A dissertation on the inutility of the amputation of limbs. Johann Ulrich Bilguer
is the second, published 1693.
2
I wo
1
2
I would not chuse to lay much stress on this argument; for if one weighs the circumstances of pain, the amount of what the patient suffers from the treatment necessary for saving the limb, will often be equal to that arising from amputation. But the two strongest reasons for prefering Mr. Bilguer's method is, the saving the limb as well as the life of the patient; the loss of which is often occasioned by amputation, but never by the pain of an incision. It is also true, that pain when slighter, though longer continued, is more easily supported by the patient. Tissot.
3
To these instances may be added, that of the son of Thomas Koulichan, a captain in the Austrian service, who, being wounded in the leg, and the bones shattered, in one of the latter battles of the war, held a candle with one hand and extracted the splinters with the other. He exhibited many other proofs, not only of courage in the field, but also of that fortitude in bearing pain which is very different from the other, and much more seldom met with. Tissot.
4
5
Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences, 1732. Art. 7.
6
Mr. Ranby, however, who was one of the surgeons of the British troops at the time of the battle of Dettingen, lays great stress upon the bark: It is true, that in one of his cases, having ordered it to an officer of seventy years of age, whose leg had been amputated,
I shall here subjoin five questions.
Would Mr. Bilguer have amputated in these two instances?
Would not his method have saved both these patients, especially the last?
Does not amputation seem to have contributed to their death?
Does it not evidently appear, that in the latter of these two cases, amputation destroyed the good effects of the bark, which seemed to conduct the patient to a speedy cure; and that in the former case, the bark had not power sufficient to repair the mischief occasioned by the amputation?
Does it not follow from these two observations, that however salutary the effects of the bark may be, those of amputation are hurtful in a greater degree? Tissot.
7
See Dionis's surgery, page 18. 4th edition.
8
These two last applications are not in Heister: The
It is quite unnecessary to make use of all these ingredients at one time. Tissot.
9
As the composition of the martial ball may not be generally known, I shall describe it in this place:
I do not exactly know what quantity Mr. Bilguer means by
10
This composition is commonly called
11
In using the external vulnerary medicines, in which aloes is an ingredient, it must be remembered, what Mr. Bilguer remarks in another place, that they often prove purgative.
12
Mr. Bilguer might have even said hurtful; the only true temperants are, repeated bleedings and the acids, which are preferable to nitre, which is not very proper wherever there is reason to apprehend a mortification. Absorbents, which in some parts of the country where Mr. Bilguer writes, are still ranked in the class of temperants, are very hurtful in the present case, and never afford any relief to wounded patients.
13
This precept, of which the very reverse is but too frequently practised, is of very great consequence: It is founded upon this, that a discharge of blood proves that an incision has reached the quick; now every such incision produces an inflammation, which retards the suppuration already begun, and hence we interrupt this operation of nature which we meant to promote, and, as it is the means of preventing a mortification, whatever interrupts it contributes to the disease: It cannot, therefore, be too often repeated, that in general, incisions which cause a discharge of blood, ought never to be practised after a suppuration is begun. Tissot.