Publication information |
Source: Medical Times and Register Source type: journal Document type: editorial Document title: “Some of the Surgical Aspects of the Assassination of President McKinley” Author(s): Manley, T. H. Date of publication: October 1901 Volume number: 39 Issue number: 10 Pagination: 260-62 |
Citation |
Manley, T. H. “Some of the Surgical Aspects of the Assassination of President McKinley.” Medical Times and Register Oct. 1901 v39n10: pp. 260-62. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
presidential assassinations (comparison); William McKinley (medical care: personal response); William McKinley (medical care: criticism). |
Named persons |
Robert H. Cowan; James A. Garfield; Abraham Lincoln; Joseph Lister; William McKinley; Roswell Park; Paul Reclus; Lewis A. Stimson [misspelled below]. |
Document |
Some of the Surgical Aspects of the Assassination of President McKinley
Within the past thirty-five years, three presidents
of the United States have been stricken down by the murderous weapon of an assassin.
In each instance there were several features of
striking surgical interest. In all three, the resources of science and art were
impotent; we may say, that their wounds were from the beginning mortal.
In the case of the illustrious Lincoln, the missile
entered the skull just posterior to the right ear, about an inch from the torcular,
tore widely open the lateral sinus and lodged in the brain substance. The commotion
transmitted through the emcephalon was so great that the anterior fossa of the
base of the skull was widely fissured and the supra orbital plates shivered
into fragments.
Consciousness was lost and mortal symptoms immediately
supervened, death following in six hours.
In President Garfield’s case, the missile entered
from behind, tearing through the thick lumbar muscles and the body of the ninth
dorsal vertebra, in transit wounding the spinal cord. During life the position
of the bullet could not be located. [260][261]
Immediately on being shot, the President fell
to the ground, was soon in deep shock with signs of paralysis of both lower
extremities. The President lingered nearly four months before the end came.
In this case, for several weeks after the murderous
assault, there were some very good reasons for expecting an ultimate recovery.
He survived the immediate danger of mortal hemorrhage, the paralysis improved,
there was no evidence of perforation of the hollow viscera, he had fair digestive
power, besides, he was a person of good habits, with a robust constitution.
But, as time sped on, it was obvious that the unfortunate man was doomed, the
effects of shock lingered, infection set in, metastatic suppuration followed,
with a steady rise of temperature; increasing exhaustion and final loss of digestive
power; added to this continued pain and loss of rest. The patient had made a
brave fight for his life, but the odds were against him.
It was thought at that time—20 years ago—that
could the missile be only located and extracted, the patient’s life might have
been saved.
Laparotomy at that time for penetrating wounds
of the abdomen, was yet untried, and of the floroscope or the Roentgent Rays
nothing was known. Lister was then working out his system of antiseptics, and
many had adopted it, but it was only in its trial stages, and was by no means
generally employed. On autopsy, after the viscera of the abdomen were removed,
the bullet was found, well encysted in the pancreas. At that time, all that
the resources of the healing-art could accomplish was to aid the processes of
nature and alleviate symptoms.
Since that epoch, very considerable advances have
been made in operative medicine, but let no one delude himself with an impression
that they are of as widespread a character as some would have us believe. We
have no means yet which will enable us to overcome the effects of age, nor to
prevent the death of tissues, after what Cowan well describes as “the local
shock to parts after a traumatism.” We cannot well mend a shattered spine, nor
restore tissues which have been destroyed.
The Third Assassination.
The medical aspects of the late President McKinley’s
case in many respects are the most extraordinary and unique on record. No doubt,
but for years to come, they will occupy an important place in the annals of
surgery, and serve as an object to the rising generation of practitioners.
Too much haste and too much optimism seemed to
be the conspicuous features here. About four hours after eating a mid-day lunch,
while standing in an erect position, the President was shot twice, at very short
range, not more than one or two feet—the cartridge being 32 calibre. One ball
struck the sternum and glanced, the other pierced the abdomen one inch above
and to the left of the umbilicus—immediately over the hypogastrium—a highly
vital area. For the moment, the President was dazed rather than shocked; he
gazed for a moment on the assassin and sat down. It does not appear from the
bulletins, that immediately after the assault the President showed any signs
of grave constitutional disturbance, of large hemorrhage or great shock. Almost
immediately he was removed in an ambulance to the Emergency Hospital, and within
one hour after the shooting he [261][262] was on
the operating table.
The active participators in the laparotomy consisted
in one gynaecologist, a member of the medical staff of the Navy, a professor
of surgery, and a visiting surgeon on the grounds. The chief surgeon of the
hospital, Dr. Roswell Park, was not present when the operation began but was
there soon after.
Now, why this haste till Park arrived, or until
a larger number of experienced general surgeons could be called, that deliberate
council could be had?
But why, may be enquired, a moment’s delay when
there are good grounds of suspecting the penetration of a hollow viscus?
To such we must answer that the lessons of Stimpson’s
statistics on “Results after interference, and non-interference in penetrating
gun-shot wounds of the abdomen,” the writings of Reclus, the records of the
Cuban war, and those up to date in the Transvaal, have been lost, as all of
these clearly demonstrate that few escape a mortal end, after laparotomy for
gun-shot wounds, while a large number recover under expectant treatment.
Rarely, or perhaps, it may be said, never do we
find a double perforation of the gastric walls without co-incident damage to
other important organs, the liver, spleen, the pancreas, kidney or lungs; in
one such case in the writer’s hands, mortal hemorrhage came from the left kidney,
in another the internal iliac artery was opened and a fatal secondary hemorrhage
into the left pleural cavity occurred.
In the case of Mr. McKinley, it is said that one
and one-half hours were consumed in the operative procedure. This seems a long
time, but to one who has ever encountered the difficulties of suturing a posterior
perforation in the mobile, living stomach, it certainly implies no lack of skill,
but to employ what prophylactic we may, the immediate or ultimate shock succeeding
is invariably very great. This following immediately on the shock of the assault,
tries the vital powers to their utmost, and certainly enfeebles the reparative
processes of the system. There is no case of recovery yet recorded after laparotomy
for gun-shot wound of the stomach in one over 50 years old.
The optimistic bulletins, the sanguine expectations,
the “absence of sepsis and of peritonitis,” “the normal blood count,” the certainty
of recovery while tissue asphyxia, decomposition and sphacelus were slowly but
steadily undermining life, seem indeed quite incomprehensible. In a case of
this character of world-wide notoriety, the effect of the laity must certainly
tend to discredit the prognosis, the opinion of physicians and the boast of
the profession that medicine is approaching an exact science.
Far better for the prestige and honor of the profession
had it been if the medical staff had taken a determined stand and firmly resisted
the importunities of friends and the press, and stubbornly refused to commit
themselves until all chances of error in prognosis were impossible.