New-York tribune., 1886-03-17
PRESIDENT GARFlELDS WOUND.
DIR. HAMILTON REPLIES TO CRITICISMS
THE CASE TREATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS STATE

MENTs NOT JUSTIFIED.
| The current number of The Meticdi iscSs
contains parer written by DR.. Frank H. Hamilton on
the surgical treatment OF President Garfield In answer
to the OF the distinguished foreign surgeon
Esmarch OF KEEL who has undertaken to show that mis-
| takes made in Gartelds case, that wounds OF
that character are curable, and that the President
might have been saved. The wound. Dr. Hamilton says
was perforaton Of the body Of lumbar vertebra.
The two questions for discussion Has any human
being ever recovered from such wound and could
Garfield have been saved Two cas-s. he continues,
have been reported in which recovery has been
claimed from such wounds by Albers aud the oGher
by h mselt Neither is properly to termed estab-
lshed And yet. despite the fact that other Is
repor ted ssmarch says: In military surgery there
examples enough Of recovery from similar injuries
lie makes however specific reference to examples or
to authorities prove the of his assertion
unless we are to consider as authority his statement
that every hunter knows that the stag mostly survives
peculiar shot, tho socallei h0hlSchUSs The ball in
this case, ne adds, must directly through a
tebral body ITSELF The hOhiSchSs is considered 10 be
bad by the hunters, because by it they do not
the game. Tie animals thus wounded get
up and away. II So" continues
Dr. Hamilton, chow do the hunters know
that the stag been shot through lumbar vertebra
that he has been shot through any vertebra or, In
deed that his spine has been hit at all that he re-
coyered and II thI, gossip OF the deerhunters were
vertebre many times larger than human vertebra
must Of necessity happen when "a human being is
wounded 7 No mau who claims respect for his own
opinions should utter such NONSENSE and call 1t scen
uic and conclusive testimony"
After wing that of all foreign authorities, Esmarch
only surgeon of any reputation who has not COM
mended every step taken in the treatment OF Garfield,
and that they all together with the medical journals
"dcclared after the disclosures Of the autopsy that
the from the beginning utterly hopeless" Dr.
Hamilton takes up the particular criticism Esmarch
First that If the first called had not
sought for the ball with uncarbozsd fingers and instru
ments second II the surgeons called the second day
--Drs Agnew and HaniltOn-had not proDed with un-
carbolzed Instruments third il the subsequent man.
agement had been conducted anlseptcay and fourth,
II proper drainage had been secured with few minor
considerations, the patient might have been saved
As to the first objection the siact that railroad stations
do not keep carbolic acid tap is consi erred
a sufficient answer. AS to the second, Doctors Agnew
ana Hamilton did not probe AZ al Inc fdcts are mat
a probe into hand" he writes, "Dut seeing
that the office Of the Sound was nermetcay closed by
dry clOt OF blood declined To Introduce II, partly be-
there WAS danger OF renewing file hemorrhdge,
which had already been alarming, and partly because
satisfied that sufficient search mad already been
made by those who called. handed the probe
Dr. Agnew, aud he also refused TO introduce It, There
until suppuration had commenced. and never !
for the purpose % S9@rGs ia % m orG tp rbra
carboc acid was applied vigorously according to the
teachings Of Mr.. Lister, I'm spray aud IN solution from
the earliest that IL could he obtained and ap-
Piled, aud uu late day Of the treatment wnen under
the suspicion that It was eXerng septic unueuGe, tne
pOtassic permanganate substituted means of
injecting aud dlsnfecting the sinus; and hnally drain
secured by posture, drainage times aud cpun
10 found practicable to do So
In short. possible everything was done which
Mr. Esmarch thought Ougut 10 nave petu 'Iohe anu
everything was omitted which he Thought ought not TO
have been done
In regard to Esmarchs reference Garfelds
American physicians" to whom lie proceeds to de-
liver ftthery advice, Dr. Hamilton Detrdy5 a |
tuIng but pardOnaple annoyance. American surgeons
have not" he "durng the last twenty Ve OF thirty
years, been without experience III gunshOt wounds and
scarcely need to be advised by their Transatlantic |
brethren the matter Of their treatment To |
them there nothing In MIR. Esmarch's teach |
ings; and nothing which, In common with MT: |
this review of Esmarch's criticisms 10y say
In view OF tho fact that Mr. Esmarch has Thought
proper for him to publicly crtclse in all or It's details.
the treatment OF which he had never seen ana OF
OF which treatment. he. surgeon, |
knows could well Judge by any Nri ten dcscrp-
tiOn he could have Judged II lie himself had been IN
that those who had been invited to assume this respOns
bic duty the least his in experience,
reputed ability and this am permitted TO say
without including my,clD in view or the fact that thCrc
total lack evidence of the correctness OF his state
ment and positive assertions TO what has happened
other similar cases, and total lack OF /
logical sequence the application OF these imaginary
OF Mr. Gartei-lnd In view or the Tact
that lie evidently did not know mas misrepresent"d
the and gravity OF the wound aud that equally,
he did know has mlsr presented what was done |
these facts It be considered of place for
say that he well deserved To be taken seriously 10
task for utsrng the belief that this particular
the wound not of necessity fatal although lie |
animals recovered from can II be matter Of
surprise surgeons aud medical Journals bOth al
home and abroad in many cases regarded his comments
worthy Of rdcue, rather than OF serious discussion