Proofs from Dr. Cartwright's Great Experiments on
Alligators--Resuscitation of Dr. Ely's Child--Dr. Bowling, Editor of
the Nashville Medical Journal, endorses Dr. Washington, who, in that
journal, "crushes out" all Opposition to the Theory--Dr. Draper's
Acknowledgment of it in New York--Homoeopathists--Conclusion.
TO DR. MARCY. Thus, for thirty years, had I maintained, not only without
public support, but against discouragements, these great truths, of
which I had been allowed for myself such life-giving evidence. But early
in December, 1851, Dr. Cartwright, then of New Orleans, announced in a
letter to me that he had publicly become my advocate. His name will ever
be connected with the theory, on account of the remarkable experiments
by which he demonstrated its truth. In the presence of eminent
physicians, and other scientific persons, he resuscitated an alligator
which had been killed by tying the trachea. After an hour, when neither
fire nor the dissecting knife produced signs of pain, Dr. Dowler[7] laid
bare the lungs and the heart. Then a hole was cut in the trachea, below
the ligature, and a blow-pipe was introduced, which Professor Forshey[7]
worked with violence. At length, a faint quivering of moving blood was
seen in the diaphanous veins of the lungs. The inflating process being
continued, the blood next began to run in streams from the lungs into
the quiescent heart. The heart began first to quiver, then to pulsate;
and signs of life elsewhere appearing, the animal began to move; and
soon, strong men could not hold him. Again they bound him to the table,
and kept the trachea tied until life was apparently extinct; when, again
inflating his lungs, he so thoroughly revived that he became dangerous,
snapping at everything, and breaking his cords. For the third time, the
trachea was ligatured--the animal expired, and was resuscitated.
Dr. Cartwright says in his letter to me, published in the Boston Medical
Journal, January 7th, 1852, "By this resuscitation, your theory of the
motive power of the circulation of the blood was established beyond all
doubt or dispute." "This vivisection clearly proved that the _primum
mobile_ of the circulation, and the chief motive powers of the blood,
are in the lungs, and not in the heart." Dr. Cartwright mentioned, in
the same letter, a case in which his faith in my theory had saved the
life of a breathless infant--inducing him to unwonted perseverance in
inflating its lungs.
Able opposers to the theory, however, arose in New Orleans, some of whom
believed that the resuscitation might have been effected by applications
to the nerves. Dr. Cartwright procured, from Gen. Jackson's battle
ground, another alligator, which was publicly killed and vivisected. The
doctor's opponents first tried their means to bring the animal to life,
and failed. Then he, by artificial respiration, restored the huge
reptile as before;--thus proving that artificial respiration could
restore suspended animation when nothing else could.
Dr. Ely was one who had opposed and written against the theory. In the
meantime, his infant son had cholera, and expired. His medical friends
had left him, and crape was tied to the handle of the front door.
Standing by the side of his lifeless babe, Dr. Ely said to himself, "If
this theory should be true, I might yet save my child." And profiting by
the example of Dr. Cartwright in restoring the dead alligator, he
restored his child to life. Remitting his efforts too soon--again the
infant ceased to breathe. And again, and yet the third time, the father
restored him--when the resuscitation proved complete; and months after,
the child was living and in perfect health. Dr. Ely then came promptly
forward, and, like a nobly honest man, reported the case as convincing
evidence of a truth which he had formerly opposed.[8]
Whoever wishes to know the history of theories concerning the motive
powers of the blood as they then stood, may learn them by looking over
files of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, edited by Dr. J. V. C.
Smith, for the years 1852-'53, and a part of 1854. Dr. Cartwright wrote
for it during those years; and, encouraged by his protection, I
frequently answered objections, which flowed in from various medical
opponents. The objection derived from the foetal circulation, I answered
thus, in the Journal, of May, 1852: "The change occurring at birth, so
far from falsifying this theory, affords presumptive proof of its truth.
