In the main Davaine’s table and my own show a remarkable correspondency, as is seen in the numbers referring to hydatids of the liver, heart, and bones respectively. Where our results do not correspond the explanation of the discrepancy is sufficiently simple. The abdominal cases here credited as such in Davaine’s table are placed by him under pelvis, whilst the abdominal cases in my own table not only include the pelvic hydatids, but also two spleen cases, and nineteen others from the peritoneum and intestines.
As the facts here stand, the liver cases comprise nearly 461/2 per cent. In a large number of cases the entozoon has taken up its abode in organs of vital importance. If statisticians and officers of health would obtain an adequate conception of the fatal capabilities of parasites, they should consider these data. In 6 per cent. of all these cases the bladder worm has found its way into the brain, and of course proved fatal to the bearers; in about 31/2 per cent. more they took up their residence in the heart, also proving fatal; whilst of all the other cases put together I reckon that not less than 15 per cent. were concerned in bringing about the death of their hosts. I probably underrate the fatal capabilities of echinococcus disease when I express the conviction that hydatids prove fatal to 25 per cent. of all their human victims.
The recently published analysis of 983 cases by Dr Albert Neisser affords similar results. Of these, 451 were referable to the liver, or 45·765 per cent. The other cases, reduced as above, show in the main a similar correspondency.
It may be asked if these facts afford us any assistance in determining the amount of injury that we, as a people, sustain either directly or indirectly from hydatids. On carefully reviewing all the data before me, I may say that it is difficult to draw very precise conclusions; albeit it is not mere guess-work when I assert that in the United Kingdom several hundred human deaths occur annually from this cause. In some other countries the proportion is far greater; the oft-quoted case of Iceland, where the disorder is fatally endemic, still standing at the head of the afflicted territories.
Our Australian colonies are probably entitled to the next place of distinction in this respect. We have strong and recent evidence of the truth of this statement. Thus a writer in the ‘Australian Med. and Surg. Review’ says: “This disease is becoming unpleasantly frequent, and at present we have no reliable mode of treatment, either theoretical or empirical.” Another writer observes (‘Melbourne Argus,’ May 18th, 1874), “Hydatid disease is endemic in this colony; and, though not so constantly met with as in Iceland, we may probably claim the doubtful honor of holding the second place in the list of countries so affected.” In the ‘Argus’ for June 20th of the same year, another writer refers to the frequent notices of cases of hydatids published in the various local newspapers. A retired medical man, the late Mr J. P. Rowe, writing in the ‘Melbourne Leader’ (Sept. 7th, 1872), incidentally remarked on the “notable increase of hydatid disease in the human subject.” Again, still more satisfactory evidence is afforded by a reviewer in the ‘Leader’ of the 31st January, 1874. Commenting on my manual, he not only takes occasion to speak of the prevalence of hydatids generally, but also supplies that kind of accurate statistical evidence of which we so much stand in need. He gives the following table, showing the number of deaths from hydatids in Victoria for eleven years. It is instructive in many ways.
| Years. | Males. | Females. | Total. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1862 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 1863 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 1864 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| 1865 | 9 | 6 | 15 |
| 1866 | 18 | 7 | 25 |
| 1867 | 13 | 12 | 25 |
| 1868 | 21 | 12 | 33 |
| 1869 | 12 | 10 | 22 |
| 1870 | 10 | 7 | 17 |
| 1871 | 6 | 9 | 15 |
| 1872 | 24 | 5 | 29 |
| Total deaths in eleven years | 125 | 75 | 200 |
To employ the writer’s own words, “this mortality gives only a faint notion of the extreme prevalence of hydatids in Victoria, since numbers of cases are cured by tapping, and otherwise by medical treatment, or by spontaneous bursting of the cysts.” Hydatids are often found post mortem where their presence has never been suspected during life. “To meet with hydatids as a cause of deranged health is now a matter of daily expectation with every medical practitioner.” Lastly, Dr Dougan Bird, in his able brochure on ‘Hydatids of the Lung,’ fully confirms these statements, remarking that the rich and poor of the Australian metropolis suffer just as much from hydatids as do either the shepherds of the western plains, or the miners of Ballarat and Sandhurst.
Such are the facts from Australia. As regards home evidence, so far as I am aware, little or nothing has been done towards securing an accurate estimate of the mortality in England from echinococcus disease. The reports of the Registrar General give no sufficient sign. The explanation is not far to seek, since for the most part hydatids are either classed with diseases of the liver, or with those of the other organs in which they happen to have been present.
One of the most valuable contributions to our knowledge of the prevalence of hydatid disease affecting animals is that supplied by Dr Cleghorn, from a statistical table constructed by the executive commissariat officers stationed at Mooltan. The record in question shows that out of 2109 slaughtered animals, no fewer than 899 were affected with hydatid disease. This is equal to more than forty-two per cent. In the majority of cases, both the lungs and liver were affected, cysts were found 829 times in the liver and 726 times in the lungs. In a few instances they were present in the kidneys, and also occasionally in the spleen. The inference from all this is that in India, if not elsewhere, the echinococcus disease is much less common in man than it is in animals. The explanation is simple enough, since cattle have more ready access to, and less scruple in partaking of filthy water and food in or upon which the eggs of the Tænia echinococcus abound.