831

Board a free hand in dealing with the question, and, j judgingmerely from the report, it would seem that no condition waswanting to enable an accurate determination to be made ofthe conditions under which tuberculin is a trustworthy test.As it is, the Board has done much commendable work on alarge scale, but appears to have made little endeavour toformulate at the outset any scientific basis for its action.After reading the report it is hardly surprising to discovertbat considerable dissatisfaction has arisen, and that the

Legislature has been compelled to suspend the powers of theBoard and appoint a commission to consider the questionafresh.

UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTICE ANDDEATH CERTIFICATES.

AN inquest was held at Coventry on March 15th before Mr.Charles Webb Iliffe, coroner for North Warwickshire, on thebody of William Alfred Gumbley, the sixteen months oldchild of a bicycle polisher living at 4 court, 5 house, Leicester-street, Coventry. The case excited much interest in the cityowing to the discussion which took place at the inquest as tothe issue of the death certificate.The mother of the child deposed that he had been healthy

from birth, but on the previous Monday she noticed thathe was very poorly. When her husband came home atdinner time she told him of the child’s illness, and the fathersaid to her, "Have you got a shilling ? " and she replied"Yes." He then said, ’’ You go and take the boy to Miller-chip," and she took him to 4, Swanswell-place and saw"Dr." Millerchip.-The Coroner : Why did you call him"Dr. Millerchip" ? Witness: That is what I have heardthe Coventry people call him.-You did not know hewas not a medical practitioner ? If I had I should not havetaken the child to him.-Yon only had a shilling ? No, sir. Iwent to Millerchip’s and when the door was opened I sawan assistant who took me into a room and "Dr." Milll’rcbip.came in with him.-Were there any other people there ? Noone else; only the "doctor" and his assistant. The latterlooked at the child, said it was a very bad case, gave me a

powder, and told me to take the child home and give him awarm bath.-Is it a fact or not a fact that you did not seethe assistant at all ? Both were there when 1 went the firsttime, but the assistant gave me the powder and "Dr."Millerchip went out. The assistant said the child was as badas ever he coald be.-What did "Dr." Millerchip say? Hedid not say anything whatever.-You were really consultingthe other person, the assistant ? Yes.-You paid a shilling tothe assistant or to Millercbip? To Millerchip. -When youstarted from home whom did you think you weie going to see,Mr. Millerchip or the assistant ? I did not know whom I shouldsee; I wanted to see anybody who could save my child.I went with the intention of seeing Mr. Millerchip.-Had you seen the assistant before ? ? Yes. The witness wenton to say that a few weeks before the child was taken to theCoventry and Warwickshire Hospital, but she was told thatwhooping-cough (from which he was suffering) was nottreated there.-Whom did you go to with this child ? ‘° Dr. "

Millerchip.-You thought Mr. Millerchip was a doctor? ? Yes,i did,-Have you since learnt differently’! Yes, or I shouldhave my baby now.-Did you know that if your child diedMr, Millerchip had no power to give a certificate for burial ?tdid not know. I thought he was a doctor. On leavingMillerchip’s house she took the child home and bathed him,but he got worse. She went to MiIlerchip again in theevening, and he then said to her, "1 have done all that I canfor the child." Her husband then said, "I will call inanother doctor," and he went for Mr. Overton, surgeon, whocame at 10.30 P.M -Did Mr. Millerchip’s assistant make anyvisit? No; I could not get "them" " to come. The child diedwhile her husband had gone to Mr. Overton’s for medicine. She(the mother) went to Mr. Millerchip for a certificate, and hesaid he could not give one. -For what reason ? ? Because wehad called another doctor in.-Had you seen this assistant atMr. Millerchip’s before ? No.-Did you only a little time agosee another assistant! Yes.-Mr. Overton declined to give acertificate. She and her husband went to Millercbip againthe next morning, and he then gave a certificate, the causeof death being put as convulsions, secondly as exhaustion,aid the paper was signed "Samuel Murphy, L.R.C.S.I.’

Mr. Millerchip said, " We will give a certificate rather thanhav3 any bother about it."The coroner, in reply to the foreman of the jury, stated

that Mr. Millerchip was not entitled to give a certificate, henot being a qualified practitioner. Mr. Murphy was regis-tered in Ireland. There had been (added the coroner) anumber of cases that had been attended by Mr. Millerchip inpeople’s own homes, and then an assistant had been calledin at the last moment for the purpose of giving a certificateof death. The registrars had sometimes objected to acceptthese certificates without reference to the coroner. Theseassistants were, as it were, "covering" Mr. Millerchip andsaving him from responsibility.John Gumbley, the child’s father, was next called, and he

corroborated the wife as to the child being taken to Mr.Millerchip, whom he had heard epoken of as "a cleverman."-The Coroner : Do you think he was clever as adoctor ? Yes -Did yon know he was not legally qualified asa doctor at all ? No. He knew a lot of people went to him,but had not heard of Mr. Millerchip visiting patients. Thefather went on to say that Mr. Overton, when be saw thechild alive, thought that poison must have been taken. Onhis going to Swanswell-place for a certificate he toldMr. Millercbip he had called in another doctor, and Miller-chip then said, "If you have called in another doctor it isnothing to do with me. I can give no certificate." He wenta second time, and then Millerchip said to him, in the

