|
 |
 |
|
|
|
This discussion has been copied over from the old message boards. It was originally begun on 23 February 2000 by Dr. Thomas Ind, a registered gynaecologist.
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas Ind
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 9:47 pm: |       |
A lot has been said to discredit Henry Smith's comments concerning the LK but I am sure that HGS would have seen the kidney.
From William Bullock's "Roll of the Members of Staff of the London Hospital from it's Foundation" he was clearly one of the experts most qualified to comment on the kidney. Furthermore, he was either the Pathological Curator or ex-Pathological Curator at the time and a very eminent figure in the London Hospital.
He was born in 1836 and obtained his MB from the London University in 1858. For a period he worked in Guys under someone called Gull (yes that Gull) and for those of you don't know, Guy's is also the home of Bright (as of Bright's disease). He obtained his MRCP in 1863 and FRCP in 1870. He was pathologist to the the London Hospital from 1866, assistant physician from 1867 and physician from 1876. So not only was he trained in pathology but also an eminent physician who would have been used to having patients with diseases of the kidney.
Here is a quote from Bullock's hand written text "Sutton practically spent his whole day in the London Hospital and gained enormous experience in morbid anatomy. As a demonstrator he was never excelled and as a lecturer he was most impressive." He was also "a man of small stature and rather shy" probably explaining why he would not have gone out and sought attention in the press with the LK (unlike the brash Openshaw).
I cannot believe that a man who was as inexperienced as THO would not have shown the LK to a man as experienced as Sutton. It would have been absolute negligence not to have done so especially as he "practically spent his whole day in the London Hospital".
Whatever you say about Smith, even without his dubious testimony you would have expected Sutton to have seen the LK. He would have been considered one of the most qualified men in London to have commented on it.
However, I have already shed doubts on whether a macroscopic examination and microscopic examination could define the nature of the kidney and I have yet to find a text book from that time that decribes how one determines a kidney to be human. I still have a few to look at though. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