When first the air enters the trachea of a new born infant, and animal
combustion begins, the inflation of the lungs must open the vessels and
vesicles prepared to receive the venous blood. To fill the new-made
vacuum, the whole of the blood from the right ventricle rushes through
the pulmonary tube, leaving none to go through the _ductus arteriosus_,
thus made useless, and henceforth to be abolished. But what is to move
the blood from the capillaries of the lungs? The heart's force,
insufficient before without aid from the mother's respiration, is now
divided, while its work is doubled. A new power must then be generated
by the meeting of the air with the carbon of the blood, enkindled by the
peculiar functional vitality of the lungs. Without such a power, no
perceptible cause exists sufficient to move the blood onward to the left
ventricle. But it is moved thither, and with a power which presses down
and closes the valve of the _foramen ovale_, thus clearly manifesting
that this current exceeds in force that in the right ventricle. Grant
that the new function of respiration has furnished a new power, and this
astonishing instantaneous metamorphosis from amphibious to mammalian
life becomes perfectly intelligible, and the wisdom of the Creator is
fully vindicated; showing that His work has been truly interpreted."
In the _Boston Journal_, of April 21st, 1852, is an article from
Dr. Cartwright, entitled "Confirmation of the Willardian, or Important
American Discovery," in which the author endeavors to remove what
doubtless has been one cause of the delay in acknowledging its truth.
"Those members of the profession," he says, "whom science has only
_perfumed_, are the most apt 'to look down with proud disdain' on any
discovery originating 'with individuals not indoctrinated.' They do not
make the proper distinction between selfish quacks who seek publicity
'to line the pocket,' and those 'who, prompted by some mysterious
power,' come forward against their interest, and at the risk of their
reputation. 'Rather than to contemn and ridicule, it were better to
study the manifestations of that mysterious power.' They do not consider
that the truth thus brought to light, while they fail to acknowledge it,
is affording 'to selfish quackery' a capital to trade on."
To the same effect is the advice given to the profession by Dr. B. F.
Washington, of Hannibal, Mo. He says, in the Nashville _Journal of
Medicine_, July, 1854, "it is time for us to be acting; the honor of the
profession is in danger. The theory of respiration is a truth which will
cut its way; and if we do not take it up and teach it, in a few years we
may see the mortifying spectacle of the community teaching the
profession scientific truths. Quacks have already taken it up, and we
have inhalers and air cures of various kinds."[9]
The first appearance of Dr. Washington as the advocate of my theory was
in the _Nashville Journal_, March, 1854; and his fertile genius had
there brought a new illustration of its truth. It had, he said, opened
his eyes to the explanation of a fact which had puzzled him from his
boyhood. "In slaughtering animals, if the trachea was cut, scarcely any
haemorrhage resulted; while, if that was left untouched, full haemorrhage
occurred. By the Willardian theory, the fact is readily susceptible of
explanation. The blood, filling the trachea, suspended respiration, and
of course the impelling power of the blood was suspended, and the
haemorrhage ceased. The engine could not work without steam. When the
trachea was not cut, respiration went on, and kept up the circulation,
until the animal was nearly exsanguineous, and the powers of life gave
way." This fact was clearly ascertained by Dr. W. K. Bowling, the
well-known editor of the _Nashville Journal_, and able professor of the
theory and practice of medicine in the university of that place. He sent
me the Journal containing this welcome endorsement of my theory from one
who was, as Dr. Bowling assured me, "an observer of superior tact and
learning," known by his medical compositions as well in Europe as
America. Since that time (March, 1854), that Journal, though not
excluding articles which oppose, has been understood to be in favor of
the theory. Dr. Washington has written repeatedly, answering all
objections;[10] and he has, in the Journal (as I have been assured by
one of the Editors), "crushed out all that would take up his glove, and
is left in undisputed possession of the field--looking in vain for an
opponent."
In the meantime, in 1856, Dr. J. N. Draper, Professor of Chemistry and
Physiology in the University of New-York, in an elaborate work on "Human
Physiology," has agreed that Harvey's theory of the paramount power of
the heart's action in the circulation must be abandoned; and that to
respiration must be assigned "the great duty of originating the blood's
circulation."[11]
Dr. Washington has not only defended me in every important position
which I have taken, and added new illustrations--but he has made the
theory available to showing new proofs of the wisdom of God in the
creation of man. Thus--steam is formed in the vacuum of the lungs at the
low temperature of 67 deg., while, if there were no vacuum, 212 deg. of heat
would be required to produce it,--an impossible quantity, since it would
coagulate the albumen of the blood. But form the vacuum, and the boiling
of the blood with any degree of heat less than 101 deg. could not cause any
such disaster, while the steam going off from the lungs through the
arterial system to the capillaries, gradually condenses, warming the
body by giving off its latent heat; and the latent heat of vapor is the
same however it is formed, and is always 1,114 deg.. What divine wisdom and
economy are thus displayed!
