The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-06 00:00:00

ALLEGED DEATH FROM 110MCNOPATRY

TO THE EDITOR 01 THE SUN.

SIR,—On Thursday last, a report headed " Death from
Ilotnesopathy—Arrest of Professor Jones," appeared in
the columns of 2' hc Sun. This report, with that portion
of the public unacquainted with benefits conferred on
the human race, would tend to injure that valuable sys-
tem, and the character of such men as the talented and
distinguished Dr. Epps, Dr. Curie, and others. The
facts of the case aro these :—On the 12th of October I
was called in to see a Mrs. Margaret Sedgwick, of 6,
Kingston Russel-place, Camden-town. On entering her
room she informed mo that she was suffering from an
attack of biliousness of four days' standing, but on exa-
mining her, I found that she was suffering from inflam-
mation of the lungs, particularly of the right one, evi-
dently of some days' standing. Her bowels had been
opened freely on the 10th by medicine. I immediately
informed her friends of the nature of her malady—its
liability to a fatal termination, the four days' neglect
having added much to its gravity—and expressed a
strong wish to meet Dr. Epps in consultation, one of the
first authorities in homeopathy. In the report it is
stated that the inquest was held at the request of Mr.
Sedgwick ; but this he distinctly denies, and states that
it was at the wish of Mr. MacLaren. The charge
brought against me then is, that I neglected to open the
person's bowels, and upon this slight foundation an at-
tempt is made to trump up a charge of manslaughter.
Mr. MacLaren, on seeing the patient, immediately
charged me with having neglected to open the bowels,
forgetting that they had beets opened freely on the 10th
by medicine taken of the patient's own accord, and once
naturally during the week; and so confident was he that
this was the cause of death, that he states in the certifi-
cate that " she died from neglect on the part of the
homeopathic practitioner to open her bowels."
It is very evident that Mr. MacLaren is quite ignorant
of the advances made by Piorry during the last few
years, otherwise he must have known that no accumula•
tion in the bowels could exist without being detected.
In his evidence he states that five clysters were exhibited,
and that they came away in the same state as they were
given, and that purgatives were also given by the mouth.
On surprise being expressed by the friends at this,
" Oh!" he exclaims, " the accumulation exists higher up,
and out of reach of the fluid injected." Had any accu-
mulation in the bowels existed, would it have escaped
the notice of Drs. Epps, Curie, and Jones ? Certainly
not. They knew that it did not exist, and that there wore
no purgatives or evacuants called for. The after-death
examination bears out the opinion expressed by these
three gentlemen. Mr. MacLaren, in his evidence, is
obliged unwillingly to confess that there was no accu-
mulation in the bowels. Another medical man present
at the examination also establishes this fact.
The Coroner, on finding that death did not take place
from the cause named in the certificate, immediately
said, " I suppose, Mr. MacLaren. you mean to say that
she died from the general nullity of treatment."
t In the course of the examination, the Coroner twice
remarked that Dr. Jones's evidence was highly necessary,
as ho alone could speak as to the state of the person
previous to her coming under Mr. MacLaren's care. To
this Dr. Jones replied that, us a medical tritncss he should
be very happy to give his evidence, but to this he ob-
jected. Dr. Jones then requested permission to be al-
lowed to put some questions to the medical witnesses.
To this he readily consented; but as soon as the evidence
of the medical men was taken, then he began to make
some remarks almost foreign to the subject, and ended
by calling on the jury to sum up. On hearing this, Dr.
Jones felt indignant, as every person would have done,
on being so duped, and in the heat of the moment said
that ho bad broken his word, and had not behaved as a
gentleman or a professional man, and that ho sat there
as an unbiassed person to administer justice. This ho
had not done by his remarks to the jury, in terming the
system a filly and a delusion. I was then ordered into
the custody of the summoning officer, in whose charge I
remained until the jury had returned their verdict of
Died from inflammation of the lungs," when, on stat-
ing that I had no intention of insulting the Court, I was
discharged, but nevertheless repeated the same words as
I had before said.—l am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
DAVID GRIFFITIJS JONgS, M,D.