Would Mr. Bilguer have amputated in these two instances?
Would not his method have saved both these patients, especially the
last?
Does not amputation seem to have contributed to their death?
Does it not evidently appear, that in the latter of these two cases,
amputation destroyed the good effects of the bark, which seemed to
conduct the patient to a speedy cure; and that in the former case, the
bark had not power sufficient to repair the mischief occasioned by the
amputation?
Does it not follow from these two observations, that however salutary
the effects of the bark may be, those of amputation are hurtful in a
greater degree? TISSOT.