Publication information |
Source: Detroit Medical Journal Source type: journal Document type: letter to the editor Document title: none Author(s): anonymous Date of publication: October 1901 Volume number: 1 Issue number: 7 Pagination: 205 |
Citation |
[untitled]. Detroit Medical Journal Oct. 1901 v1n7: p. 205. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
William McKinley (medical care); William McKinley (medical care: criticism: personal response). |
Named persons |
William McKinley. |
Notes |
Click here to view
the editorial this letter to the editor was written in response to.
Both this one (below) and a subsequent letter to the editor (p. 206) appear under the collective heading “Anent That McKinley Editorial.” |
Document |
[untitled]
Editor Detroit Medical Journal:
In the September number of your excellent periodical
you make reference to the demise of the late President McKinley; and in this
editorial there is much that commends itself.
In the experiences of hundreds of medical men
(including those of myself covering a period of twenty-seven years), cases crop
up where the aid, suggestions, and encouragement of a trustworthy consultant
are of value, both to the patient and the attending physician; and on the other
hand, are there not occasions when too many advisors, or even one who is adverse,
not alone lessens confidence in the one most competent to judge the case (viz.,
the regular attendant), but likewise handicaps the chances of the invalid?
I have no use for the silliness exhibited in parading
the name of a nurse who, for convenience, happens to be called to assist either
at an operation or for the after attendance. It had never occurred to me that
a particular nurse was selected owing to special fitness in the McKinley case,
since any nurse, trained in the hospitals of either the United States or the
Dominion, who possesses head and hands, would do all that was necessary. Indeed,
I am old fogy enough to believe that any intelligent person, in the ordinary
home, can carry out the instructions of the medical attendant in the matter
of “after-treatment.”
Perhaps I am “behind the times,” but I cannot
help thinking there is something farcial [sic] in having a nurse, at
fifteen or twenty dollars a week, to run the thermometer under the tongue every
two or three hours and jot down the result, along with the exact moment the
bladder contracts, etc., etc. In ninety per cent. of the cases what does it
all amount to; if the temperature is 100°, then 100.2°, then 100.1°, what are
you going to do about it?
In the editorial referred to I am sorry that the
words occur “left to the rule-of-thumb care of an alien, trained attendant.”
Now, I think this is wrong; and really the editor,
in justice to himself, ought to apologize for this reflection on the attainments
of the individual; and also for the slur upon those whom the word “alien” evidently
points to—I mean Canadians. If this nurse was an alien by reason of birth,
her training was received in the land of her adoption, so that the contemptuous
term “rule-of-thumb” insults the authorities of at least one institution for
the training of nurses in the land south of the International Boundary. I hope
the Detroit Medical Journal will straighten this matter in fairness to its readers.
Yours,
C .