Another and frequent source of puerperal fever is by direct inoculation. Any material of a septic character, introduced into the genital passages of a woman during or after confinement, may produce a general infection of the system. But the point upon which I wish especially to dwell is that it is possible to trace epidemics of puerperal fever directly to the carrying of puerperal poison from patient to patient through the medium of attendants. In such cases changes in wards and the most rigid sanitary precautions avail but little, so long as the affected personnel is continued in charge. Unless this fact is fully recognized, all the cleverest devices in hospital construction will fail to prevent the occurrence of disasters. In theory, the doctrine of the contagiousness of puerperal fever has ceased to be the subject of dispute; and yet no longer than thirty years ago it was combated as a pernicious heresy by both Meigs and Hodge of Philadelphia, at that time regarded as the best authorities upon obstetrical questions in this country. Hodge, addressing his students, said: "The result of the whole discussion will, I trust, serve not only to exalt your views of the value and dignity of our profession, but to divest your minds of the overpowering dread that you can ever become, especially in women under the extremely interesting circumstances of gestation and parturition, the ministers of evil—that you can ever convey, in any possible manner, a horrible virus so destructive in its effects and so mysterious in its operations as that attributed to puerperal fever;" and Meigs, in his letters to students, writes: "I prefer to attribute them to accident or to Providence, of which I can form a conception, rather than to a contagion of which I cannot form any clear idea, at least as to this particular malady." Contrasted with these rhetorical utterances, in an essay published in 1843 by Prof. Oliver Wendell Holmes, entitled Puerperal Fever as a Private Pestilence, the opposing testimony in favor of contagion was presented with equal literary and scientific skill. The evidence was complete and conclusive, and has exercised a most beneficial influence upon the practice of midwifery in America. With his many claims to our admiration and esteem there is probably no title which Prof. Holmes wears with greater pride than that of pioneer in a movement that has done so much to prevent the slaughter of innocent women and the wrecking of happy homes.
Thanks to changed theoretical views, physicians seem now rarely to be the carriers of contagion. At least, in studying the records of New York City for nine years, I find that the occurrence of two deaths from puerperal disease, following one another so closely as to lead to the suspicion of inoculation, occurred to thirty physicians; a sequence of three cases occurred in the practice of three physicians: one physician lost three cases, and afterward two, in succession; one physician had once two deaths, once three deaths, and twice four deaths, following one another; finally, a physician reported once a loss of two cases near together, then of six patients in six months and then of six patients in six weeks. Thus in the practice of more than twelve hundred physicians in nine years I find, excluding cases occurring in hospitals, that the experience of thirty-six only lends color to the idea that puerperal fever is due to criminal neglect on the part of the medical profession. Undoubtedly in many of these cases, too, the responsibility is only apparent, as when a practitioner has, for example, had the misfortune to lose in one week a woman from puerperal convulsions, and another in the following week from placental hemorrhage. Singularly enough, not one of the sequences mentioned occurred in the practice of a physician connected with a lying-in hospital. In face of the charge that the physicians holding obstetrical appointments in public institutions are active disseminators of puerperal fever through populous communities, I find that the total loss from all puerperal causes, occurring in the private practice of ten physicians intimately associated with such institutions, numbered during the nine years but twenty-one cases. Of these, thirteen were the result of ordinary accidents, and only eight cases of metria proper, of which one was developed before the physician was called in attendance; whereas a single physician, holding no hospital appointment, lost during the same time twenty-seven cases, of which twenty-one were cases of metria.
There is, however, a survival of the older ideas, chiefly to be seen among the laity, in propositions to secure absolute immunity from puerperal fever in hospital patients by confining them in wooden structures or by conducting births under carbolic acid spray.
