Experiments on the Functions of the Human Brain

Hewitt; 3, 4, 5, Dr. Murray; 6, 7, Dr. Phillips ; 8, Dr. Baniock; 9, Io, II, Dr. Protheroe Smith; " one unsuccessfully", )r. Playfair. I have again referred to the Obstetric 7Transactions, vol. xv, and it still appears to me that this account is perfectly correct. And, as these eleven or twelve cases do not include either of the four previously recorded, the total number is fifteen or sixteen. Dr. Playfair's " one unsuccessfully" case is thus left doubtful whether it arose from the effects of the haemorrhage, or followed the injection of the perchloricde; for, when a case is reported in this ambiguous way, there is doubtless some special reason for the ambiguity. Dr. Barnes, however, endeavours to make out that I have counted the same case "twice over", and that I have " thrice been guilty of counting one case as two". This, however, is not the fact ; each of these cases is a separate and distinct case. Dr. Barnes also affirms that one of the cases referred to by Dr. Protheroe Smith is the same as that described by Dr. Hewitt. Again, this is not the fact; for these are two distinct cases, according to the more detailed notes I possess of both. And, considering the facilities Dr. Barnes has for obtaining correct information, there is no excuse for his making these statements, which are contrary to the facts. The case recorded in the Obstetrical Journal for February, and the case briefly referred to by one of the speakers, may, or may not, be "one and the same". But, in the doubt, I have counted these accounts as one case only. The case related is, no doubt, very characteristic; and, being one which so aptly illustrated the result in practice of the erroneous dogmas at present taught in the schools, I could not pass it over. Sufficient details are given to enable anyone acquainted with the facts to recognise the case; but all names were omitted, for the simple reason that it was not intended to be personal. I took great pains to ascertain the facts correctly, and firmly believe they are accurately reported. The facts were confirmed by one of the medical gentlemen in daily attendance, who also told me that, if I had not given the particulars, it was his intention to have published them. And, were I now to add any further account, Dr. Barnes, who writes as if he were aware of all the circumstances, must know that it would lay me open to the attentions of those legal gentlemen who have wistfully considered the subject, but whose favours I am not desirous to facilitate: whilst the designation, "a professor of midwifery in one of the largest medical schools", would as correctly apply to Dr. Barnes himself as to any other individual. 2. The further cases Dr. Barnes seems so earnestly to seek will be furnished in due time; but, as I am unable to see of what use they can be in a scientific point of view, I have not been in any haste to record them. In none of these remaining cases had I an opportunity of examining the body after death, and of some I have no written record. Dr. Barnes remarks: "In due time and place, he will recognise the duty of recording his own experience"; and I am unable to understand why I should not follow so excellent an example. Instead of being irritated by such phrases as " worthless or non-existent cases"; or the various carefully concocted sentences which are intended to be so severe, I can only regard these as the outpourings of a disappointed and embittered spirit, who has discovered that mere visionary assertions, without any foundations in facts, cannot stand the test of ordinary scrutiny. Having vainly endeavoured "to manipulate the facts", and after beating the air in the fruitless search of what never existed, Dr. Barnes reaches the culminating point: " Iere, then, I dismiss Dr. Snow Beck. " A severe sentence, no doubt, yet one I still hope to survive. But Dr. Barnes mIust not imagine that such an assumption of the " schoolmaster" will cause me to forego the consideration of his various fireside fictions, such as-the physiological hypertrophy of the spinal cord developed with each pregnancy; the assertion that the action of the uterus during labour is a series of convulsions; that this action depends upon the effect of some imaginary nerve-force emanating from the spinal cord; the Higginson's syringe action of the gravid uterus during post parttm hlemorrhage, pumping blood out of the body which it sucks up from the aorta and vena cava; the chemical action and creakling effect on the inner surface of the gravid uterus from the injection of the perchloride of iron; cum multis aliis. I can assure him I have not any intention of forgetting these wonders of medical literature. On the contrary, I trust to continue to work at the subjects involved in this discussion, with as much care as I am capable of, in the hope that I may contribute somewhat to our knowledge respecting them, and, in some degree, be instrumental in diminishing, for I cannot anticipate we will ever be enabled entirely to prevent, those fatal terminations which too frequently occur from post partumr hremorrhage, or from those deadly affections after parturition so long known under the term of puerperal fever. And this I must continue to do, notwithstanding the ad misericordiam appeal to the " company of martyrs" which Dr. Barnes so pathetically parades. I am, etc., T. SNOW BECK. Portland Place, May 1874. DR. DOBELL'S PAPER AT THE ROYAL MEDICAL AND CIHIRURGICAL SOCIETY.