Publication information |
Source: Transactions of the Southern Surgical and Gynecological Association Source type: book Document type: article Document title: “Discussion of the Papers of Drs. Guerry, Ransohoff, and Coffey” Author(s): anonymous Editor(s): Haggard, W. D. Volume number: 22 Publisher: Southern Surgical and Gynecological Association Place of publication: none given Year of publication: 1910 Pagination: 146-60 (excerpt below includes only pages 150-51) |
Citation |
“Discussion of the Papers of Drs. Guerry, Ransohoff, and Coffey.” Transactions of the Southern Surgical and Gynecological Association. Ed. W. D. Haggard. Vol. 22. [n.p.]: Southern Surgical and Gynecological Association, 1910: pp. 146-60. |
Transcription |
excerpt of article |
Keywords |
Roswell Park (public statements); William McKinley (death, cause of). |
Named persons |
Joseph C. Bloodgood; William McKinley; Roswell Park; Herbert U. Williams. |
Notes |
The comments by Dr. Park (below) occurred on 14 December 1909.
From title page: Twenty-Second Session, Held at Hot Springs, Va., December
14, 15 and 16, 1909.
From title page: Edited by W. D. Haggard, M.D. |
Document |
Discussion of the Papers of Drs. Guerry, Ransohoff, and Coffey [excerpt]
D
The remarks of Dr. Bloodgood have prompted me
to say this, that at the autopsy on President McKinley there were certain revelations
which we had not been led to expect. There was a tremendous amount of interest
taken in his case, as you all remember, and after the conclusion of the autopsy
I and others were besieged by newspaper reporters for all the information we
could give them, and all the explanations which we could furnish. In some respects
the findings were unexpected. It was at a time when we did not know much about
the surgery of the pancreas, or diseased condition of that organ, or the relation
of one to the other. In seeking an explanation for the peculiar necrosis which
we found in this [150][151] case, it was my suggestion,
based on the very meagre amount of information which we all of us possessed
at that time, that in all probability the wound of the pancreas in his case
had to do with the subsequent course of events. I really believe now it had
much to do with it, although it had not been discussed at the autopsy. The suggestion
was taken up later, and made the basis of a large amount of experimentation
by our own pathologist in Buffalo, Professor Herbert Williams, and many others,
and that unfortunate instance, I think, attracted surgical attention to this
matter in a way nothing else perhaps would have done had it not occurred. That
is a little bit of history which it is not too early now to put on record.