The President’s Case
We present below the result of the
autopsy on the president and opinions of his surgeons. We have great
faith in the surgeons, and believe they did all that could have
been done for his ultimate recovery. They have our profound sympathy
in that they did not succeed. Who could have done any better? The
great advances in surgery during the last 20 years led us to hope
President McKinley would be spared to us, as a result of the application
of modern methods. No one could have foretold that no effort whatever
at repair would be made and that gangrene would supervene. The surgeons
in charge of the case, Drs. Park, Mann, Mynter, Wasdin and Stockton,
say positively [305][306] that there
was no disagreement among themselves and that any publication to
the contrary is false:
“The bullet which struck over the
breast bone did not pass through the skin and did little harm. The
other bullet passed through both walls of the stomach near its lower
border. Both holes were found to be perfectly closed, but the tissue
around each hole had become gangrenous. After passing through the
stomach, the bullet passed into the back walls of the abdomen, hitting
and tearing the upper end of the kidney. This portion of the bullet’s
track was also gangreous [sic], the gangrene involving the
pancreas. The bullet has not yet been found. There was no sign of
peritonitis or disease of other organs. The heart walls were very
thin. There was no evidence of any attempt at repair on the part
of nature and death resulted from the gangrene which affected the
stomach around the bullet wounds as well as the tissues around the
further course of the bullet. Death was unavoidable by any surgical
or medical treatment and was the direct result of the bullet wound.
HARVEY
D. GAYLORD, M. D.,
HERMAN
G. MATSINGER, M. D.,
P.
M. RIXEY, M. D.,
MATHEW
D. MANN, M. D.,
HERMAN
MYNTER, M. D.,
ROSWELL
PARK, M. D.,
EUGENE
WASDIN, M. D.,
CHAS.
G. STOCKTON, M. D.,
EDWARD
G. JANEWAY, M. D.,
W.
W. JOHNSTON, M. D.,
W.
P. KENDALL, Surgeon, U. S. A.,
CHARLES
CAREY, M. D.,
EDWARD
L. MUNSON,
Assistant
Surgeon U. S. A.,
HERMANUS
L. BAER, M. D.
——————————
Dr. Matthew D. Mann, the surgeon
upon whom fell the responsibility of operating upon the President
immediately after he was shot, in the course of a cursory talk said:
“First of all, there was never any
contention or unseemly discussion among the physicians as to the
method of treatment of a case similar to the present one in importance.
In no case was there ever a better understanding as to what should
be done. We worked together as one man. There were honest differences
of opinion among us sometimes as to which was the [306][307]
better mode of procedure under certain conditions, but the minority
always were convinced.”
About the criticisms that were made
as to the insufficiency of the original examination and the failure
to locate the bullet at the time of operation, the doctor was asked,
“were they justified?”
“I think the report made to-day,”
Dr. Mann replied, “is a sufficient answer to your question. It shows
very plainly that the location of the bullet had nothing to do with
the final outcome of the case. That resulted from gangrene which
appeared in the path of the bullet. Even our efforts to-day to locate
it, as stated in the report, were unsuccessful. I believe it went
into the muscle at the small of the back. We followed the hole made
by the bullet until it went into the muscle. We searched one and
a half hours for the missile of death. The X-ray instrument was
not used, as the appliances were not handy. This serious damage
was done to the organs through which it passed—not to the locality
where it now rests.”
“Your report says the first bullet
striking in the breast did no harm.”
.
“Yes, that is correct. That bullet
evidently struck a button and then shied off without doing any damage.
Had it not met some obstruction it surely would have killed the
President immediately. Below the locality where it struck the flesh
was quite flabby and contused.
“To-day’s investigation developed
the fact that the first bullet struck the President on the right
side of the breast bone, near the edge, and between the second and
third ribs. In our original examination we said it was to the left
of the breast bone. The mistake in the first announcement was due
to the very hasty examination we made at the time of the shooting,
when the question was not so much as to the exact locality of the
wounds as to that of getting to work to save the President’s life.”
“The report speaks of a lack of evidence
of repair work on the part of nature. Won’t you explain just what
bearing this had on the case at issue?” the doctor was asked.
“By that statement we mean that the
general system of the patient failed to respond to the demand upon
it for a revival from the shock suffered by the shooting. It was
due, probably, to a low state of vitality; not to poor health, mind
you, but to [307][308] a system that
was considerably run down and needed rest and recuperation.”
“The report says the heart walls were
very thin. Was this condition peculiar to the President, or is it
a common complaint? Did the use of smoking tobacco by the President
have any important bearing on the case?”
“A man whose heart walls are very
thin is usually one who leads a sedentary life and whose heart gets
no great amount of exercise. This organ, like any other, requires
active exercise to keep it in proper condition. No doubt the President’s
heart was sufficient for him in his ordinary business affairs of
life, when no strain was required. When extraordinary efforts were
necessary, the heart was unable to meet them.
“No, I don’t think the smoking habit
affected the President’s heart to the extent of making it figure
in the result of his case.”
Doctors Roswell Park, Matthew Mann
and Eugene Wasdin, three of the most prominent surgeons in the case,
were asked to explain this situation to-night, and their statements
follow:
Dr. Eugene Wasdin, an expert in fever
cases, who is familiar with the poisons in the human body, said:
“The breastbone wound showed a big
impact. Still the area of inflammation of subcutaneous tissues was
entirely too extensive to be accounted for from contusion or the
force of the bullet. The subcutaneous tissues were in a partially
gangrenous condition. The bullet that went into the abdomen and
penetrated the stomach also was followed by extensive necrosis of
tissue, or gangrene, wherever it passed. The skin wound on the point
of entrance was livid, gangrenous, and this process extended to
the entire line of invasion made by the surgeons through the abdominal
wall. The point of entrance into the stomach was necrotic, or gangrenous.
The sutures made by the surgeons were still intact at the autopsy,
but the line of sutures were surrounded by a decrotic area through
the entire thickness of the stomach wall, and extending on all sides
about 1½ to 2 inches. The same is true of the wounds of exit
of the bullet on the posterior wall of the stomach, which was also
still closed by sutures in the center of an extensive area of necrosis.
The further passage of the bullet through the soft tissues of the
back, where it became imbedded, was also surrounded by necrotic
tissue. These different necrotic areas all had the same appearance
as to time of duration—that is, they were due to the same influence
acting about the same time. All these conditions lead me to believe
that there has been an influence exerted by the passing bullet [308][309]
through these tissues entirely dissimilar to that influence exerted
by an ordinary missile. In this case there was not the appearance
of a single effort of natural repair at any point along the track
of the ball.
“Bacteriological tests are in progress,
and possibly a germ capable of giving rise to this gangrenous condition
of tissues may be found. But the presence of gangrene only at points
of the passage of the bullet and the length of time—seven days—required
for the necrotic or gangrenous changes rather convince me that it
is not a bacterial influence, but must be due to some organic poison.
“Tests were made of gangrenous material
when the stitches in the President’s wound were removed and the
wound redressed. They have not show [sic] as yet the presence of
a gangrene producing organism—leading inferentially to the opinion
that the bullet was coated with some poisonous substance.”
Dr. Herman Mynter said: “If”—and great
emphasis was laid on the word—“if a bullet could be poisoned, it
is safe, perhaps, to say that it might produce conditions similar
to those found in the case of the President. Doesn’t that make my
position clear?”
Dr. Roswell Park, when asked as to
the likelihood of the now much talked of bullet being poisoned before
it crashed into the body of the President, was somewhat categorical
in declaring his position. In response to questions put by a reporter,
he said: “I do not think that the bullet was poisoned.”
|