The Death of President McKinley
For the third time in the history
of our free country the Chief Executive has died at the hands of
an assassin. The remarkable hopefulness and buoyancy of the American
people was reflected by the official bulletins, which were in the
face of statistics extremely optimistic. If those in attendance
are to be blamed at all it should be for this extreme optimism.
The most reliable statistics give
a very high rate of mortality. We recognize the value of hopefulness
and would encourage it, but in this case as in many others the hope
is not justified, and the disappointment seems intensified. A case
came under our observation a year or so ago. A young man had been
shot, the ball passing through the stomach. The patient was seen
in a neighboring town twenty-four hours after the injury. He had
reacted [sic] and his condition was so favorable that operation
was deferred. The patient recovered [141][142]
without any untoward symptoms. Such cases occasionally occur and
are a stimulus to our hopefulness.
The question of removing the ball
seems to occupy the minds of many. Very frequently the efforts at
the removal of a ball cause more damage than the presence of the
missile if left alone. The great damage is done by the ball in motion
and it continues a menace by pressure and by carrying infection.
It has been suggested that the wound
made by the ball entering the posterior abdominal wall should have
been drained. This was not feasible, as the ball could not be located.
The condition of gangrene found at post-mortem was surprising, and
the cause of this local death is not at all clear.
It is not known positively whether
the President was a diabetic or not. Many reasons have been put
forward explaining the cause of the gangrene; among them, injury
to the pancreas, but the operator and the pathologist neither mentioned
such a wound. Injury to the solar plexus has been urged—and the
wound of the kidney with its adrenal gland has been discussed.
Is it not possible to explain the
local death in the stomach wall as in other tissues? Could not the
effects of the laceration and contusion have been more extensive
than was apparent to the eye? And again, how much of this gangrene
was due to post mortem changes. A full report of the case is promised
in the near future and we hope some of those questions will be cleared
up.
Looking at the case as a whole we
feel assured that the surgeons did their full duty and their great
mistake was their extreme hopefulness, unfortunate, especially for
the profession—since it exposes, in the most glaring manner, our
weakness.
|