FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1896   1897   1898   1899   1900   1901   1902   1903   1904   1905   1906   1907   1908   1909   1910   1911   1912   1913   1914   1915   1916   1917   1918   1919   1920  
1921   1922   1923   1924   1925   1926   1927   1928   1929   1930   1931   1932   1933   1934   1935   1936   1937   1938   1939   1940   1941   1942   1943   1944   1945   >>   >|  
s's book and my Essay in his hands at the same time. Question. "If such facts as Roberton's cases were before you, and the attendant had had ten, or even five fatal cases, or three, or two even, would you, or would you not, if insuring the life of the next patient to be taken care of by that attendant, expect an extra premium over that of an average case of childbirth?" Answer. "Of course I should require a very large extra premium, if I would take take risk at all." But I do not choose to add the expressions of indignation which the examination of the facts before him called out. I was satisfied from the effect they produced on him, that if all the hideous catalogues of cases now accumulated were fully brought to the knowledge of the public, nothing, since the days of Burke and Hare, has raised such a cry of horror as would be shrieked in the ears of the Profession. Dr. Meigs has elsewhere invoked "Providence" as the alternative of accident, to account for the "coincidences." ("Obstetrics," Phil. 1852, p. 631.) If so, Providence either acts through the agency of secondary causes, as in other diseases, or not. If through such causes, let us find out what they are, as we try to do in other cases. It may be true that offences, or diseases, will come, but "woe unto him through whom they come," if we catch him in the voluntary or careless act of bringing them! But if Providence does not act through secondary causes in this particular sphere of etiology, then why does Dr. Meigs take such pains to reason so extensively about the laws of contagion, which, on that supposition, have no more to do with this case than with the plague which destroyed the people after David had numbered them? Above all, what becomes of the theological aspect of the question, when he asserts that a practitioner was "only unlucky in meeting with the epidemic cases?" (Op. cit. p. 633.) We do not deny that the God of battles decides the fate of nations; but we like to have the biggest squadrons on our side, and we are particular that our soldiers should not only say their prayers, but also keep their powder dry. We do not deny the agency of Providence in the disaster at Norwalk, but we turn off the engineer, and charge the Company five thousand dollars apiece for every life that is sacrificed. Why a grand jury should not bring in a bill against a physician who switches off a score of women one after the other along his private track, when he k
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1896   1897   1898   1899   1900   1901   1902   1903   1904   1905   1906   1907   1908   1909   1910   1911   1912   1913   1914   1915   1916   1917   1918   1919   1920  
1921   1922   1923   1924   1925   1926   1927   1928   1929   1930   1931   1932   1933   1934   1935   1936   1937   1938   1939   1940   1941   1942   1943   1944   1945   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Providence

 

diseases

 
secondary
 

agency

 

premium

 

attendant

 

unlucky

 

meeting

 

epidemic

 

practitioner


Question

 

asserts

 

nations

 

decides

 

battles

 

question

 
aspect
 

Roberton

 

supposition

 

contagion


plague

 

theological

 

numbered

 

destroyed

 
people
 

choose

 

biggest

 
squadrons
 

sacrificed

 
physician

private
 
switches
 

apiece

 

dollars

 

prayers

 

soldiers

 

powder

 
charge
 
Company
 

thousand


engineer

 
disaster
 
Norwalk
 

extensively

 

reason

 

average

 
invoked
 

Profession

 

horror

 

shrieked