Diphtheria : its history, pathology, nature and treatment : an essay which received the first prize of the Medical Association of the State of Georgia, June, 1866 / by E.S. Gaillard.

  • E. S. Gaillard
Date:
1867
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Diphtheria : its history, pathology, nature and treatment : an essay which received the first prize of the Medical Association of the State of Georgia, June, 1866 / by E.S. Gaillard. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    60/116 page 58
    OM'HTllKHIA. the records at the Canal Street Dispensary, and serve, with others, , to shoAY that though cold, dampness and variable weather are pow- erless in the production of diphtheria, they are, during the exist- ence of an epidemic, greatly instrumental in contributing to its extension and mortality. It is proper to state, that Dr. Jacobi’s statistics are taken, during the years which marked the prevalence of the chief epidemics of diphtheria, that have prevailed in New York City. It is thus seen, that these causes do very conspicuously contrib- ute to the extension of diphtheria, and yet they have nothing whatever to do, apparently, with its origination. In the severe epidemic which desolated parts of Wisconsin, and w’hich has been well described by Dr. Wm. L. Wells, of that State, we find that “ the epidemic commenced in July, and ended in the latter part of October. It seemed to have arrived at the height of its violence, about the middle of August; it then abated, and in September appeared to have entirely ceased, but in October, it broke out again with increased severity. The morbific agency ceased to act, as suddenly as it began, and in November it had entirely disappeared.” The deduction here is very plain indeed—the disease did not begin in a cold and damp month ; but in the variable weather of October it reached its greatest severity. Dr. Semple stated to the Medical Society of London, that, in an epidemic at Bagshot, the disease “ did not specially attack the puny and ill-fed, nor those living under unfavourable hygienic conditions.” We mention this state- ment, because it is often quoted, and is calculated, if taken as the rule, (which was not by any means intended) to do great injury. It is, of course, the exception, and the testimony of all competent observers serves to show, that, as a rule, during an epidemic of diphtheria, a neglect of hygienic precautions always tends to pro- mote the extension and mortality of the disease; it is, in this respect, like all other diseases, and it is calculated to produce a most inexcusable injury, to inculcate any other view. In the epidemics of Paris and Boulogne “ those children who possessed feeble con- stitutions, or were surrounded by the concomitants of depraved hygienic influences, for the most part became the chief victims of the disease.” Dr. Blake, of California, states, that, in his expo-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3