Publication information |
Source: Journal of Medicine and Science Source type: journal Document type: editorial Document title: “The Surgical and Medical Treatment of President McKinley” Author(s): anonymous Date of publication: October 1901 Volume number: 7 Issue number: 11 Pagination: 389-90 |
Citation |
“The Surgical and Medical Treatment of President McKinley.” Journal of Medicine and Science Oct. 1901 v7n11: pp. 389-90. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
William McKinley (medical care: criticism: personal response). |
Named persons |
Matthew D. Mann; Charles McBurney; Herman Mynter; Roswell Park. |
Document |
The Surgical and Medical Treatment of President McKinley
More or less criticism has been indulged in
(as usual) of the Doctors who were concerned in the case of the President. The
most of it fortunately has come from the laity, who judge from all sorts of
reports, official and unofficial, which yellow journalism may send out. Some
of it comes, however, from medical men, who are always ready to tell, after
the facts are all well known to every one, just what should have been done and
what should not have been done. The principal criticisms have been. 1. That
the Doctors either were mistaken in the nature of the case, or misrepresented
in the bulletins to the public. 2. That the postmortem examination showed that
they were mistaken. 3. That more search should have been made for the bullet
at the time of the operation for closing the wounds in the stomach.
The writer personally knows the two principal
surgeons in the case—Drs. Mann and Park and by reputation Dr. Mynter—and ventures
to assert that in no city in the Union could two better surgeons be found—learned,
experinced [sic], skilful [sic] in operating and eminently judicious,
and cautions [sic] in the general management of such cases—a careful
scrutiny of the bulletins will show that at no time did either of these men,
over their own signature, say that the President was out of danger. They gave
the symptoms, and most surgeons throughout the country agreed with them, that
the prognosis was favorable. An interview with Dr. Mann published in the [389][390]
New York Herald, the day before the change for the worse, said: “That
I, by no means consider the President out of danger.” To be sure Dr. McBurney,
of New York, gave a most encouraging diagnosis—in fact felt sure that he was
to recover. The writer is very sure that this opinion was not endorsed by the
regular attendants. The fear at first was that peritonitis would follow the
injury, but after two days, when it did not come, we all hoped much, although
every surgeon of experience felt anxious when each bulletin announced a rapid
pulse and some elevation of temperature. The postmortem showed gangrene from
which some absorption of dead tissue took place and he died from septicemia
(blood poison). No pus. No signs of peritonitis. No skill could have detected
this gangrene. No amount of skill could have prevented it, could it have been
foreseen. No good modern surgeon would have neglected to operate at the time
that Dr. Mann operated. No one could have done it better. No judicious surgeon
would have spent any more time searching for a bullet, which had done all the
harm it could. It was the impact (the force) of the bullet (shot from a pistol
within a few inches of the President) that killed the tissues for a distance
about its course and caused the gangrene, in the writer’s opinion. The bullet
might have remained in the body for years, (had he recovered) and no harm resulted—nature
covers it up usually. The harm comes from what it carries with it and what it
injures in its passage. We are therefore of the opinion that all that human
foresight and skill could do, was done to save the life of the President.