The Treatment of the President
The management of the President’s
wounds by the physicians who had charge of him will probably be
the subject of controversy for a long time to come. The circumstances
were so unusual, the patient so distinguished, the progress so apparently
favorable for days and so suddenly changing disasterously [sic],
with a fatal termination, that inevitably the attending physicians
will come in for a certain amount of criticism.
It is fortunate that there were several
physicians in attendance and that they were able to agree substantially
upon the President’s condition and treatment. It is fortunate, also,
that among these men were one or two of national reputation, and
that all of them are men of good standing. The people trusted these
men fully with their President’s life, and feel now, as they review
their care of the case, that this trust was not betrayed.
The President’s physicians did well.
It is hard to see how they could have done any better had they known
exactly what was transpiring along the track of the bullet. That
instead of healing, gangrene should occur, was so far out of the
usual history of bullet wounds, as to cause surprise in every medical
mind. Why did gangrene take place? This is a question that will
become classic and will be the cause of endless discussion, for
it is one of the things likely to remain a mystery.
The public rely upon the statements
of the attending phy-  sicians
and cares little about the details of the case, being absorbed in
sorrow for the nation’s loss and in the concern that the murderer
be punished: When this has been accomplished, there may be a few
who will criticise and blame the doctors, but for this there will
be no justification. They did what they could; were attentive and
careful: and unless some facts are brought to light that do not
now appear, they should receive only commendation for what they
did under trying and most unusual circumstances.
A question of great interest to us
is whether the result would have been different had the President
been under homœopathic care. No man can say. And yet some of us
have seen caries, gangrene and blood-poisoning change to a normal
condition marvelously soon under the influence of rhus, lachesis,
arnica or arsenicum. It is not an idle thought, therefore, that
the administration of such a remedy, in accordance with the skilful
[sic] tact of a homœopathic prescriber might have
saved this valuable life.
Stranger things have happened, and
many of us have been witnesses of restoration to health under circumstances
which have forced us to acknowledge again and again the marvelous
power of homœopathic remedies.
But whether the life of the President
could have been thus saved we will never know.