Nearly seven pages are devoted to showing that I was wrong in saying I would not be “understood to imply that there exists a doubt in the mind of any well-informed member of the medical profession as to the fact that puerperal fever is sometimes communicated from one person to another, both directly and indirectly.”  I will devote seven lines to these seven pages, which seven lines, if I may say it without offence, are, as it seems to me, six more than are strictly necessary.

The following authors are cited as sceptics by Dr. Meigs:  Dewees.—­I cited the same passage.  Did not know half the facts.  Robert Lee.—­Believes the disease is sometimes communicable by contagion.  Tonnelle, Baudelocque.  Both cited by me.  Jacquemier.—­Published three years after my Essay.  Kiwisch. " Behindhand in knowledge of Puerperal Fever.” [B. & F. Med.  Rev. Jan. 1842.] Paul Dubois.—­Scanzoni.

These Continental writers not well informed on this point.[See Dr. Simpson’s Remarks at Meeting of Edin.  Med.  Chir.  Soc. (Am.  Jour.  Oct. 1851.)]

The story of Von Busch is of interest and value, but there is nothing in it which need perplex the student.  It is not pretended that the disease is always, or even, it may be, in the majority of cases, carried about by attendants; only that it is so carried in certain cases.  That it may have local and epidemic causes, as well as that depending on personal transmission, is not disputed.  Remember how small-pox often disappears from a community in spite of its contagious character, and the necessary exposure of many persons to those suffering from it; in both diseases contagion is only one of the coefficients of the disease.

I have already spoken of the possibility that Dr. Meigs may have been the medium of transfer of puerperal fever in some of the cases he has briefly catalogued.  Of Dr. Rutter’s cases I do not know how to speak.  I only ask the student to read the facts stated by Dr. Condie, as given in my Essay, and say whether or not a man should allow his wife to be attended by a practitioner in whose hands “scarcely a female that has been delivered for weeks past has escaped an attack,” “while no instance of the disease has occurred in the patients of any other accoucheur practising in the same district.”  If I understand Dr. Meigs and Dr. Hodge, they would not warn the physician or spare the patient under such circumstances.  They would “go on,” if I understand them, not to seven, or seventy, only, but to seventy times seven, if they could find patients.  If this is not what they mean, may we respectfully ask them to state what they do mean, to their next classes, in the name of humanity, if not of science!

I might repeat the question asked concerning Dr. Rutter’s cases, with reference to those reported by Dr. Roberton.  Perhaps, however, the student would like to know the opinion of a person in the habit of working at matters of this kind in a practical point of view.  To satisfy him on this ground, I addressed the following question to the President of one of our principal Insurance Companies, leaving Dr. Meigs’s book and my Essay in his hands at the same time.