Hence, instead of tetanus consisting "in a spasmodic contraction of the muscles of voluntary motion," it consists in a deranged state of the nervous system; and the contracted state of the muscles is only symptomatic of such derangement. Then what sense is there in blistering, bleeding, and inserting setons in the dewlap? Of what use is it to treat symptoms? Suppose a man to be attacked with hepatitis, (inflammation of the liver:) he has a pain in the right shoulder. Suppose the physician prescribes a plaster for the latter, without ascertaining the real cause, or perhaps not knowing of its existence. We should then say that the doctor only treated symptoms. "And he who treats symptoms never cures disease." Suppose locked-jaw to have supervened from an attack of acute indigestion: would it not be more rational to restore the lost function?
Suppose locked-jaw to have set in from irritating causes, such as bots in the stomach, worms in the intestines, &c.: would bleeding remove them? would it not render the system less capable of recovering its physiological equilibrium, and resisting the irritation produced by these animals on the delicate nervous tissues?
Suppose, as Mr. Youatt says, that locked-jaw sets in "after turning the animal out to graze during a cold night:" will a blister to the spine, or a seton in the dewlap, restore the lost function of the skin?
In short, would it not be more rational, in cases of locked-jaw, to endeavor to restore the healthy action of all the functions, instead of depressing them with the agents referred to?
Then the question arises, What are the indications to be fulfilled?
First. Restore the lost function.
Secondly. Equalize the circulation, and maintain an equilibrium between nervous and arterial action.
Thirdly. Support the powers of life.
Fourthly. If locked-jaw arise from a wound, then apply suitable remedial agents to the part, and rescue the nervous system from a pathological state.
To fulfil the fourth indication, we commence the treatment as follows:—