{ title: 'The corrector. (Auburn, N.Y.) 1839-18??, May 24, 1839, Page 1, Image 1', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/sn89071059/1839-05-24/ed-1/seq-1/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn89071059/1839-05-24/ed-1/seq-1.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn89071059/1839-05-24/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn89071059/1839-05-24/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: New York State Library
TUB CORRECTOR V O L . I.] A U B U R N , (N . Y .) W E D N E S D A Y , M A Y 24, 1839. [N O . £ T O T H E P U B L I C . By way o f recapitulation, I will briefly . resent the main points o f the medical tes timony, disposed o f in the last Corrector. It will serve to exhibit the conciliatory prow ess o f the jury- in bringing order out of in terminable chaos. A task which, I ven ture to affirm any physician duly conscious of' the responsibilities o f his profession, would have shrunk from in utter dismay. 1st* D r. Humphreys discovers in the liead indubitable evidences of marked dis ease but not enough to produce death .”— Now medical science would be .vastly in debted to Dr. H . i f he would find the least possible amount of diseased appearance of the brain, that would warrant an opinion of being evidence o f death. Or has he yet to learn that Dr Abercrombie, and every other standard writer, describe a disease termed “ simple a p o p l e x y which i3 often t'atu! within tw e n ty four hours, and leaves in the dead body no trace; not even con gestion of the vessels within the head ?— “ Dis. Brain, p. 2 2 5 . D r s. Van Epps and Hamilton, saw sufficient evidences of dis ease in the head to produce death. And think death produced by it. T h e former attributes it to the “ collection o f water on the brain” ! T h e idea o f “ water on the brain” producing death under any circum stances, is long since exploded. I, have quoted Dr. Christison and others to show that sanguineous apoplexy, inflamation of the brain and its membranes, and effusions of water in the head, may exist alon g time without marked symptoms or even alarm ing the patient, or his friends. D r. David Dimon found the same brain and its ap pendages perfectly healthy and natural.— No marks of d isease whatever— D o e s not believe the diseaso producing death, had any connexion with the head ! 2nd. In the chest D r . H u m p h r eys saw adhesions, (nothing more common. Baillie) 'ufaereler, (minht have existed from birth. Armstrong.) and engorgement o f blood (never absent unless the lungs are very much diseased, (jrfila.) Dr. David Dimon saw tubercles and hepatization, not en- georgement— informs us that they are dis tinct conditions, and in attempting to define them immolates M. Andral and all other writers who have heretofore attempted this diffinition, at the shrine of his own lore. Dr. Weaver saw turbercles also. But Dr. Van E p p s swore there were no tubercles p r e sen t! 3d. In the abdomen all noticed ulcers in the mucus membrane o f the large in testines from abstinence from food. Duncan. Or from tubercles in the part.— M e . Intlosh. Drs. Dim on and Weaver think the diseases it the chest and abdomen might have easily been detected & c. I have amply proved by Christison, Baillie, Lanneek, Eberlie, Damison, M . Andral and others, that all the different diseases, indicated by the a- bove morbid appearances, may, and not unfrequently, do, pursue their course a long time without exciting suspicion. That somo devetope them selves sooner than others,but all have concealed their formidable nature until the last moment. I beg the reader to bear in mind that the post-mortem appearances and conclusions, of which the preceding is a synopsis, are the witnesses ’,— not mine. H o w forcibly dons this review impress us with the truth of Dr. Beck’s assertion s; “ That too lit- t le discrimination is exercised in this coun try, in receiving all who are called doctors , as witnesses. That, comparatively, but few are qualified'for that responsibility, And that a duty is required o f them which in many cases, should rather be avoided Beck’s M ed. Jurisprudence v ol. 2 . p. 636. Thus far I have simply laid the medica testimony before the reader, accompanied with the views and opinions o f the best ntedical writers on the different points as offered. Admitting for the time that this whole catalogue o f d iseases did exist in the single person o f Yon E c k — and surely one Cannot conceive o f a more Protean ap proach o f the K ing o f Terrors— I have of fered proofs, how convincing, I shall not pretend to say,that they might have been so lapid, or certainly fatal as to render m edi cal assistance hopeless, or so insidious in their approach that their proximity could not be suspected till fatally too late. Agreeably to promise, I will now pre sent my own views of the case. “ T h e moral history of the individual, should i f possible, be ascertained, his dis position o f mind, and his worldly con dition.” B e c k ’s Med. Jar. vol. 2. p. 48. Cast on the shores of this country with the scum o f over populated Eur&pe, Yon E c k attempted to establish him self in an obscure county of Maryland as a phy sician! Driven from theie by a legal prosecution for his attempted imposition, the next record o f his life was conviction and sentence to Auburn Stale Prison.