Regarding other points in the opium treatment there is little to be said. Purgatives are entirely inadmissible. The bowels should be left entirely at rest till they recover their muscular tone; then they will expel first the gas, and then the feces; or if, after the inflammation is subdued, they do not move of their own accord, injections are admissible. I have often left the bowels absolutely inactive for fourteen days without any recognizable consequences. If I meet a physician who believes that leeches are essential, I yield him his point, but never advise them. I do this because a moderate bloodletting will do no harm, and little if any good. The same rule I apply to irritating applications to the surface of the abdomen. Mercurials, I think, are harmful, and therefore I object to them. As to food, it should be milk, fresh eggs beaten up with water and pleasantly flavored, peptones, etc. selected from among those that leave no refuse.
The testimony of physicians who have adopted this plan within my own circle is unanimously in favor of it. B. R. Palmer of Woodstock, Vt., afterward of Louisville, Ky., who was the first to test it, told me after a few years' trial that he used to dread peritonitis as he would dread the plague, but with opium in his pocket he met it cheerfully and hopefully, as he did a pneumonia. Chalmers of New York, who is known by many readers of this article, has a very extensive practice, and he told me lately that he had not had a fatal case of peritonitis in twenty-two years. He embraced the plan early.
Now, how did this treatment originate? From whom did the profession adopt it? In 1836-37, I visited daily the hospitals of London, Edinburgh, and Paris, was in frequent intercourse with the physicians of those cities, and never saw a patient anywhere treated by opium, and never heard the least allusion to it. I can safely appeal to any physician who was familiar with the history of the profession before the year 1840, or for two or three years later perhaps, to inquire whether anything was generally known regarding this treatment of peritonitis, or whether he himself ever heard of it. Let the inquiry be made of Willard Parker of New York or Alfred Stillé of Philadelphia—men of a degree of intelligence and learning that has made them leaders in the profession—and of all the profession at that time. I venture to assume that they were as ignorant as I was of what Graves and Stokes had done.
The following fact is significant: In 1843, Graves published A System of Clinical Medicine, the preface of which is dated January, 1843. In this he says he had previously published essays, lectures, and articles in several medical journals. In this volume he intends, he says, "to revise what I have written, and to compress the whole within the limits of a single volume." There is nothing in the table of contents or explanatory headings of the several chapters of this volume which alludes to treating peritonitis by opium. It is fair to infer that the cases treated in 1823 had made little impression on his mind, and that he did not think his treatment could take rank as a discovery; and yet Stokes had made favorable mention of it eleven years before this publication. Graves, then, did not publish his cases, and the first knowledge which the profession could have of them was through Stokes's paper, published in the Dublin Journal of Medical and Chemical Science, No. 1, in 1832. Perhaps the reason why Stokes's paper produced so little impression on the profession may be found in the fact that first numbers of journals of every sort have few readers. Anyway, it was not till after the opium treatment had attracted much attention in this country that anybody here knew that Graves or Stokes had ever had anything to do with it. Besides, Graves and Stokes had only used opium in cases of perforation, and they had no plan or symptomatic guide in the use of the drug.
There is something new and strange in the following case copied from the Medical Record of May 12, 1883, under the heading, "Operative Measures in Acute Peritonitis:" "Dr. Reibel relates the case of a child, eight years old, suffering from acute idiopathic peritonitis. The disease had resisted all treatment, and the child being, apparently, about to die, it was determined to open the abdomen with a view to removing the fluid and washing out the peritoneal cavity with a solution of carbolic acid. The meteorism was intense. No fluid was found in the abdominal cavity. In prolonging the incision a loop of the intestine was punctured, as evidenced by the escape of gas and intestinal fluid. The wound was washed with carbolic acid and covered with a layer of antiseptic cotton. The following day the little patient was nearly free from pain, and was able to retain a little milk. The temperature had fallen from 104° to 101°, and the tympanitis was almost entirely gone. The (wounded) loop of intestine was adherent to the abdominal wall, and there had been no escape of fluid into the peritoneal cavity. The patient made an excellent recovery."
If the statements of this abstract are true, and the future supports the practice pursued in this case, acute peritonitis is likely to become a surgical rather than a medical disease. Reibel thinks that opening the intestine in the way he did is a better plan than the punctures with the exploring-needle to relieve the patient of the tympanitis. But it will require more facts than one to persuade the profession that this mishap of the scalpel can grow into a rule of practice. (The Record finds this report in the Journal de Médecine de Paris.)
I cannot say that I see the value of a distinction made in 1877 by Gubler between peritonitis and peritonism. By the latter term is meant the total of nervous and other symptoms that arise in the course of peritonitis. Trasour has lately revived this distinction, and thinks it important, and that a light peritonitis may be attended by a grave peritonism. He holds that the distinction is important, because "the treatment of peritonism consists in the administration of alcohol, chloral, and especially of opium in large doses. Of the latter fifteen grains may be given in twenty-four hours." "The symptoms [of peritonism] are produced through the agency of the great sympathetic."6
6 Med. Record, Aug. 28, 1883.
I cannot say that I have seen great effects follow small causes, but think that, in general, the effects of peritonitis on the pulse, strength, nervous tone, etc. are, to some extent at least, a measure of its severity.
CONSEQUENCES OF PERITONITIS.—These are usually nothing. When recovery takes place it is commonly complete, but cases have been known in which the intestines have been left bound to the abdominal wall and to each other, and so made incapable of their natural action. The results of this are a swollen, tympanitic abdomen and impaction of the bowels, but the general health may be very good. A woman at Bellevue was left in this condition, yet she performed the duties of nurse in one of the wards for some years, and finally disappeared from the institution, and I do not know how it ended with her—probably by the breaking up of the adhesions and a return of the bowels to their natural condition.