presence of the assistant, "You don’t want your child to becut open and hacked ? " and he replied " No." Then Miller-

chip turned to the assistant and said, "You had better givehim a certificate," and the assistant wrote one.Thomas Golby, coroner’s officer, deposed that the registrars

of deaths in the city had called his attention to certificatesof deaths of persons treated at 4, Swanswell-place. Thiswas the fifth case since Jan. lst where it was alleged thatcertificates were signed by assistants who had seen thepatients only a short time before death. His investigationsled him to believe that Mr. Millerchip had attended peopienot only at his surgery, but in their own homes.-TheCoroner: As a professional man ? Yes. S meone else hasgone to the patient just before death, and then signed thecertificate at death. He remembered a case of the sort thatcame before the coroner eighteen months ago. The assistantthen was an old man, who admitted that he was called in forone visit before death.

Mr. Percy Edgar Overton proved that he and Mr. EdwardPhiilipa made a post-mortem examination of the body of thechild Gumbley, and that they were unable to say what wasthe cause of death. The child’s organs were healthy. Mr.Phillips added that he was not in a position to say whetherthe secondary cause was exhaustion. All depended on whatexhaustion meant.The Coroner summed up the case for the jury, and com-

mented on the impropriety of a medical man giving a

certificate of death without full acquaintance with the case,and of a system of cover " to an unqualified person.The jury returned a verdict of "Death from natural

causes."

ANÆSTHESIA IN THE LOWER ANIMALS.

NOT very long after the introduction of chloroform as ananaesthetic into medical practice, and when its beneficent andpain-suppressing powers had been fully demonstrated onmankind, inquiry began to be made as to why its mercifulirifluence should not be extended to the domestic animalswhen they had to undergo painful operations, especially thoseof a protracted kind ; and we remember reading a mosteloquent appeal for its employment in the case of the horsein a clever little book, published nearly forty years ago, bySir Francis B. Head, entitled "The Horse and his Rider."This appeal is perhaps as necessary now as it was when firstmade, and certainly it should be brought again to the noticeof those who, for some reason or other, do not resort toanæsthesia, general or local, when plying the cutting instru-ment, the burning iron, or other pain-producing agent onanimals. In the section of his book on chloroforming horses,after dwelling on the unspeakable boon that had been con-ferred on man by the application of anæsthetics in theabolition of suffering and agony, he says : "Now, if in

832

return for this extraordinary alleviation, or rather annihila-tion, of all sufferings under surgical treatment, man shoulddeem it his duty to render thanks to that Omnipotent Powerfrom which it has proceeded, is it possible for him practicallyto perform any more acceptable act of acknowledgmentthan to allow the dumb creatures in his service to partici-pate in a blessing which, by Divine authority, has been

imparted to the possessors, not exclusively of human reason,but without favour or exception of animal life 7 As regardshis horses, the performance of this duty is especiallyincumbent; for not only, like all other animals, are theyliable to the accidents and ills that flesh is heir to, but someof the cruelest operations to which they are subjected-such,for instance, as cutting off and cauterising their tails, burn-ing their sinews with red-hot irons, dividing and cuttingout a portion of a nerve (sensory), with other excruciatingoperations on young horses, under which they are oftenheard to squeal from pain-are inflicted on them to complywith either a useless as well as a barbarous fashion ; or toenable them ’ to go for another season’s hunting’ ; or

for the attainment of conveniences of which the horsederives not the smallest share ; or to make them sound

enough to sell’ ; and as the high-bred, broken-downhunter has no voice to ask for mercy, as he cannotboast of possessing reason, or as he has inherited no know-ledge, as he has no power to bequeath any, as his whole

energies have been devoted to the service and enjoyments ofman, by whose mechanical contrivances he is now ’ cast’ withhis four feet shackled together, lying prostrate on a heap ofstraw, just before the red hot iron sears his overstrainedsinews or the sharp knife is inserted into his living flesh-surely in a civilised country like England some high powershould be authorised to exclaim, not Woodman, spare thattree !’ but ’ Sportsman, save that horse!’ by chloroformfrom the agonibing torture to which you have sentenced him.You are a man of pleasure-save him from unnecessary pain.You are a man of business-incribe in that ledger in whichevery one of the acts of your life is recorded, on one side howmuch he will gain, and on the other, per contra, how verylittle you will lose, by the evaporation ot a fluid that will notcost you the price of the shoes of the poor animal whosemarketable value you have determined, by excruciating agonyto him, to increase."This urgent appeal concludes with another allusion to the

benefits chloroform has conferred on the human species,and adds : "If, therefore, man to this enormous

extent is benefited by chloroform, what right has he to

withhold it from his own animals, to whom, not onlyin equity, but by the laws of God it belongs as muchas it belongs to him ? 2 Their claims are so affectingand so obvious, the remedy that would save them from allpain is so cheap and simple, that we feel it is only necessaryto appeal to the public to obtain by acclamation a verdict intheir favour."