Homoeopathy has, we believe, never found any difficulty in receiving this
theory. We know that, at one of its conventions held in Providence, it
was ably supported; and Dr. Marcy, whom I have the honor to address,
was, as we have seen, one of its earliest defenders. He has never,
whether allopathist or homoeopathist, been known to hesitate when his own
mind brought him clear conclusions;--the distinguishing mark, according
to Dugald Stewart, of intrepidity of character.
With profound respect,
EMMA WILLARD.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It is here seen what an important work this theory does for the
venous circulation, and why the blood moves into the lungs. We have read
of a theory which maintains that it goes there because there is a mutual
attraction between it and the capillaries of the lungs. But there is
none between the water in our tube and that in the tin vessel where
water is boiling; but it goes into it with a rush notwithstanding.
Because there is a strong suction power produced by expansion, no other
attraction is needed. The apparatus, as here described, goes no farther
than to represent the circulation in single-hearted animals. But in my
work is a drawing which shows the left heart on the opposite of the
mimic lungs from the right; and then how the same tube, by being folded
in the form of a figure eight (8), shows the two hearts united into one,
and both ventricles working by the same contractions to perform their
different tasks.
[2] Mrs. B. Ogle Taylor, of Washington, formerly Miss Julia Dickinson,
of Troy, was thus found dead; and the late Mrs. Cass thus lost her life.
"She was seized," says a newspaper account, "in a hot bath, which she
had taken soon after eating." She lived an hour, unconscious, and the
physician said she died of congestion of the brain. How easily could
these highly intelligent ladies have kept themselves from danger, or
saved themselves when they felt it approaching, had they known and
understood these principles. For two reasons, in case of the failure of
the motive power from keeping the body too long in hot water, the blood
would be congested in the head. First, the head would not be immersed,
and, second, the last blood which the lungs sent forth would go to it.
[3] What can the Smithsonian Institute do better to carry out the views
with which the benevolent Smithson gave his fortune, than thus to teach
mankind when life may, by free circulation, be made to confer
enjoyment--how it may be inadvertently destroyed--and how it may be
restored, when, by drowning or otherwise, it is suspended? Sudden deaths
often occur by mal-position. That of the late Secretary Marcy is
doubtless an example. After his blood was heated and his circulation
quickened, he laid himself down on his back, his head not raised.
Attention to the workings of such a piece of apparatus as might be made,
would have shown the fatal effects of such a position at such a time.
[4] A young physician, whom I paid for correcting the proofs, was not
successful in preventing mistakes, especially in regard to numbers.
[5] I had just been reading Cuvier, to see whether he believed in the
Harveian theory of the circulation. I found he did not. "The circulation
vortex," says he, "is sometimes simple, sometimes double and even triple
(including that of the vena porta); the rapidity of its movements is
often _aided_ by the contraction of a certain fleshy apparatus
denominated hearts." Thus showing that my theory gave to the heart all
the prominence that was given to it by this great philosopher, who had
not, however, advanced any opinion as to the cause of the circulation.
[6] One of them, my lamented niece, Jane Porter Lincoln, at my request,
immediately wrote an account of the experiment, which is now in my
possession.
[7] These physicians gave certificates of their witnessing and assisting
at this memorable experiment, which were published in the _Boston
Medical Journal_, February 1852.
[8] Dr. Cartwright also reported the case in a letter which was
published in the _Boston Medical Journal_, September, 1852. This
resuscitation was more wonderful than those detailed in my published
work on "Respiration." All cases of life thus restored are proofs _a
posteriori_ of the truth of this theory of the arterial circulation.
[9] Good systems of exercise have been made in some respectable
institutions for health, openly formed on the principles of this theory.
Such is that by Dr. Hamilton, of Saratoga.
[10] When the time shall come that, the truth of my discovery being no
longer denied, its originality shall be contested, it will be a
significant fact that, in the _Nashville Journal_, of September, 1854,
is an article against it from a physician signing himself "Justicia,"
which he thus heads, "The Willardian Notion." In evil report, it was
indisputably mine. This article also shows, that the Harveian theory is
still maintained by the opposers of mine.
[11] See Draper's Physiology, p. 142.