A letter addressed to James Syme, esq., Professor of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, in refutation of certain statements made both by him and others, his advocates, in relation to a case of stricture of the urethra, in which the operation of perineal section was performed / by Francis Burdett Courtenay.

  • Courtenay, Francis Burdett, 1811-1886.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter addressed to James Syme, esq., Professor of Clinical Surgery, Edinburgh, in refutation of certain statements made both by him and others, his advocates, in relation to a case of stricture of the urethra, in which the operation of perineal section was performed / by Francis Burdett Courtenay. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    26/32 (page 26)
    4. Do you deny having been generally, from time to time, up to nearly the end of last year, informed by the patient of the recurrence of all his unfavourable symptoms; as, for example, the spasms, the difficulty in urinating, retention of urine, rigors, his inability to pass any but instruments of the smallest size, and the necessity of even then retaining them for days together, according to the plan adopted by me previous to the performance of your operation ? 5. Will you now dare to maintain that the quotation from your secondletteraddressedto “CritoHypercriticus,” terminating thus— “When I last heard of this patient in April, 1851, he continued to be in a materially improved state, not quite well, but in com- fort, when he passed the catheter every five or six weeks”—is not calculated utterly to mislead the reader as to the patient’s true con- dition 1 “ When he passed the catheter everyfive or six weeks,” eh, Mr. Syme ! Is that it ? When he passed the catheter every five or six weeks ! How simple and beautiful it sounds !! How nice it reads ! ! ! How wonderful the relief!! !! What greater amount of relief could a patient, having for years laboured under such an intractable stricture, and endured so much suffering, desire 1 How unreasonable, therefore, not to say ungrateful, must he be, not to be satisfied ! And what malignant carpers must those, who have denied your statements in respect to the results of this case, appear in the eyes of such as may be credulous enough to believe your representations! But, alas! for your complete veracity, although the fact of the patient’s only requiring (on an average) to pass a catheter once in five or six weeks is true, yet the inference you would have the reader draw is totally erroneous, and wide indeed from the true state of the case. For ivhen he has so passed it, he dare not withdraw it in the usual manner, as your mode of stating this fact icould lead every body to infer. But he must then go to bed, icear it for twenty-four hours, then pass another, and retain it also for the like time, and so on till a moderate sized one lies perfectly loose in the urethra. This feat accomplished, he may then leave his bed, and, unless anything unusual occurs, he, after this, may remain pretty well for another interval of five or six weeks. Such has been the patient’s true condition, from February the 5th, 1850, up to the