The owner of the dog begged that the animal might not be taken from him, but might accompany him home. He took him home and destroyed him that no experiments might be made.
With great difficulty we procured the carcass, and from some inflammatory appearances about the tongue and the stomach, and the presence of a small portion of indigestible matter in the stomach, we were unanimously of opinion that the dog was rabid.
I do not mean to say that the child died hydrophobous, or that its death was accelerated by the nascent disease existing in the dog. There was probably some nervous affection that hastened the death of the infant, and the dog bit the child at the very period when the malady first began to develop itself. On the following day there were morbid lesions enough to prove beyond doubt that he was rabid.
This case is introduced because I used afterwards to accompany every examination of supposed or doubtful rabies with greater caution than I probably had previously used.
It is occasionally very difficult to detect the existence of rabies in its nascent state. In the year 1813, a child attempted to rob a dog of its morning food, and the animal resisting the theft, the child was slightly scratched by its teeth. No one dreamed of danger.
Eight days afterwards
symptoms of rabies appeared in the dog, the malady ran its course, and the animal died. A few days afterwards the child sickened — undoubted characteristics of rabies were observed — they ran their course and the infant was lost.
There are other cases — fortunately not numerous — in the records of human surgery, resembling this. A person has been bitten by a dog, he has paid little or no attention to it, and no application of the caustic has been made. Some weeks, or even months, have passed, he has nearly or quite forgotten the affair, when he becomes languid and feverish, and full of fearful apprehensions, and this appearing perhaps during several days, or more than a week. The empoisonment has then ceased to be a local affair, the virus has entered into the circulation, and its impression is made on the constitution generally. Fortunately the disposition to bite rarely develops itself until the full establishment of the disease, otherwise we might sometimes inquire whether it were not our duty to exterminate the whole race of dogs.
The following case deserves to be recorded. On the 21st of October, 1813, a dog was brought to me for examination. He had vomited a considerable quantity of coagulated blood. I happened to be particularly busy at the moment, and not observing anything peculiar in his countenance or manner, I ordered some astringent sedative medicine, and said that I would see him again in the afternoon.
In the course of the afternoon he was again brought. The vomiting had quite ceased. His mouth seemed to be swollen, and, on examining him, I found that some of his incisor teeth, both in the upper and lower jaw, had been torn out. This somewhat alarmed me; and, on inquiring of the servant, I was told that he suspected that they had had thieves about the house on the preceding night, for the dog had torn away the side of his kennel in attempting to get at them. I scolded him for not having told me of this in the morning; and then, talking of various things, in order to prolong the time and to be able closely to watch my patient, I saw, or thought I saw, but in a very slight degree, that the animal was tracing the fancied path of some imaginary object. I was then truly alarmed, and more especially since I had discovered that in the giving of the physic in the morning the man's hand had been scratched; a youth had suffered the dog to lick his sore finger, and the animal had also been observed to lick the sore ear of an infant. He was a remarkably affectionate dog, and was accustomed to this abominable and inexcusable nonsense.