8. The immunity against subsequent attacks on exposure (similar to the protection given by vaccination) continues to be without full explanation upon any theory. But it is especially difficult to reconcile it with the hypothesis of the infection being caused by, and dependent upon, the presence of peculiar microphytes. Why should not these, whether as parasites or as poisons, always produce the same effects?
9. The view entertained by Thorne, Wood, and Formad, that a common benignant affection, such as ordinary sore throat, may be converted into a violent infectious disease—e.g. malignant diphtheria—by modification of innocent micrococci into those with lethal characters, through local or bodily conditions, is sufficiently contravened by the great frequency of such conditions compared with the decided relative rarity of such malignant epidemics or endemics.
10. Throughout all the investigations which have been, and are likely to be, conducted, there remains the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of total separation between the microbes themselves and the matter of the vehicle in which they exist—the membrane, urine, blood, virus, artificial culture-material, or whatever it may be. All the effects ascribable to the disease germs may be, with no more difficulty, attributed to the toxic action of a portion, however minute, of the soil in which they have lived, whose modifications must be concomitant with those which they undergo. It appears necessary, therefore, at the present time, to regard this whole question as still undecided, with a predominance of probability, however, in favor of the view that these minute organisms, or some of them, have a direct and important relation of some kind to the causation of specific endemic, epidemic, and contagious diseases. Altogether, the strongest arguments are on the side of the view that the micrococci, bacilli, etc. cause diseases, not as parasites, living upon their victims, but as poison-producers infecting them.37 The germ theory continues to be in the position of a probable hypothesis, not in that of an established doctrine of etiological science.
37 This comports much the best with the general natural history of parasites on the one hand, and of venoms, ptomaïnes, etc. on the other. Gautier, Ogston, and others have expressed the opinion that microphytes may produce ptomaïnes.
Practically, the result is nearly the same as if it were altogether settled, since it is admitted on all sides that the presence of microphytes (bacteria, micrococci, spirilla) coincides with those conditions under which originate several of the most malignant diseases. Measures which prevent the appearance or promote the destruction of these minute organisms are at least often, and to a great degree, preventive, if not curative, of such disorders; and the glory of Jenner's discovery, by which the ravages of small-pox have been made (potentially at least) controllable, seems not unlikely to be paralleled by the achievements of Pasteur and others in a similar preventive mastery over other maladies of men and animals. There is, therefore, no branch of inquiry in connection with medical science more worthy of being assiduously encouraged and extended. The present may almost be said to be, in the history of medicine, an era of myco-pathology.
For an exhaustive study of Etiology attention would now have to be given to the modifying influences affecting the occurrence and character of diseases in connection with age, sex, and temperament. But, as neither of these is ever, per se, causative of any malady, and they merely determine some modification of the action of morbid causes when these occur, want of space must be our justification for leaving them to be considered, in this work, in connection with the special causation of the different diseases which will be hereafter described. A larger treatment of our present subject belongs rather to hygiene than to practical medicine.
MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS.
For the purposes of the medical practitioner all professional studies unite to the end of furnishing preparation for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. At the bedside the cardinal questions are, How does the present condition of our patient differ from health? and, What ought we to do to bring about his recovery?
Diagnosis involves three main directions of inquiry: 1, as to the general bodily state of the patient; 2, morbid changes in particular organs, tissues, or functions; 3, as to what name properly designates the disorder, according to accepted nomenclature.