— H e was brought hero sometime in N o v e m ber last and received into the Hospital for an injury done his ancle on his transpor tation hither. H e was a young man of spare habit, light complexion, with a con formation predisposing to consumption.— H e informed me that that disease w a s he reditary in his family; that he had been treated for disease o f the lungs, and show ed me the marks o f cupping on his chest. On recovery from his lam eness he was dismissed to his shop. H e was received into the H o spital again as an hospital pa tient on the 1st o f February following;— Up to this time, Von E c k , so far as came to my knowledge was a good convict.— O c c a s ionally reporting h im s e lf to the hos pital he roceived medical prescription w h e n indicated and returned to his place apparently content. H is labor was com paratively nothing, as can be learned on reference to his keeper, the contractors or foreman o f h is shop. H e was retained this time as a hospital patient till about the middle o f the month, (F e b .) and discharg* ed cured, but as unable to labor from gen eral debility, and indefinitely excused therefrom as testified by Pierson. From this period his conduct seem ed entirely changed— continually haunting the hospi tal without cause and interfering with and molesting the stewards and invalids when uffered to remain there— wantonly in dulging the most disgusting habits o f per sonal filthiness, boasting that “ the people in the c ity ” meaning village, “/rneiw how he was abused a n d would take his p a r t.” H is insolence became insupportable, and so transparent were hid intentions, that the steward, Benjamin Rathbun, voluntarily— and this is the only instance in which he nai presumed to do so— expressed his pe*\ ex co an ve feet conviction that his whole study we s to make all the trouble possible. I ressed to him frankly my opinion of his duct, and explained to him the unpleas- consequences to himself, that a perse- ance in it would inevitably lead to. I kwill take occasion here to correct a v ^ y important misrepresentation (acci dental probably) in the published testim o ny. I am made to say, “ “ I might have sent him away to his shop or cell (but not to work) because there were not beds e- nough.” In answer to the question elic iting the above pretended reply, I stated that I did not at any time send him down on that account. Such an excuse never existed. Since my connection with the hospital every thing necessary to its well being and comfort o f the sick has been promptly and liberally provided. N o r have I kver to my knowledge or belief been inlerfered with'in the performance o f my duty there, directly nor indirectly by Capt. L^nds. On the contrary, he has uniformly yielded its exclusive manage ment to <ne, and denied himself, and as far as practicable those under him, any inter ference vtithi the sick after so reported till discharged. That he has been unable to prevent the fatal intermedling o f others will appear in the sequel. From this time forward Y o n E c k chan ged his plan o f operation. First, he affected sudden fainting, but was detected in his second e rA'rt by my being accidentally at the hospital during tho attempt. H is next ruse was pretended paralysis. From an examination o f his cell I was satisfied he feigned it, and made use o f every suasive effort in my power to induce him to go peaceably to his shop, but without suc cess, ahd proposed to Capt. Lynds a flog ging as a last resort to make him obedient. And he received five or six blows from tho “ cat” across his feet in his cell, and one across his hands after he left i t : upon which he walked away to his shop without any further difficulty. H e re I may be taxed with a want o f courtesy, not charge able on the jury, by neglecting to fortify m y opinion o f Yon E c k ’s paralysis, by that of M r . Stevenson , who swears “ that he thinks his lam eness and inability to use his legs was feigned & c.” And particu larly since the jury have endorsed the in fallibility of his medical opinion together with that o f M e ssrs. Hagaman and R ich ardson, (tw o other keepers,), by receiving it a s the only evidence lhat I can find, for that part o f iheir verdict declaring Von E c k “ actually sick.” T h e opinions o f no men on earth are entitled to more deffer- ence, in their rospeclive spheres, than these sam e M essrs. S. II. and R . But I have long since adopted it as a rule of practice not to rt-apexclusively, on non-professiona! men, for professional opinions. And o f all situations, that rule should be rigedly adhered to here. W ho that has ever had any connexion with convicts, does not know that every “ ill that flesh is heir to,” is by times successfully counterfeited by them either from sheer wontenness or to effect some special object, such as procur ing a release from prison, or from labor, or to secure som e much coveted indulgence? But to return. T h e next morning I