Publication information |
Source: Montreal Medical Journal Source type: journal Document type: editorial Document title: “The Injury and Death of the Late President of the United States” Author(s): anonymous Date of publication: October 1901 Volume number: 30 Issue number: 10 Pagination: 821-22 |
Citation |
“The Injury and Death of the Late President of the United States.” Montreal Medical Journal Oct. 1901 v30n10: pp. 821-22. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
William McKinley (medical care: international response); William McKinley (death, cause of). |
Named persons |
none. |
Document |
The Injury and Death of the Late President of the United States
The report of the illness of the President and
of the conditions found at the autopsy has been published in full by several
of the American medical journals. It is a creditable report, and is signed by
all the physicians and surgeons who had been in attendance.
It shows that, thanks to the forethought and provisions
made for the care of anyone injured on the grounds, by those in charge of the
Buffalo exhibition, the President received prompt and efficient attention, that
the physicians and surgeons worked together in harmony, and that everything
was done for the distinguished patient that science could suggest.
The cause of death, however, cannot as yet be
said to be fully determined. The wounds in the stomach were successfully closed,
and there is no evidence that any leakage occurred after the closure. The suggestion
that the bullets were poisoned has been disproved. There seems to be little
or no evidence that there occurred a lesion to the sympathetic that could, with
any degree of even probability, be assigned [821][822]
as a cause of death. Much more can be said in favour of the suggestion that
death resulted from the injury to the pancreas. Further evidence, either experimental
or pathological, regarding the effects of injury to and disease of this viscus
must be obtained before any positive statements can be accepted. One can hardly
read the pathological report without wondering whether or not a drain inserted
through the abdominal incision, or better yet, from behind through the loin
just beside the injured kidney, would have altered the result. There is the
positive evidence of the bacteriologist that the wounds and retro-peritoneal
wound cavity were not infected. Drainage, therefore, could only have given a
chance of escape to the serous exudate and pancreatic fluid if present.
One fact comes out very clearly, and that is that
the medical attendants had to contend with a serious injury in a patient whose
recuperative and reparative power was woefully low. An overworked man, with
imperfect heart and kidneys, falls an easy prey to injury and disease.