Notwithstanding this and similar appeals and remon-

strances, the employment of ansesthetics has made slowprogress in veterinary practice, expense, trouble, and timebeing usually the pleas offered for their non-adoption. Anumber of veterinary surgeons, however, resort to them onevery possible occasion, and, putting the avoidance of painon one side, testify to the advantages they derive fromthem ; indeed, there are some operations which could not beattempted with any hope of a successful result unlessthe animal is under the influence of an anaesthetic. Even incases of difficult parturition, partial anaesthesia, especially inthe mare, is found to be most advantageous in effecting delivery. Of all animals the horse is the one to which Ichloroform can be most safely administered ; in fact, it issometimes an arduous task to destroy this creature by inhala-tion of the drng. It has been given to hundreds-it might besaid thousands-of horses, almost undiluted with air, andwith absolute impunity. But some veterinary surgeons imaginethat there may be danger in this rapid ana;sthesia, and advisethe mixture of chloroform and air, which, if it requires alonger time to produce the necessary degree of narcosis, issafer. However this may be, it is gratifying to find thatattention is being increasingly directed to this matter; andamong those who have distinguished themselves in this

direction, and have laboared to dispel the prejudice whichstill opposes the use of chloroform, must be named Mr.Wallis Hoare, F.R.C.V.S., Cork, who, in advising the dilutionof chloroform vapour with air during inhalation, has improvedon the ordinary apparatus by a modified bag and foot bellows,which appears to be easily worked and effective. For adult

horses the quantity of chloroform required in this apparatusis from one and a half to two ounces, the time occupied inproducing complete anaesthesia varying from ton to fifteenminutes, and Mr. Iloare regards loss of muscular power in,the limbs and loss of sensation on striking the animalfirmly on the quarter as the best indications of the properstage at which operations may be commenced. Mr. Hoareisevidently an enthusiast in this humane practice of veterinarysurgery, and it is earnestly to be hoped that his example maybe largely followed ; for though all animals should receivemerciful consideration when they have to undergo operations,surely none of them is more entitled to this than the horse,whose muteness under the infliction of pain seems to leadpeople to think that he suffers but little-a grave error,but one which has caused him to be more abused and torturedthan all the others put together.

THE

COMPLIMENTARY DINNER TO SIR JOHN E.ERICHSEN, SIR J. RUSSELL REYNOLDS,

AND SIR JOHN WILLIAMS.

SIR JOIIN E. ERICHSEN, Sir J. Russell Reynolds, andSir John Williams were entertained at dinner on Wednesdayevening by their colleagues, friends, and pupils at the CriterionRestaurant. The Vice-President of University College, LordReay, presided.Lord REAY, in rising to propose the health of the three dis-

tinguished guests, said it was impossible to leave out of sightthe extraordinary revolution which the science of which theywere the illustrious representatives had undergone. Afterbriefly tracing the development of their professional know-ledge and touching upon the recent discoveries of Roux withreference to diphtheria ; of Lord Rayleigh and ProfessorRamsay with regard to argon and helium ; of Kitasato withregard to the microbe of the plague ; of Sir Joseph Lister,Pasteur, and others, he said the conquests which had beenachieved were tangible ones, tending to make life more worthliving. Referrirg to the efforts which had been made to riàthe profession of quackery, he would like to see other

professions adopt something similar to the Medical Register.He saw little signs, however, of getting rid of qnacksin other professions, and in this respect the medical

profession in England had been singularly fortunate.To belong to such a profession was in itself a greathonour. To rise to a leading position in the profes.sion such as that which their three guests held madeit superfluous to enter into biographical details. Of SirJohn Erichsen it was sufficient to mention that he wasthe author of a standard work on the Science and Artof Surgery ; and those who had worked with him, for him,and under him, in University College knew the stimulatingpower of his work His example had left an indelible mark.Sir Russell Reynolds’ "System of Medicine" alone entitledhim to the position he held, and Sir John Williams hadmastered in all their medical and surgical ramifications thescience and art of gynaecology. In offering congratulatioD&to these gentlemen it could not be forgotten that this officialrecognition of their talents followed the natural selectionof the fittest by those best able to judge. It was a note-

worthy fact that in the medical profession the State was COD-spicuous by its absence, except when it created baronets.The medical schools were self-governing institutions, the

hospitals were not aided or controlled by County Conncils,and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons werecorporations which were absolutely their own masters. Itwas a situation which was absolutely unique in the world,and if it could be followed by other professions would betotheir advantage. It was a great honour to University Collegethat its medical school claimed all three of their guests,and that in Sir John Erichsen they had a past President ofthe Royal College of Surgeons, and in Sir Russell Reynoldsthe actual President of the Royal College of Physicians.Their position had been attained not only by the splendourof their intellect, but by the self-sacrifice of which through-out their careers they had given such abundant proof. LordReay then piid a tribute to the memory of the late SirWilliam Savory, testifying to the good work be had done onthe Royal Commission on the University of London.The toast of the evening was spoken to by Sir Henry