Page:Treatise on poisons in relation to medical jurisprudence, physiology, and the practice of physic (IA treatiseonpoison00chriuoft).pdf/145

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

Fürth, the chief appearance besides excessive emaciation was a thickening of the coats round and behind the pylorus to such a degree that the opening of the pylorus was formed of an almost cartilaginous ring several lines broad, and only wide enough to pass a quill.[1] There are spots over the stomach apparently of regenerated villous tissue, smoother and redder than the natural membrane. At the points where the stomach adheres to the neighbouring organs, its coats are sometimes wanting altogether, so that when its connections are torn away, perforations are produced. The other parts of the body are natural.

It may in some circumstances be necessary to determine from the appearances in the dead body whether sulphuric acid has been the occasion of death or has been introduced into the body after death. This may always be easily done. If a few drachms of sulphuric acid be injected into the anus immediately after death, and the parts be examined in twenty-four hours, it will be found, that wherever the acid touches the gut, its mucous coat is yellowish and brittle, its muscular and peritonæal coats white, as if blanched, and the blood in the vessels charred; the injury is confined strictly to the parts actually touched, is surrounded by an abrupt line of demarcation, and shows no sign of inflammatory redness. Nitric acid produces nearly the same effects. The whole tunics are yellow, and the disorganization is greater. For these facts we are indebted to Orfila.[2]

In closing this account of the morbid appearances, some observations will be required on the force of evidence derived from them; because circumstances may exclude all other branches of medical proof. In many instances both of acute and of chronic poisoning with the strong acids, I conceive, contrary to the general statements of most systematic writers on modern medical jurisprudence, that distinct evidence might be derived from morbid appearances only. Thus, what fallacy can intervene to render the following opinion doubtful? In a case several times alluded to as described by Mertzdorff, there were vesicles and brown streaks on the lips, neck, and shoulders, similar to the effects of burning,—almost total separation of the lining membrane of the mouth, throat, epiglottis, and gullet,—perforation of the stomach, with a margin half an inch wide, which was extensively charred, and surrounded by a red areola. From the appearances alone Mertzdorff declared that the child must have been poisoned with sulphuric acid. Perhaps he should have said sulphuric or muriatic acid.

Or take the case of Richard Overfield, who was condemned at Shrewsbury Assizes in 1824 for murdering his own child, a babe three months old, by pouring sulphuric acid down its throat. In the dead body the following appearances were found: The lips were blistered internally and of a dark colour externally; the gullet was contracted and its inner coat corroded; the lining membrane of the mouth and tongue of a dull white colour; the great curvature of the stomach corroded and converted into a substance like wet brown paper; the

  1. Henke's Zeitschrift für die Staatsarzneikunde, xxxii. 161.
  2. Toxicologie Générale, ii. 689.