The Columbus Medical Journal (Volume 21) (Paperback)

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: and ssanati0n AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL SESSION, HELD AT DENVER, COL., JUNE 7, S, 9 AND 10, 1898. [Arranged from Proceedings published in the Medical Record and the Philadelphia Medical Journal.') (Continued from page 30.) Dr. J. E. Moore, of Minneapolis, said that neither physicians nor surgeons should be dogmatic, but should draw conclusions only after earnest, careful and scientific study and observation. This could be best done by consultations bet veen physician and surgeon. At one time he had held the opinion that no great effort should be made to remove the appendix, but more recently he had broken down adhesions when necessary and had removed the appendix, with a successful issue in every instance. Dr. Grant, of Louisville, said that this unfortunate diversity of opinion in the profession was apparently responsible for many deaths. It was because the surgeons lacked confidence among themselves that many cases did not come to them until it was too late. It seemed to him infinitely better for the surgeons to perfect their diagnostic resources than to study special methods of operation. Dr. Porter, of Fort Wayne, said that to carry the argument of Dr. Niles to a logical conclusion meant that an ulcerated ileum infected with typhoid bacilli must be removed because it was incapable of recovery. In many instances it was far better not to do a complete operation. In an experience comprising over one hundred cases he had not seen a recurrence from leaving the appendix behind. The chief guide in the treatment of this, as of other conditions, should be common-sense. Dr. Coley said that the tendency, in New York Citv at least, was to do the complete operation, carefully dissecting away the adhesions and removing the appendix. He had pe...