Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/526

 In what respect was it right?—In the exhibition of opium.

In what respect was it wrong?—In giving any thing that would increase the irritation that already existed.

Have you seen the prescription which Dr. Edwards wrote that night?—No, I have not; but I would wish to see it—(here the prescription alluded to was shewn to the witness).

Now supposing a person to have retchings and purgings for several hours, and that you found these attended with frequent and fluttering pulse, in that state of the illness what should you have prescribed?—I should have prescribed diametrically opposite to the prescription of Dr. Edwards; I should consider that prescribed by Dr. Edwards as adding weight to a porter's back.

Mr. Justice Abbott (to the witness)—Don't speak metaphorically; you are speaking just now of a gentleman of experience and respectability: I don't wish you to conceal your opinion, but only to speak it in different language.

(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) You should have pursued a method diametrically opposite you say; now what is the course pursued by that prescription?—There was irritation already existing in the bowels, and that prescription, I conceive, would tend to increase that irritation.

Besides tending to increase the irritation, in your judgment what other effect would be produced by it, in that state of the person?—There was considerable debility or exhaustion, and I should think that would increase that debility and exhaustion.

What should you have given?—I should have supported the patient, and given opium in large doses.

Have you had an opportunity of examining many bodies after death?—A great many.

I will ask you, did it ever in the course of your practice happen to you to examine a body that had died of Cholera Morbus?—I attended a patient, but I can state the reasons why I did not do so.