v isi ted Von E c k , without being solicited, at his shop and to my inquiry after his health, he replied “ well” or “ well enough.” At this time there was a change o f keepers, in Bis shop, and he was comparatively quiet for som e ten days or more, when he com plained of inability to retain food on his stomach and was prescribed for accord ingly. T h e prescriptions were repeated, and varied from time to time on his repre- saitalion o f their inefficiency, after I was satisfied from personal examination, and information from those who had the imme diate charge o f him, that he did not vom it ; and that he did not in fact require medi cine. I was aware however that all this ti A he did not attempt to eat his rations. I ® did he labor. Well knowing the pen a l ^ he was incurring for infractions o f a long.established, and wholesome rule o f prison discipline, in pertinaciously report ing himseif to the hospital without suffic ient cause, I prescribed simples or allow ed him to do so for him self till forbearance ceased to be a virtue, aware that in so do ing I erred, but conscious that I was erring on the side o f clemency. In corroboration o f this part o f my statement I will repeat verbatim a portion o f S. H . Pierson’s tes timony, which the jury, have not published, probably from its repugnancy to their ver dict. After testifying that he, Yon E c k , had been permitted to prescribe for him se lf in the hospital, the witness continued. “ H e ” Von E c k , “ appeared to like the doctor very well— h a d nothing particular against B r i g g s —J must h ave g o t this from Von E c k — W hen I had direction of which I have spoken, to e x c u s e him from work, I did not tell Lynds.” It was at this time that he was “ catted” by Capt. L . in the presence o f Richardson, and testified to by both, as consisting o f from five to eight blows. Tuesday 2d. Apr. he came to hos pital, was retained and treated for gener al debility. Still refused nourishment of any kind, made the same excuse as for merly, nausea, and vom iting; but sncl. as we were able to get down him by dint o f earnest persuasions and som e force, was retained. T h e quantity however was in sufficient to sustain life. H is symptoms indicated no new functional derangement, nor was there manifested any additional organic disturbance, up to Saturday eve ning. Sunday M orn. 7th Apr. I visited him at 6 o’clock A. M. Found him par- r tially comatose lethargic, with difficulty L could engage his attention to a simple ques tion, complained of som e pain in the back o f the h e a d ; his tongue coated dark brown and dry in centre ; sorties on-lips and t e e th ; skin dry, heat rather pungent; pulse ac celerated and feeble, breathing laborious: pupil o f eye medium size and im m o v e a b le; 5 o’clock, P. M . Coma, perfect; had had involuntary stool dark and foetid, oth er symptoms not materially varied. Died that evening. Will the candid reader now, in connexion with the foregoing, take up the jury’s pub lished report o f testimony and see what there is to warrant the charge of report ing Von E c k from time to time well when he was actually sick. I have already sta ted lhat from the first his general confor mation and appearance indicated a predis position to consumption— That I had dis covered on his person evidences c f coui, ter-irritation and cupping for pectoral dis ease, as he informed me, and distinctly sta ted so to the jury. That I repeatedly dis charged him from the hospital without medicine and as not requiring any, is very true. Because a man is predisposed, eith er congenitally or from habit, to consump tion, gout or apoplexy, does it follow as a matter o f necessity, that he must at all times be laboring under the special mala dy? And finally die o f that and no other disease? Or if perchance, he die o f in flammation o f bovyels or a broken leg,would his physician be chargeable with “ inexcu sable neglect, and want of proper care.” because forsooth, a post-mortem examina tion discovers tuberculated lungs, a short neck, or his gouty toe ? I appeal to ihe jury’s published testim o ny again, garbled and distorted as it is to suit a predetermined verdict, if he was in a single instance driven to labor, as an originally healthy man ? Is there a par ticle o f testimony to show that he was’ driven to labor at all save that o f the wit ness Pierson ? H e says he had orders from me, excusing him from w o r k ; “ That Capt. Lynds, said I must set him to work. I told him he was not a b le ; he said let him work moderately, don’t crowd him .” Subsequently Pierson, swore, “ When I had directions o f which I have spoken to excuse him from labor, I did not tell L y n d s .” N o w why in the name of justice was not this important item of testimony published in connexion with the rest, where it legiti mately belonged ? W a s it because the jury was fearful o f its clashing with the “ general harsh treatment” clause o f their verdict. On the contrary it was proved that he w a s an especially favored man.— H e was called my protege.& c. It appears that M essrs. Stevenson, Richardson and Hagaman think, honestly without doubt>
