Note 7 — A DISSERTATION ON THE Inutility of Amputation.

Mr. Ranby, however, who was one of the surgeons of the British troops at the time of the battle of Dettingen, lays great stress upon the bark: It is true, that in one of his cases, having ordered it to an officer of seventy years of age, whose leg had been amputated, on account of his ancle, with the neighbouring parts, having been terribly shattered by a cannon ball, it did not keep the sore from growing worse, or prevent the patient's death. But that we may form a just estimate of the merit of the bark, and the effects of amputation at the same time, it will be necessary to compare this case with the one which precedes it. This comparison will, I imagine, be of use.——I shall quote the author's own words. “An Austrian officer, who had his hand miserably shattered by a cannon ball, was, by some accident, left in a wood near the field of battle, destitute of any manner of help, from Thursday till the Sunday following, when he was brought to Hanau. The next morning I was carried to see him, and to assist in taking off his arm. On viewing it, I found it mortified almost to the elbow, with a great swelling and inflammation quite up to the shoulder. As it was by no means adviseable to attempt an amputation in such circumstances, I proposed giving him the bark; which being no ways objected to, he entered upon immediately. The next day he was rather better: But, on the third, was evidently so. The inflammation was less, the swelling began to subside, and the edges of the mortification were separating. The arm was fomented and wrapped up in the oatmeal and stale beer poultice, with theriaca: And the dreadful symptoms which forbad the operation, were now so much abated, that his surgeons did not at all hesitate to take it off. But this was done to very little purpose; for three or four days after the amputation, being attacked with convulsions, he expired.”

I shall here subjoin five questions.

Would Mr. Bilguer have amputated in these two instances?

Would not his method have saved both these patients, especially the last?

Does not amputation seem to have contributed to their death?

Does it not evidently appear, that in the latter of these two cases, amputation destroyed the good effects of the bark, which seemed to conduct the patient to a speedy cure; and that in the former case, the bark had not power sufficient to repair the mischief occasioned by the amputation?

Does it not follow from these two observations, that however salutary the effects of the bark may be, those of amputation are hurtful in a greater degree? Tissot.