The Sun.
London, England, 1812-01-14 00:00:00

n THE th v.

The following letter rciates to a subje& so impor-
tant to human life hat we in.&ri it as readiiSr as vv,_
did the Oarions Communications for and against 'he
practic6 of Vaccination.

TO SIR H. HALVoRd, 14. D. SIC..
SIR,--.Yout elevated station ir► medicine invests
your opinions with corresponding iutponance.
Inane of your letters relative to the ru::,-!cal treat-

I went of Mr. Fox, your words are, " I do not.be
lieve the Digitalis was ever prescribed at all. I re-
member stating in consultation, when the propriety
of administering that medicine was discussed, that
I had never s!-!en it do good in the dropsy 'of the
billy, though had often found it give ten.porary
relief in cast; of water in the chest, and I am pretty
'sure that Drs. Moseley and Pitcairn both stated this
to be the result of their experience also ; and that
in consequence it was never prescribed."
If this is corral, it is a valuable discovery ; bet
if incorrect, and the Digitalis is really useful in every
species of dropsy, the error ought to be perceived
before it obtain the sanction of time and prejudice,
the great supporters of error; it ought to be perceiv-
ed, before those affected with dropsy be deterred
from using a substance which might be the only
thing that could save them ; and before many of
our profession, who must oten rely on authority,
lose their confidence in this remedy.
Medical prescriptions deeply interest the commu-
nity, and to remote any serious mistakes concern-
ing them is an imperious duty, in the discharge of
which, one must despise that narrowness of mind
which cannot bear contradiction ;—magnanimity
prefers the truth to every private consideration.
To return to the direct question, what reason is
there to Suppose, that a substance received into the
stomach will remove water from the chest, and not
from any other part or cavity of the, body You
will answer, perhaps, that reasoning is here prepos-
terous 3 the fstts must precede the conclusions ;
on this point we would agree, but what can be al-
leged, if the facts not only do not support, but are
most decisively repugnant to your opinion ?
To all the practical writers, who have attended to
the medicinal properties of this plant, I appeal for
proof, that the preparations of Digitalis or
remove water from every part of the body. There
are thousands who laboured, one under one species
of dropsy, another under another; who owe their
lives in a great degree to this medicine. This is
not assertion opposed to assertion ; I could_produce
ample evidence, even from my own practice, that it
has cured dropsical effusions from the crown of the
head to the sole of the foot.

Let us now consider in what dropsical cases we
may expect it to give, not temporary relief, but
permanent recovery ; and in what it will be pre-
scribed without ultimatQ success.
If there is any watery effusion from simple debili.
ty of exhaustion, while the structure of parts re-
mains entire, then the Digitalis will have the bts,
effects; if, on ihe.contrary, the collection of water
is the result of certain changes in the organization
of any part essential to life, then tht Digitalis, like
every other article:in t Materia Medic:a, will fail,
whether the water be in the chest., in the abdomen,
or in the cellular membrane under the skin ; but
even in these desperate instances it will relieve, and
for a length of time proportioned to the local injury
and the strength of the patient, will retard the
accumulation of fluid, and the consequent mortality.
Every one has remarked speedy alleviation from its
use in water of the chest ; this,is to be ascribed to
the nature and function of the lungs, the removal
of a small degree of oppression from them invigorates
the whole system : I thought, indeed, that there did
not exist a Physician who had not als) noticed its
great efficacy in ascites, or water in the belly.
Cases might be readily produced in which Digita-
lis bad assisted in curing dropsy in the belly, arising
from disease of one of the organs there contained ;
but were the lungs in a similar condition, it would
give relief, nothing more.
If, for example, water be colleaed in consequence
of obstruction in the liver, the alternate use of Met-,
cury and Digitalis will remove both the obstruction
and the water, which could not be well accomplish-
ed by either, unsupported by the other, but where
hydrothorax, or water in the chest, is the conse-
quence of obstructed lungs, in vain should we ex-
peel a return of health from the assistance of Digi-
talis.

Respecting the general administration of this me-
dicine, I may here say, that danger is certainly to be
apprehended from its being used either long or in
great doses, but that within prudent limits, and in
the proper cases, its powers are most salutary; that
universdl experience has confirmed its indispensable
utility in all dropsies, as well as its superiority in
those conneeted with other disorders. With regard
to the Digitalis, in such cases, there are only two
things pernicious, viz. either tb give too much, or to
give none of it ; in short, I maintain that in any se-
vere dropsy, not to give the Digitalis, is withholding
one of the most probable means of preservation.
Before we part, be assured, that 1 did not think
of addresSing you, till ...I observed that your dogma
had made an extensive impression, and you .will see
the propriety of confuting it in a manner equally
conspicuous with that in which it was announced :
you are medically convinced, that air evil must be
overcome by following its progress, and obviating its
baneful effects.