174

of diphtheria, I understood him to mean that the disease wasthe result of fungi attacking the mucous membrane. In theletter, however, which he has now published, it appears thathe thinks the parasite is in the blood, and that its develop-ment on the external surface of the mucous membrane of thethroat is a matter of secondary importance. If the parasitehas been found in the blood of diphtheritic patients, Dr. Lay-cock has a strong argument in favour of his theory. If, how-ever, it has not been discovered in the blood, may I inquireupon what data he has founded the hypothesis ?

I do not for a moment wish to deny that diphtheria may beof parasitic origin; but before I accept the doctrine, I musthave some more substantial proof of its correctness than whatyour correspondent has as yet given me. The muscardine ofthe silkworm, the blight of wheat, and the potato disease, mayall, as he states, be due to the presence of fungi; but why, Iask, am I to believe that they and diphtheria are identical intheir origin ? Do diseased potatoes communicate diphtheria toman, or diphtheritic patients contaminate the potato ? AgainI say, that until we have some other than mere hypotheticalevidence of the existence of fungi in the blood, the theory inmy opinion is premature.

I have tried to communicate the disease to animals, byinoculating their throats with the false membrane, and withthe secretion from the fauces of diphtheritic patients, but withnegative results (THE LANCET, Jan. 1st, 1859, p. 16). Fur-

. ther, I have injected into a healthy animal the blood of aperson who died of the disease, but still failed to reproduce it.Upon the result of this last experiment, however, I place noimportance -first, because it is unique; and secondly, becausethe blood had stood twenty-four hours after its removal fromthe patient before being used.

I may mention that in one case, that of a girl who died onthe third day of the disease, I made a careful microscopicalexamination of the blood, and detected neither filaments norsporules of fungi in it. The only thing, indeed, that attractedmy attention was, an apparent increase in the number of whiteblood-corpuscles. This observation, as well as the preceding, Iintend to repeat as soon as an opportunity offers itself. I shalllikewise take Dr. Laycock’s hint, and inject into the circu-lation of animals a quantity of the filaments and sporules offungi, in order to test the value of the parasitic hypothesis ofdiphtheria.

Dr. Laycock concludes his ably-written letter by recom-mending the employment of antiseptics and parasiticides inthe treatment of this deadly disease. The former I would cer-tainly recommend, in conjunction with other remedies; butI would hesitate in the employment of the latter, until ourknowledge of its pathology is more definite. The treatmentof diphtheria, I think, may be for the present embodied in afew words: Support from the outset the strength of the patient,and regulate the local applications according to the symptoms.

I am, Sir, &c.,Harley-street, Feb. 1859. GEORGE HARLEY, M.D.GEORGE HARLEY, M.D.

THE FUTURE OF QUACKERY.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-A quarter of a century ago, THE LANCET was theadvocate of Medical Reform, and its Editor then stood almostalone to fight the battles of the medical profession against thetyranny, exclusiveness, and lethargy of corporate bodies onthe one hand, and the impudence and effrontery of quacks onthe other. The contest has been long, and the struggle severe;but, at last, something has been gained. True, not everythingthat could be desired, but, from small beginnings, mighty re-sults often arise; and if the recent Medical Act be but accepted,not as the ultiinatum, but as a step in the right direction, theprospects of the profession must now be considered brighterthan they have been for many years. We should not, how-’ever, forget the labours of the man who fought on our behalfat a time when Medical Reform was an unpopular subject, andits advocate was sneered at by the very men he was endeavour-ing to serve.

Well, the Medical Bill has become law, and is now in ope-ration. Quackery has received a severe blow; and, if theprofession be true to itself, its death-warrant is nearly readyfor signature. It will die after all at the hands of the law-fit end for so heinous a criminal. It will not expire, however,without a great struggle, nor a desperate attempt to save itself.

Let it have no loophole for escape. There is one thing wantedat the present time to complete its overthrow, and that shouldnot be neglected. My object in this letter is to draw attentiontowards it. One great reason why quackery flourishes may bemost easily detected if its operations be examined. The wholerace of these impostors, with very few exceptions, and these,I believe, but nominal, trade upon " spermatorrhcea" and itsconsequences. How is this? ‘? Why is not heart disease, orlung disease, or intestinal derangement, or some other of the" ills that flesh is heir to," selected? Why do they not pro-fess to cure phthisis or diphtheria ? Surely there is a fine fieldfor their operations here. Why do they not advertize theirnostrums as infallible prophylactics against angina pectoris, ormorbus Brightii ? Why ride the spermatorrhoea hobby todeath? There is one reason for this, which, I think, mostmedical men must have observed. The treatment of the vesi-culæ; seminales has almost been left by the profession as a

