Medical Round Table: Henry Gowan Sutton

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Medical Round Table: Henry Gowan Sutton

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions: Medical Round Table: Henry Gowan Sutton

Author: Thomas Ind Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 06:09 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. PS can anyone tell me what I was doing wrong with my photo posts?
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 06:41 pm
You have to reduce the photo to 90K or less to post them Tom. Perhaps this was the problem.
Author: Thomas Ind Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 06:54 pm
That is the answer I have posted them to Stephen and he will post them. I am clearly not as computer literate as my other colleagues. I don't know how to reduce the size but will try and learn before the next ones

Add a Message