Lectures on the morbid anatomy, nature, and treatment, of acute and chronic diseases ... / by John Armstrong ; edited by Joseph Rix.

Date:
1834
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Lectures on the morbid anatomy, nature, and treatment, of acute and chronic diseases ... / by John Armstrong ; edited by Joseph Rix. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    27/880 (page 5)
    Lect. 1.] Morbid Anatomy. When the dissection of human bodies, as well as those of the inferior animals, fails to reveal the functions of different organs, then we may properly have recourse to experiments: but we are not justified in making experiments upon living animals without some distinct object. It is criminal to inflict unnecessarily any degree of pain upon the creatures which are placed in our power. Morbid Anatomy is of material assistance in ascertaining the functions of organs, and is therefore clearly connected with physiology. To give one illustration: if we were carefully to notice the symptoms of a certain affection of the brain, we might infer from the state of that brain, as displayed by dissection, what were the sound functions of the organ. Another important ad- vantage to be derived from morbid anatomy is the removal of any vague conjectures which may have been formed. By showing us the cause of death, it may give us an approximation to first prin- ciples—it may lead us to generalise the subject, by referring indivi- dual facts to certain more general facts or first principles. Ancient medicine is distinguished by conjectures, modern medicine by facts and legitimate inferences. The hypotheses of the ancients were built on shoals and quicksands, and Time, like a resistless wave, has swept them away; but the present foundation of medical science is laid broad and deep—on the firm rock; upon which may be erected, by the present and future generations, a splendid monu- ment, which shall stand unchanged amidst the shocks and con- vulsions of nature. The difference, indeed, between ancient and modern medicine chiefly arises from the diminution of the dread of the cultivation of sound and morbid anatomy which has of late years taken place both in the public and amongst private indivi- duals. Great part of modern pathology is the result of observations made within the last half century: Bonetus, Lieutaud, Buysch, Haller, Morgagni, and others, may have led the way; but I repeat that modern pathology is principally the result of the attention which has of late years been paid to the symptoms of disease, and more especially to the effects of disease as displayed by dissection; and it is strange that magistrates in this country seem to encou- rage that horror of anatomical research which still exists in the public mind. If any such individual were to reflect upon the im- portant duties which a medical man has to fulfil, he would never throw impediments in the way of any investigation by which a doubt may be cleared up, or that which was obscure may be ren- dered obvious and plain. Suppose, for example, that a medical man attends a child which dies, and that a doubt has been left on his