A system of practical medicine. By American authors. Vol. 2

by Unknown

Coelius Aurelianus (400 A.D.) adopted the humoralistic doctrine of Hippocrates and regarded dysentery as an intestinal rheumatism (catarrh) with ulceration. He seems to have been the first author to recognize the cardinal fact that dysentery, notwithstanding the number of its stools, should be classed with the diseases which constipate the bowels, or, as it was centuries later aptly put by Stoll, "ut hanc morbis adnumeres alvum potius occludentibus," and he blames Erasistratus for using nothing but astringents, whereas many cases of dysentery require laxatives. It is worthy of note that Coelius Aurelianus ascribes the first use of opium in the treatment of dysentery to Diocles of Carystus (300 B.C.), who administered the juice of poppies combined with galls. By the time of Galen opium was so freely used in the treatment of the fluxes as to call for protest against its abuse.

Alexander of Tralles (575 A.D.) is often credited as having been the first to locate the disease in the large intestine. The truth is, he suggested various rules by which the seat of the disease, whether in the small or large intestine, might be definitely determined. But none of these rules—the seat of the pain, for instance, whether above or below the umbilicus, and the interval of time between the pain and discharges, whether long or short—possess the least diagnostic value or add to the attempts in this direction of previous writers—Aretæus, Archigenes, and Galen. Like these, his predecessors, he recognized an hepatic dysentery with discharges of bloody serum, which he attributed with them to atony of the liver, but more boldly than they, and with characteristic independence, he ventured to treat his patients with fresh vegetables and fruits, damsons and grapes.

Paul of Ægina (660 A.D.) locates the disease in the rectum, and gives a graphic account of its symptomatology. He made the mistake of many later practitioners in regarding as a separate disease a symptom, tenesmus, which he describes as an irresistible desire of evacuation, "discharging nothing but some bloody humor, which is the cause of the whole complaint, being an oedematous inflammation of the rectum which creates the impression of feces lodged in the intestine and a desire of evacuation." "Dysentery," he continues, "is an ulceration of the intestines, sometimes arising from the translation of tenesmus, and sometimes being of itself the primary affection; and is attended with evacuations at first bilious and of various colors, then accordingly bloody, and at last ichorous, like that which runs from dead bodies."

In curious contrast to these accurate observations is the absurd suggestion of an obsolete therapy (Galen), that the dried dung of dogs who had eaten bones, when drank in milk which has been curdled by having heated pebbles put into it, is of great service; but as an offset to this freak of fantasy is the renewed advocacy of warm milk, fallen somewhat into disuse since the days of Hippocrates and Galen: "And milk itself moderately boiled is an excellent thing"—a recommendation of the milk diet which now plays such an important rôle in the treatment of so many diseases of the alimentary canal.

Modern.—From this brief survey it is seen that the writers of antiquity left nothing in the symptomatology of dysentery for subsequent authors to describe. All further advance in our knowledge of this, as of all diseases, was now rendered impossible by the extinction of the light of science in the long night of the Middle Ages, whose gloom deepens with succeeding centuries and whose shadows fall close up to our own times.

The modern history of dysentery may be said to begin with Daniel Sennertus, whose first Tractatus de Dysenteria was published at Wittenberg in 1626. Sennert gave the deathblow to tenesmus as a distinct disease, or as even a pathognomonic sign of dysentery, showing that it is often present in purely local troubles, ulcers, fissures, hemorrhoids, etc., or is due to disease of other organs—stone in the bladder, tumors in the womb, etc. He recognized sporadic and epidemic attacks of the disease, and described under the terms fiens and facta forms which coarsely correspond to the catarrhal and diphtheritic varieties of modern pathologists. Improper food, unripe fruits, at least, cannot be the cause of dysentery, because, he shrewdly observes, the epidemic of 1624 began in May, before the fruits were ripe, and ceased in autumn, when they were ripe and in daily use. Moreover, sucklings at the breast suffered with the disease. Nor could moisture alone account for the disease, as this epidemic occurred after an unusually hot and dry spring and early summer. Some other cause must be invoked, and this other cause is perhaps the occult influence of the constellations and planets—an explanation which he afterward admits to be only an asylum of ignorance. In the treatment of the disease the indication should be to heal the abraded or ulcerated intestine; but since this cannot be done unless the cause is first removed, "the abrading, eroding humor should be evacuated and absterged, at the same time its acrimony mitigated and corrected; then the flux should be checked by astringents, and the pain, if vehement, lenified and removed." Purgatives should be repeated until all vicious humors are discharged.