legacy to charlatans. No really great work has been writtenon these diseases by an eminent medical man, either in Eng-land or on the Continent. In Germany I know of none. InFrance, but Lallemand’s work-a large cumbrous mass of in.coherent facts and erroneous theories. In England, none-ex-cepting the scanty chapters (the best of the kind, doubtless, butstill far too limited) that appeared in THE LANCET some shorttime since. Every medical man knows that nine-tenths of thecases of so-called spermatorrhoea are really nothing of the kind- that an examination of the urine of the patient with themicroscope would, in very many cases, prove infallibly theentire absence of spermatozoa in that fluid. Quacks boast ofusing the microscope. They use it, and, as the patient neverlooks into it, make it say anything they choose. The pro.fession, were it disposed, might wrest this instrument from thehands of charlatans. Why, then, do not some of our eminentsurgeons write a treatise on this much-talked-of disease, and,by such means, do something towards removing it from theprovince of quackery ?We can all remember when the practice of midwifery was

almost exclusively in the hands of ignorant old women. Itwas not considered respectable for medical men to practise it.The College of Physicians, long after the other bodies hadgiven way, refused its diploma to the accoucheur. Now it isnot considered beneath the dignity of men of the greateststanding in the profession to practise midwifery; some of themost eminent members of the College of Physicians are ac-coucheurs, and the College of Surgeons has a special examina-tion upon it. The result is, the old midwives, as a race, havenearly disappeared. Let some hospital or other surgeon takeup the subject of spermatorrhœa—treat us to a work upon it,and it will do very much towards drawing patients from thevortex of empiricism, where so many are swallowed up in itsfoul, black waters. Were this done, I verily believe that thehydra-headed monster might then be easily disposed of.We have a law now to prevent impostors from assuming

medical titles. Use your powerful and unwearied pen to in-duce the present Parliament to carry the measure a little far-ther, and prohibit practice by men without qualifications. Thatbeing done, we must labour to get rid of the paltry moneypenalty now to be inflicted upon offenders, and substitute forit imprisonment in a jail. Include in the lists of unqualifiedpractitioners the whole race of herbalist pill-mongers, ointment-vendors, catholican pretenders, prescribing druggists, et hoc

genus omne, and the work will be done. This, however, can-not be accomplished without great difficulty. The professionmust be up and doing. We must agitate the question, andremain true to ourselves. We have Sir Benjamin Brodie,Sir James Clark, Dr. Watson, and men of that stamp, nowto look after our interests. We must not neglect them our-selves. Can we not at the next election return one of thesemen to Parliament ? If it be possible, it ought to be done.Then, with THE LANCET out of the House, and an honest andtalented advocate in, our grievances might soon be all re-

dressed.I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

February, 1859. ORTHODOX MEDICINE.

THE "ANATOMY ACT."To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-The zeal which THE LANCET has so often evinced inpromoting objects of great professional importance induces merespectfully to solicit its co-operation, with a view to the per-manent removal of the difficulties that now oppress the Londonstudent in his efforts to acquire a competent practical know-ledge of anatomy and operative surgery.

175

Last year, in consequence of a circumstance the notoriety ofwhich renders it needless to particularize, a complete tempo-rary cessation took place in the supply of subjects for anato-mical purposes. The effect of this was to excite loud complaintson the part of those professionally interested, and an expressionof opinion by the general public in the highest degree encou-raging. The discontinuance of so important a branch of public ser- Ivice engaged the attention of the authorities, who exhibited

commendable concern in the matter, adopted some salutarymeasures, and, we were informed, expressed themselves favour-ably concerning a future suitable revision of the law.Some persons thought that the agitation which then occurred,

and the changes effected, would secure for the metropolitanmedical schools, for the future, a regular, abundant, andcheaper supply of subjects.Had it been in the power of official zeal to accomplish this,

doubtless these expectations would have been realized; butthe difficulty being dependent upon a defective state of thelaw, so desirable a consummation was hardly attainable, as theexperience of the current session painfully proves.Your metropolitan student-readers will, I am sure, concur

Bwith me in saying that the supply of subjects from all sourcesfalls, this term, very far short of what it was last winter, not-withstanding the temporary cessation, and is quite unequal tothe actual necessities of the schools. I know many gentlemenin my own and other hospitals who have vainly endeavouredfor two or three months to procure parts, and whose chancesof doing so before Easter are very meagre indeed. Some ofthese gentlemen will, however, of necessity, present themselvesto the different boards for examination during the spring.This is surely a great hardship and injustice to them and theirrelations, and at the same time a grievous loss to public in-terests.

Some prominent members of the profession appear by theirapathy to attribute to the subject inextricable difficulty, andthink its permanent, satisfactory settlement almost hopeless.I would venture humbly to question their reasons for so dis-couraging a conclusion. Public prejudice on the subject isinfinitely less than it was, and to it the present inadequatesupply is not attributable, but rather to a want of arrangement,and the insufficient power accorded by the law to the higherofficials, to prevent imposition by undertakers, and mastersand inmates of workhouses.

Feeling sure, Sir, that the difficulties that now oppress usadmit of easy permanent adjustment, without involving anyoutrage upon the feelings or prejudices of the poor, and bear-ing in mind the encouraging expressions reported to have beenuttered last year by the two highest authorities, permit me tosuggest that, as the medical students of the metropolis are soimmediately concerned, they should themselves take theinitiative, and organize a movement having for its object asuitable revision of the " Anatomy Act." For this purpose, I

Bwould advise that a Society should be formed, composed ofdelegates from all the London schools, whose object should bethe thorough investigation of the workings of the present Act, Band the causes of its failure, with a view to discover an effec-tive remedy.With our present information, and our opportunities, such a

task would not be difficult; and I doubt not that a representa-tion to the Home Secretary, founded upon such an inquiry,would meet with that attention which the public importanceof the subject, and the serious nature of the interests involved,would entitle to.

