1861: Of the chapters on Strumous Articular Osteitis and Hip-Joint Dis- ease, we can say that they, of all others in the book, both please and disappoint us most. We are pleased to find Dr. Barwell follow the right path; we are disappointed to find that he is not fully conscious of the principles on which successful treatment depends; that his ap- pliances are inferior, and that he does not even mention the name of their originator. The attention of the profession at large having been called to the proper mechanical treatment, some six years ago, already, in the editorial columns of the Monthly, and numerous com- munications on the subject having appeared in its pages since, we cannot doubt but that most of its readers are entirely conversant with it; and we had intended, therefore, to dismiss these chapters with the above remark. But as an act of justice to American Sur- gery, no less than to Dr. Henry G. Davis, of New York, the origin- ator of the treatment under consideration—and in the hope that this notice may meet the eye of the honored author, (for we are confi- dent, from the spirit of honest candor and noble manliness pervading the whole book, that he has not intentionally failed ' to give honor where honor is due')—we beg leave to dwell a few moments on the facts of the case. We have for reference only a file of the Monthly, and that an incomplete one, at hand, but we think this will prove sufficient for our purpose. We remember that even the pseudo-medi- cal Quarterly, the 'North American Journal of Homoeopathy,'' >rave the 'old school' doctor, as the Humbugpaths delight, in their mild- est moods, to call the regular physician, a willing tribute as amply deserving the appellation 'public benefactor,' several years ago;* and in a recent discussion before the highest professional tribunal in the Empire City of our State, the New York Academy of Mepicixe, the claims of Dr. Davis were fully sustained by the most eminent practitioners. [See Bulletin, Vol. I., pp. 191 to*224.] Both the principle on which the treatment is based, and the appa- ratus by which it is ordinarily most effectually and conveniently car- ried out, are referred to in the editorial mentioned, which, as far as we know, is the first, published account of either. But Dr. Davis had been in the habit of employing the same method in his limited practice for some ten years previously, and whenever occasion offer- ed verbally explained it to his professional friends, and urged its trial upon them. He would enthusiastically dwell upon the revolution which its introduction must work in surgery; upon the benefits it would confer on humanity; the saving 0f health, of limbs, and life; and would add substantially, that before he published it to the world he wanted to perfect it so that every possible objection should be anticipated and obviated. The then editor of the Monthly, Prof. Parker, spoke in the highest terms of Dr. Davis. The March, May, and JuneNos., 1856, of the Monthly, contain [* Felruary, If 57.—Ed. Monthly.]