|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Bright's Disease
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Bright's Disease
Author: Magpie
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 02:19 am |        | Hello all, thought I'd pass on a little something I was just reading. While reading an article about obsolete names for diseases (I have WAY too much time on my hands) I ran across an entry for Bright's Disease. Apparantly the term was used as a catch all diagnosis for ANY kidney problem, rather than a specific condition. Maybe this could be kept in mind when reading about the Lusk kidney.
Magpie |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 07:24 am | | Hi Magpie --
Actually, this is a subject I'm doing some work on at the moment, funny you should bring it up!
If anyone has any info on Bright's, please do post it here, it would be of enormous help! One interesting bit I've found is that the damned thing could have been cured in 24 hours with a single shot of penicillin (unfortunately, discovered 30 years too late for our dear Catherine). |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 08:32 am | | Somehow, Stephen, I don't think penecillin would've cured all her problems!!
Dela |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 09:06 am | | Hello, Magpie, Dela, and Stephen:
Since I work in the medical field (as an editor), I should be of some help in obntaining further information on Bright's disease as viewed today by the medical profession as well as in the 1880's. For some more in-depth information, I will look up the topic next time I am at Welsh Medical Library (I work in the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, although in Baltimore's Inner Harbor not on the East Baltimore campus of JHMI).
I do not think, first of all, that this is the obsolete medical term that Magpie thinks since neither of the two medical dictionaries that I have consulted refer to it as an outmoded term, although "nephritis" seems to be the more usual term used today.
Stedman's Medical Dictionary (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1995), p. 242, provides the information that the disease is named for Richard Bright, an English internist and pathologist who lived 1789-1855.
Magpie is correct in saying "Bright's disease" is a catch-all term for a number of conditions of the kidney. Taber's Medical Dictionary states:
"Bright's disease. A generic term for acute and chronic disease of the kidneys. It is usually associated with dropsy and albuminuria. Known also as nephritis." (Clarence Wilbur Taber, Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 9th ed. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Co., 1963)
According to the report of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who did the autopsy on Catherine Eddowes, the one remaining kidney in her corpse was described as follows: "Right kidney, bloodless, with slight congestion at the base of the pyramids." As for the other kidney, he stated, "the left kidney [has been] carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I should say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it." (Quoted in Begg et al., The Jack the Ripper A to Z, 2nd. ed., 1994, p. 66)
The congestion described by Dr. Brown may correspond to the inflammation that characterizes nephritis (Tabers, pp. N-8 to N-9; Stedman's p. 1183). The medical term "nephritis" in itself means "inflamation of the kidneys" [Greek, "nephros," kidney + "itis," inflammation, Stedman's, op cit]
Chris George |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 12:40 pm | | Chris --
Thanks for the info! I did a bit of research myself this morning at L. of C. and found some interesting tidbits. Apparently it is caused mainly by high blood pressure, and as such can be considered hereditary. My main concern is whether alcoholism can be considered a cause of Bright's Disease (as is mentioned in some Ripper books).
There was an interesting article penned by Nick Warren in Ripperana some months (maybe even years) ago... I'll have to thumb through my back issues and see if I can't find it.
Thanks again Chris, do let me know if you find anything else.
Stephen |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 03:59 pm | | BRIGHT'S DISEASE
ITS NATURE, CAUSES AND CURE - NOT AS FATAL AS COMMONLY SUPPOSED.
The prevalence and fatality of the malady known as "Bright's Disease," together with the fact that so little is generally known concerning it, induced a reporter of a prominent Boston journal to inquire of Dr. Tumblety, who has treated successfully many cases of "Bright's Disease," as to the latest scientific information on the subject. The following interview was the result:
"Is there anything new in the field of science regarding Bright's disease?"
"Assuredly, and perhaps in regard to no other malady has greater progress been made. The investigations of Cornil and Rauvier in France, of Bartels in Germany, of Millard in America, as well as those of many others in various countries, have materially added to our knowledge of it within the last five years. The original ideas of Bright (whose name the disease bears) have been greatly modified. Its causes and nature are better understood, and its treatment has become more successful.
"What are its causes?"