I will not anticipate the labours of the Committee proposedby pointing out the chief causes of the inadequate supply ofsubjects, which I could very easily do, but conclude with theexpression of a wish that you will deem the suggestion worthyof appearance in your influential columns, in the event ofwhich it will afford me pleasure to co-operate with any of yourreaders before referred to, so that an effort may be made tosecure the necessary legislative interference before the termi-nation of the present Parliamentary session.

February, 1859. A SENIOR STUDENT.

UNMARRIED WET-NURSES.(LETTER FROM MR. ACTON.)

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—You have animadverted in your "Medical Annota-

tions" of Jan. 29th, p. 113, on the attempt that has been latelymade to have fallen women employed as wet-nurses, and thusto open to them a path of return from vice. I am, heart and

soul, an advocate for that scheme ; and, therefore, I take uponmyself, not so much to reply to the remarks in your columns,as to point out the grounds on which :nyself and many othermembers of the medical profession think it highly desirable,and intend, until convinced of our error, to continue actingon it.

In the first place, let none suppose it is a new invention,proposed for the first time. Hundreds of mothers are physicallyunable to nurse their own children ; hundreds more ought not,and are told by their medical advisers that they ought not, onaccount of disease or debility; and for years past, and everyyear more and more largely, this want has been supplied to acertain extent by single women.No accoucheur in extensive practice can shut his eyes to the

demand for wet-nurses. He has to meet that requirementevery day; and I ask him (whoever he is) if he has ever beenable to supply it exclusively from the ranks of married women 2

There is the demand, already largely supplied by the veryclass that most wants help. We only ask that the supply maybe enlarged and regulated. Heaven knows there are enough.to select from. Remember, it is not street-walkers nor pro-fessional prostitutes we are speaking of. We are speaking ofthe young house-maid or pretty parlour-maid in the same streetin which the sickly lady has given birth to a sickly child, towhom healthy milk is life, and anything else death. With shameand horror the girl bears a child to the butler, or the police-man, or her master’s son. Of course she is discharged ; of courseher seducer is somewhere else; of course, when her savings arespent, she will have to take, with shame and loathing, to a lifeof prostitution. Now, she is healthy and strong, and there isa little life six doors off, crying out for what she can give, andwasting away for the want of it, and in the nursing of thatbaby is a chance, humanly speaking, of her salvation from thenit of harlotrv.

Send her to a reformatory, say some. Why? Is not the bestreformatory a helping hand stretched out in the way of honestwork and honest wages to the poor girl that the devils of wantand despair are pushing into the sin she shrinks from? Whysend her into an establishment meant for harlots, not for her?And if you send her to a reformatory, the lady’s baby may die.You cannot get married women, or, if you do, they are of akind that make the anxious doctor long after the unmarried.A married woman who voluntarily leaves her own child formoney may not be much better than the girl accidentally se-duced, who nurses another’s child for bread. It is not well toinquire what they were before they married. It is not safe tolook too closely into their present life and habits, if you wishto keep them, or your own peace of mind about the child. Itis not wise to be too acute in your inquiries about the husband,and the nature of the conjugal solicitude that keeps him eter-nally hanging about your area steps, or lounging in the backkitchen. You know the worst of the parlour-maid that has re-cently fallen. You certainly know the best of the marriedwet-nurse, who hawks about her breast of milk, accompaniedby her husband and the certificate, but you know little else.

Again, if they were, one and all, paragons of virtue and.maternal rectitude, they are not to be got; and it speaks rightwell for English working mothers that they are not. Everyaccoucheur will bear me out in this, that no wages can procuremarried women of any pretence to respectability to raise one-half the children whose mothers cannot and will not.Now, Sir, I assert, and I challenge anyone to disprove my

assertion, that employment as wet-nurses is, beyond all compa-rison, the most harmless and the most effectual means of reclaim-ing fallen women. No other comes near it.

It offers no premium to vice. The most vehement objectorwill not venture to say that any girl submits to be seduced onthe faith of getting employment as a wet-nurse when she be-comes pregnant.

It does not encourage a co)2tintta)zce in vice. My own expe-rience, and the testimony of the authorities of Queen Charlotte’s.and other lying-in institutions, convince me that in nearlyevery case the responsibility and enforced regular life attachedto the employment, reclaim the girl at once and for ever fromthe unformed habit of sin. She has had an awful warning;.and the charge of infancy, instead of being a burden crushingher into despair and ruin, is a solemn and joyful task, impress-ing that warning with irresistible force. They very rarely erragain, but make the best and safest servants that can b&

obtained.The next question is-Is there anything in the fact of the.secretion of breast-milk having been unblessed by the church,or unsanctified by the registrar’s office, that ipso facto rendersit, although still the natural and wholesome nourishment of