Sydenham colored his descriptions of the epidemic which he witnessed in London in 1669-72 with the artistic touches of the master's hand. "The disease sets in," he says, "with chills and shivers. After these come the heat of the fever, then gripings of the belly, and lastly stools. Occasionally there is no fever; in which case the gripes lead the way, and the purging follows soon after. Great torment of the belly and sinking of the intestines whenever motions are passed are constant; and these motions are frequent as well as distressing, the bowels coming down as they take place. They are always more slimy than stercoraceous, feces being rarely present, and when present causing but little pain. With these slimy motions appear streaks of blood, though not always. Sometimes, indeed, there is no passage of any blood whatever from first to last. Notwithstanding, provided that the motions be frequent, slimy, and attended with griping, the disease is a true bloody flux or dysentery." The efficacy of opium in its treatment causes him to break out in praises of the great God who has vouchsafed us a remedy of so much power. But Sydenham was too good a practitioner not to know that all treatment must be prefaced with laxatives. For "after I had diligently and maturely weighed in my mind," he says, "the various symptoms which occur during this disease, I discovered that it was a fever—a fever, indeed, of a kind of its own—turned inwardly upon the bowels. By means of this fever the hot and acrid humors contained in the mass of the blood, and irritating it accordingly, are deposited in the aforesaid parts through the meseraic arteries." The indications then were plain—viz. "after revulsion by venesection to draw off the acrid humors by purging." It was the frequent and successful practice of Sydenham also to drench the patient with liquids, per os et per rectum—a mode of treatment which both he and the learned Butler, who accompanied the English ambassador to Morocco, where dysentery was always epidemic, hit upon, "neither of us borrowing our practice of the other." Butler declared that the method of deluging the dysentery by liquids was the best. But many attacks are cured almost on the expectant plan alone. This was the case with the excellent and learned Daniel Coxe, Doctor of Physic, in whom "the gripes and bloody motions ceased after the fourth clyster. He was kept to his bed, limited to milk diet; and this was all that was necessary in order to restore him to perfect health."

Zimmermann (1767) did not believe that improper food could be a cause of dysentery, as in the epidemic of 1765 fresh grapes were plentifully supplied to patients and proved an excellent remedy. He also noticed the muscular pains (rheumatism) which had been mentioned by Sydenham before him, and the paralyses first noticed by Fabricius in 1720, as occurring in the course of, or as sequelæ to, the disease. It was only contagious, he thought, in bad cases, when the stools have a cadaveric odor. But his main and most useful contributions were in the field of therapy. He discarded venesection entirely, was among the first to recognize the value of ipecacuanha, and objected strenuously to opium until the cause of the evil was expelled. Hence he was vehemently opposed to all astringents, to the use of which he ascribes the rheumatisms and dropsies which sometimes occur. Wines and spices were likewise put under ban; whey he permitted, but not milk, and water freely, but always warm. Barley-water and cream of tartar were sufficient food and medicine for ordinary cases, while camphor and cinchona best sustain the strength in bad cases.

Pringle (1772) observed the frequent occurrence of dysentery coincidently with malarial fever, and was a firm believer in the contagion of the disease. He claimed that the foul straw upon which the soldiers slept became infectious, but maintained that the chief source of infection were the privies "after they had received the dysenteric excrements of those who first sicken." It is spread in tents and in hospitals, and may be carried by bedding and clothing, as in the plague, small-pox, and measles. Neither food nor drink propagates the disease, he thinks, for, so far as the fruits are concerned, he too had seen it prevail before the fruits were ripe. The first cause of the disease is "a stoppage of the pores, checking the perspiration and turning inward of the humors upon the bowels." Antimony was his specific in its treatment. He was also fond of Dover's powder in its relief, and preferred fomentations to opium, which "only palliates and augments the cause." The best drink for patients with dysentery was lime-water (one-third) and milk.

This period of time is made memorable in the history of dysentery, as of nearly all internal diseases, by the contributions from direct observation upon the dead body by the father of pathological anatomy, John Baptist Morgagni (1779). From the days of Hippocrates down, the seat of the disease had been, as has been shown, pretty accurately determined, and the same acumen which enabled the clinicians to localize the affection had inspired them, as we have seen, to define and describe its nature. But any descriptions from actual post-mortem examinations were not put upon record until the beginning of the sixteenth century, when were published the posthumous contributions of Benivieni (1506-07). In his description of the lesions of the disease he says that "the viscera displayed internal erosion from which sanies was continually discharged." Nearly three centuries elapsed before Morgagni made his anatomical studies—an interval of time void of any contributions from pathological anatomy; and so little attention was paid to this branch of medical science that the descriptions of Morgagni and of his more immediate successors failed to excite any general interest or make any permanent impression. Morgagni himself, while he fully recognized their significance, did not consider the ulcerations of dysentery as absolutely essential to the disease, as many cases, even fatal ones, did not exhibit them at all. They were not liable to be mistaken for the lesions of typhoid fever, the ulceration of Peyer's glands, because, though they may, they only rarely, coexist in the same subject. As to the membranous fragments sometimes evacuated with the discharges of dysentery, Morgagni showed that they are occasionally true fragments or shreds of the intestinal coats, as has been maintained by the older writers, Tulpius and Laucisius, but are far more frequently nothing else than inspissated mucus—conceptions which subsequent studies with the microscope have fully confirmed.