"The cause of all chronic diseases are so numerous and so interwoven that it is difficult to specify any which can be regarded as special and distinct. The more common occurrence, however, of this among those who indulge in alcoholic drinks make it clear that that habit is a prominent cause of the disease. But many others doubtless exist. The disease is insidious, because it produces no pain. The kidneys are almost destitute of sensitive nerves. No other organ or tissue in the body can be inflamed and not give pain or distress, or uneasiness. But the kidneys may be and often are. Even when acutely and severely inflamed the only sensation experienced is frequently dull weight or aching in the loins. And years of chronic inflammation may pass without an hour of uneasiness even in that region to warn the patient of impending danger. Doubtless these organs were thus framed because of their peculiar functions. Their labor is more varied and extreme than that of any other organ. They form the sewer of the system. Through them the debris of the organism is mostly excreted. By them drugs and poisons are largely ejected. When the liver is torpid they have to excrete bile. A sudden check of perspiration gives them increased labor. All forms of alcoholic beverages stimulate their activity to the utmost. In short, considering the variety and irregularity of the work put upon them, the real wonder is that they are not more frequently diseased. Such would be the case, undoubtedly, were they as sensitive as other organs."
"Exactly what is Bright's disease?"
"All forms of chronic inflammation of the kidneys are included under this common designation. Acute inflammation is termed nephritis."
"But, if this disease is so hidden in its origin and so painful in its course, how can one know whether or not he is its victim?"
"There is absolutely no way of detecting its presence or absence, except by careful and expert microscopic analysis. Careful examination was once supposed to be sufficient, and it is still so considered by those who have not kept step with science in this field. Ordinarily a specimen is boiled or nitric acid is added, and the decision is made to rest upon the appearance of albumen. But such conclusions are now known to be unwarrantable. Albumen is present in a number of perfectly healthy conditions. After a hearty meal of eggs or oysters its presence is common. Violent exercise will produce the same result, and it is found in a large variety of diseased conditions. Its absence, too, is now considered merely presumptive proof that Bright's disease does not exist. In several instances this malady has existed many years, and it has even run its entire course without albumen ever having appeared."
"Is the microscopic test always conclusive and reliable?"
"In most instances a single expert examination is sufficient to determine the question; sometimes more are necessary. But other tests are always requisite to determine the state of the malady and its curability."
"You hold, then, that Bright's disease is curable?"
"In its earlier stages perfect cure is easily attainable. Indeed, there is reason to believe that slight degrees of it disappear without any treatment. Later on, cure means recovery from the inflammation, but not from its consequences. The tissues of the kidneys, once destroyed, can never be restored. Happily, however, man is endowed with more than twice as much kidney as is necessary for the ordinary purposes of healthy organism, so that an impairment of those organs equivalent to the entire removal of one kidney is unfelt so long as the rest of the system remains free from disorder. When, however, acute disease - pneumonia, for example - attacks such a person, the lack of sufficient function in the kidneys becomes evident and adds much to the dangers of the acute disease. Just here lies the secret why some who are apparently strong yield so quickly to acute disease. They have undiscovered Bright's disease, which has crippled their ability to cope with the acute attack. Cure, therefore, in this class of patients must be accepted with this limitation. The inflammation can be arrested, destructive process brought to an end, and the patient be no more liable to a recurrence of the disease than if he had never had it; but he can never be 'made whole' as at the beginning. Such a recovery can now be achieved by a careful course of diet, regimen and remedies in any case where the remnant of useful tissues equals one-third of the original amount. At least, such has been my own experience."
Extract from - A SKETCH of the life of DR. FRANCIS TUMBLETY - Presenting an Outline of His Wonderful Career as Physician... (Published New York, 1893). |
Author: Caz
Friday, 30 April 1999 - 02:42 am | | Thanks everyone for the terrific info.
It just goes to show that, whether in Victorian times or nowadays, we should all be watching our alcohol levels, particularly those with a hereditary disposition towards high blood pressure. No symptoms obviously does not mean no danger. Help! That includes an awful lot of us, doesn't it?
It also means that a whole lot of kidneys back in 1888 would no doubt have been as 'Bright' as in the case of our Catherine, had they been examined after death. So am I right in thinking we will probably never know for sure if the Lusk kidney was the real thing?
