Historical surgery, or the progress of the science of medicine : on inflammation, mortification, and gun-shot wounds.

  • Hunt, John.
Date:
1801
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Historical surgery, or the progress of the science of medicine : on inflammation, mortification, and gun-shot wounds. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    41/436 page 13
    Under this fiippofition we may in fome degree account for the inaccu- racy and inattention with which he has treated this part of the fubjeQ:, and whatever Mr. Pott has faid in favour of the bark in mortifications in genera], mud certainly appear premature, folong as Mr. Sharp’s opinion ftands on record without notice or refutation. No one, who is in the leaft acquainted with the profeffional chara&er of the parties, will ever fuppofe that Mr. Sharp’s critical enquiry would ef- cape Mr. Pott’s attention; on the contrary, Mr. Pott in his book on her- nia which was publifhed about fix years afterwards, examines fome of Mr. Sharp’s opinions with fuch pointed accuracy, as evidently proves that the treatife on hernia, was either intended as a refutation of fome of Mr. Sharp’s opinions, or a further illuftration of the fubje6f. On the operation of amputation the objeff of the two writers was very different, and the language of each is pointedly exprelfive of their refpec- tive intentions. Mr. Sharp, with fcientific views, addreffes himfelf to the rational and well informed part of the profeffion; whereas Mr. Pott, in a lefs limited fiyle of popular difcuflion, has addreffed the public at large. We find the fubjedf of mortification fo far examined, as was neceffary to prove that amputation could not be made ufe of with fafety in any ftage of the difeafe, but with this decifion the enquiry ceafes. On this part of the queftion he perfedlly coincides with Mr. Sharp, who, in my opinion, had faid all that was neceffary more than thirty years before, and yet his opinion is never quoted, his arguments never referred to, nor his name ever mentioned. E On
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3