n of the patient No. 6, who fell into the hands of
another physician on the 2d of May. (Dr. C. left town for a few days at
this time.) Dr. C. attended cases immediately before and after the
above-named periods, none of which, however, presented any peculiar
symptoms of the disease."
About the 1st of July he attended another patient in a neighboring
village, who died two or three days after delivery.
The first patient, it is stated, was delivered on the 20th of March. "On
the 19th, Dr. C. made the autopsy of a man who died suddenly, sick only
forty-eight hours; had oedema of the thigh, and gangrene extending from a
little above the ankle into the cavity of the abdomen." Dr. C. wounded
himself, very slightly, in the right hand during the autopsy. The hand
was quite painful the night following, during his attendance on the
patient No. 1. He did not see this patient after the 20th, being
confined to the house, and very sick from the wound just mentioned, from
this time until the 3d of April.
Several cases of erysipelas occurred in the house where the autopsy
mentioned above took place, soon after the examination. There were also
many cases of erysipelas in town at the time of the fatal puerperal cases
which have been mentioned.
The nurse who laid out the body of the patient No. 3 was taken on the
evening of the same day with sore throat and erysipelas, and died in ten
days from the first attack.
The nurse who laid out the body of the patient No. 4 was taken on the day
following with symptoms like those of this patient, and died in a week,
without any external marks of erysipelas.
"No other cases of similar character with those of Dr. C. occurred in the
practice of any of the physicians in the town or vicinity at the time.
Deaths following confinement have occurred in the practice of other
physicians during the past year, but they were not cases of puerperal
fever. No post-mortem examinations were held in any of these puerperal
cases."
Some additional statements in this letter are deserving of insertion.
"A physician attended a woman in the immediate neighborhood of the cases
numbered 2, 3, and 4. This patient was confined the morning of March
1st, and died on the night of March 7th. It is doubtful whether this
should be considered a case of puerperal fever. She had suffered from
canker, indigestion, and diarrhoea for a year previous to her delivery.
Her complaints were much aggravated for two or three month
|