Dr. Simpson attended the dissection of two of Dr. Sidey’s cases, and freely handled the diseased parts.  His next four child-bed patients were affected with puerperal fever, and it was the first time he had seen it in practice.  As Dr. Simpson is a gentleman (Dr. Meigs, as above), and as “a gentleman’s hands are clean” (Dr. Meigs’ Sixth Letter), it follows that a gentleman with clean hands may carry the disease.  Am.  Jour.  Med.  Sc., October, 1851.

Peddle.—­The five or six cases of Dr. Sidey, followed by the four of Dr. Simpson, did not end the series.  A practitioner in Leith having examined in Dr. Simpson’s house, a portion of the uterus obtained from one of the patients, had immediately afterwards three fatal cases of puerperal fever.  Dr. Veddie referred to two distinct series of consecutive cases in his own practice.  He had since taken precautions, and not met with any such cases.  Am.  Jour.  Med.  Sc., October, 1851.

Copland.  Considers it proved that puerperal fever maybe propagated by the hands and the clothes, or either, of a third person, the bed-clothes or body-clothes of a patient.  Mentions a new series of cases, one of which he saw, with the practitioner who had attended them.  She was the sixth he had had within a few days.  All died.  Dr. Copland insisted that contagion had caused these cases; advised precautionary measures, and the practitioner had no other cases for a considerable time.  Considers it criminal, after the evidence adduced,—­which he could have quadrupled,—­and the weight of authority brought forward, for a practitioner to be the medium of transmitting contagion and death to his patients.  Dr. Copland lays down rules similar to those suggested by myself, and is therefore entitled to the same epithet for so doing.  Medical Dictionary, New York, 1852.  Article, Puerperal States and Diseases.

If there is any appetite for facts so craving as to be yet unappeased,—­Lesotho, necdum satiata,—­more can be obtained.  Dr. Hodge remarks that “the frequency and importance of this singular circumstance (that the disease is occasionally more prevalent with one practitioner than another) has been exceedingly overrated.”  More than thirty strings of cases, more than two hundred and fifty sufferers from puerperal fever, more than one hundred and thirty deaths appear as the results of a sparing estimate of such among the facts I have gleaned as could be numerically valued.  These facts constitute, we may take it for granted, but a small fraction of those that have actually occurred.  The number of them might be greater, but “’t is enough, ’t will serve,” in Mercutio’s modest phrase, so far as frequency is concerned.  For a just estimate of the importance of the singular circumstance, it might be proper to consult the languid survivors, the widowed husbands, and the motherless children, as well as “the unfortunate accoucheur.”

III