I have been interested in endeavoring to ascertain how far experience corresponds with Semmelweis's original theory that puerperal fever owes its origin to poisonous materials obtained from dissecting-rooms and introduced into the genital canal by the hands of physicians attending cases of labor. With this view I have made personal application to a number of gentlemen who have engaged in midwifery practice while performing the functions of demonstrators of anatomy in our medical schools. H. B. Sands, of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, reports that in the five years during which he held the office of demonstrator he attended about sixty cases of labor. All did well. He lost his first patient, from childbed, a short time after he had resigned his position in the dissecting-room. J. W. Wright, the present professor of surgery in the Medical Department of the New York University, who held for one year the position of demonstrator in the Woman's College, writes me that "during the year I attended one hundred and four cases, including twenty-two forceps cases, two of craniotomy, two of podalic version, and four of breech presentation. Of this number I lost two cases, one from phlegmasia dolens complicating uræmia, from both of which troubles the patient had suffered during her previous labor, and one from double pneumonia, the result of unusual exposure following confinement. Out of these one hundred and four cases I can recall but three or four cases of metritis, and those of a mild character; I have never thought they had any special connection with my duties in the dissecting-room. I may add that for ten years I have attended a pretty large number of confinements each year, and that during the whole of this time I have been in the habit of making autopsies as occasion has offered, and of handling and examining pathological specimens both in and out of the dissecting-room, notwithstanding which my death-record among this class of cases has been unusually low." Samuel B. Ward, formerly demonstrator at the Woman's College, at present professor of surgery in the Medical School at Albany, writes: "While I was daily in the dissecting-room during the winter sessions of the school from 1868 to 1872, I attended thirty-two confinements, of which I have notes. All of the patients recovered, nor did any of them suffer from any complication that could be traced to infection." It is familiarly known that after Semmelweis had introduced the practice, among the physicians attending patients at the large lying-in hospital in Vienna, of washing the hands in a solution of chloride of lime, there was a great diminution in the mortality which prevailed, notwithstanding which G. Braun reports, however, that in 1857, in the month of July, in two hundred and forty-five deliveries there were seventeen deaths. The following month Klein gave orders to suspend the use of disinfectants. By chance, in August there were only six deaths out of two hundred and fifty confinements, and in September, of two hundred and seventy-five patients, none died. From 1857 to 1860 the mortality was slight, though disinfectants were not used, while during the three following years, in spite of the systematic and persistent employment of these agents, the death-rate once more assumed formidable proportions.52
52 Braun, Rückblicke auf die Gesundheits Verhältnisse unter den Wöchnerinnen, u. s. w., S. 32, 33.
Of course I do not wish to underrate the importance of Semmelweis's labors. There is no question but that it is a perilous experiment to pass from the dissecting-room to a patient in labor without employing rigorous measures to disinfect the hands and all parts of the person brought into contact with the dead body. But it is well to call attention to the fact that puerperal fever is not due to any single, simple cause, nor can be effectually guarded against by a single precaution; and, again, that an infectious poison does not of necessity exist in every cadaver examined. Hausmann found that injections into the vagina of gravid rabbits, in the latter half of pregnancy, of serum from the corpse of a person who had not died of septicæmia produced no fatal results, while rapid death resulted from injections, under the same conditions, of pus from the abdomen of a woman who had died from puerperal infectious disease.53
53 "Untersuchungen und Versuche über die Entstehung der übertragbaren Krankheiten des Wochenbettes," Beitr. zur Geb. und Gynaek., Bd. iii, Heft 3, S. 374.
Barnes and other English writers lay considerable stress upon cases of puerperal fever due neither to contagion nor to atmospheric conditions, but to the poisoning of the patient by her own secretions. There is justification for this view in the fact that even normal lochia contain bacteria, and when inoculated into animals produce in them affections of an ichorrhæmic and septicæmic nature. When death takes place the tissues of animals thus treated are found to be filled with round bacteria. Furthermore, the disease artificially produced is in itself infectious, and can be continuously propagated in other animals. But it may be asked, "Does not this admission cut both ways? How is it possible, if even normal lochia possess virulent qualities, that childbed is ever unattended by accessions of fever?" To this we can only answer that the reasons for immunity in ordinary cases are only known in part. Karewski54 and other experimental investigators have shown that the virulence of the lochia increases proportionately to the number of days that have transpired since the birth of the child, and that during the first three days the lochia are comparatively harmless. Meantime, the retraction of the uterus, the closure of the sinuses, and the formation upon the wounded surfaces of protecting granulations, all act as natural barriers to the penetration of poison-germs. But, aside from these reasons, there is undoubtedly an unknown quantity calling for further investigation, which, in the absence of positive knowledge, we are content to term the predisposition of the individual patient. The vagina after childbirth possesses all the conditions most favorable for the production of putrefaction—viz. the access of air, fostering warmth, and stagnating fluids charged with dead tissue. It is probable that the first of these needful conditions is, in normal labors, happily wanting in the uterine cavity. In these days of intra-uterine medication it is well to bear in mind the relatively greater frequency of infection through vaginal and cervical wounds, as compared with that which takes place through the denuded intra-uterine surface. The term auto-infection may, with propriety, be employed as a distinctive appellation to designate those attacks of fever which, in the absence of any demonstrable cause, occur in the early days of childbed, and which there, quoad vitam, pursue a favorable course, and to cases of so-called late infection—i.e. where, after the fifth day, the accidental opening of a healing wound permits the tardy absorption of poisonous secretions; but with the reserve that the primary cause is, in point of fact, atmospheric, and the predisposing condition the susceptibility of the individual. Cases of auto-infection are in this country extremely rare, if not unknown altogether, in salubrious or rural districts.
54 "Experimentelle Untersuchungen ueber die Einwirkungen puerperaler secrete auf den thierischen organismus," Zeitschr. f. Geb. und Gynaek., Bd. vii, 2te Th., S. 331.
On another occasion I have shown that in New York City the death-rate from puerperal fever is nearly twice as great during the six months from December to May, inclusive, as from June to November. The greatest mortality occurred in February and March, comprising rather more than one-fourth the entire amount. The smallest number of deaths occurred in September and October, in which months but one-thirteenth of the entire number took place.