Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/26

 under the head of poisons; and in the history of the effects of copper and lead, we have particularly explained the evils that may arise from the careless use of such metallic utensils in cookery.

Whether any and what remedies have been used; by whom recommended; and by whom administered?—The importance of this part of the enquiry is too obvious to require explanation; we are to learn from it whether the administration of the medicines might not have accidentally contributed to the aggravation of the symptoms they were designed to allay; suppose, for instance, we were to be told that the patient had resorted to copious libations of brandy to mitigate the sufferings of the bowels, which were afterwards found to depend upon Enteritis; the inference is obvious—but in performing this part of our professional duty, the greatest caution is necessary, and we must take care that our own medical opinions do not carry us to an unjustifiable extent in our reprehension of the plan of treatment which has been pursued by others; a striking instance of this want of propriety occurred in the late celebrated trial of Donnell, and was very properly denounced by the court, (see page 161 in the second volume, and Appendix, p. 304.) But there still remains another reason why we should cautiously and attentively examine any medicine that may have been administered, and it would be right in the practitioner to procure a portion of such medicine, with a view to its future analysis; for it has happened that where the assassin has supposed that his first dose would be insufficient to effect his purpose, he has artfully insinuated an additional dose in the medicines which are administered for the relief of his victim, and thus the hand, which is treacherously held out with pro