I was going to say 'food for thought' but perhaps not in the circumstances, eh?
(I'm just glad that farm animals don't imbibe, I'd never touch offal again!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 01:56 pm | | Males in my father's family have a defective gene which produces Acute Polycystic Kidney Disease. Before this was diagnosed properly, cause of death on the many death certificates was normally "Acute Nephritis."
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 03:28 pm | | Hi, Stephen:
You stated, "My main concern is whether alcoholism can be considered a cause of Bright's Disease (as is mentioned in some Ripper books)."
I had earlier posted information from Taber's Medical Dictionary on Bright's disease and nephritis, which, as I noted, are one and the same entity, with the medical profession seeming to prefer the latter term these days.
Under "alcoholism" and specifically "chronic alcoholism," one of the symptoms listed is "chronic interstitial nephritis." (Clarence Wilbur Taber, Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 9th ed. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Co., 1963, p. A-36).
Chris George |
Author: JACKIE WILSON
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 05:22 am | | Hi all.
I have noticed that in the Victorian times, there appears to have been a substantial amount of 'lunacy' and 'mania' about. This seems to be caused by malnutrition, too much cheap, unfiltered alcohol, and general bad hygiene. I have always though of Catherine as one of the ones who would nowadays be classed as 'homeless, with acute alcoholic syptoms, malnutrition, and generaL NEGLECT.' Unfortunately, there are millions like this even today, even as we have these 'cures' and diagnoses. It was not unusual that she was half-dead of this Bright's disease (or acute nephritis). You cannot put too much of any toxin into your body and expect the filters, the kidneys, to not be affected. Our girl was small, skinny and half- diseased. So were the other victims. I have seen her equivalent down on 5th Avenue in New York, probably sharing the same exact life...sad. But an unfortunate fact of life, for centuries. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 07:31 am | | One thing that does permeate this case is the often mention of lunacy.
But were the Victorian's able to identify genuine cases of lunacy?
When anyone acted strange, they speak of lunacy.
If anyone appeared a threat to others, they speak of lunacy.
When someone was thought to be a threat to themselves, they speak of lunacy.
Superficially I suppose we might be forgiven for thinking that the Victorians were only capable of dealing with two types of people, the socially accepted 'normal', And the socially unacceptable 'criminal'.
Those who fell inbetween were labelled 'insane'.
So, its probably a good thing that we have progressed in this line of thought, as nowadays, the so-called 'inbetweenies' are considered 'normal' and the Victorian 'normal' are viewed as 'eccentric'. We refer to 'criminals' as Politicians, and the true criminals, we let out on the street. !!!
Hmmm, did I say we've progressed ?.......
Jon
:-) |
Author: Cindy L.
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 10:04 pm | | Jon,
Progressed? I don't know, maybe; but it seems to me that in today's society we still use the same three criteria (a person's strangeness, i.e., social nonconformity; a threat to themselves; or a threat to others) to determine whether someone's elevator goes to the top floor. Today, we just use different terms. The word lunacy or lunatic doesn't pop up too often. More often now we hear the word crazy. Now we don't lump them all together either, we have a whole pile of fancy words for different types of crazy, but what good does that do us?
Cindy L. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 06:56 am | | Hi All,
It seems to make some people feel 'normal' to label others a bit 'askew'. It is an inadequate person's way of coping and making them feel better about themselves. We've seen it on the Casebook several times where some (not all) of the anonymous posters constantly refer to named posters as having psychological probs etc. It's their only way of 'belonging' and 'joining in', in a place where they would otherwise feel intimidated and small. We should try to help them I guess but it's hard work.
The 'normal' ones are those who feel sorry for those they consider to have mental problems, instead of sneering and looking down their noses at them.
And this is timeless I guess. But to carry on from what Jon was saying, those considered eccentric years ago, sadly sometimes only become respected and 'accepted' after their deaths.
Nice to see ya Cindy!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Cindy L.
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 06:33 pm | | Caz,
Nice to see you, too. It's very true that sadly a lot of eccentrics are only given the recognition they deserve after death. Maybe someday that will change and people will become more accepting of those who are different, but the cynical part of me doubts it.
Cindy |
|
|
|
|
