- tained in respect to a few of them only. The most rapid channel of
absorption is by a wound, or by immediate injection into a vein; the surface of the serous membranes is a less rapid medium, and the mucous membrane of the alimentary canal is still less rapid. Now it is proved of many poisons that, when applied in similar circumstances to these several parts or tissues, their activity is proportional to the order now laid down. Lastly, it has been proved of nux-vomica, that if the extract be thrust into the paw of an animal after a ligature has been tightened round the leg so as to stop the venous, but not the arterial circulation of the limb, blood drawn from an orifice in a vein between the wound and the ligature, and transfused into the vein of another animal, will excite in the latter the usual effects of the poison, so as even to cause death; while, on the contrary, the animal from which the blood has been taken will not be affected at all, if a sufficient quantity be withdrawn before the removal of the ligature. These interesting facts, which are capable of important practical applications, were ascertained by M. Vernière.[1]
On weighing attentively the arguments here brought forward, it seems impossible to doubt, that some poisons are absorbed into the blood before they act, and that their entrance into the blood is not a mere fortuitous antecedent, but a condition essential to their action.
But it is farther held that poisons which act through absorption, do so by being conveyed in substance along with the blood to the part where their action is developed,—that their action eventually depends on the organ, whose functions are thrown into disorder, becoming impregnated with poisoned blood. Now, the arguments detailed above do not absolutely prove this conveyance and impregnation. They show that poisons enter the blood, and act somehow in consequence of entering it; but they do not prove in what manner the action subsequently takes place.
It was at one time indeed supposed that the same facts, which prove their admission into the blood, proved also their transmission in substance to the organs acted on by them. But Dr. Addison and Mr. Morgan have shown that this is not a legitimate conclusion, and that a different theoretical view may be taken of the facts,—namely, that the action may really take place by the poison producing on the sentient extremities of the nerves of the inner membrane of the blood-vessels a peculiar impression which is conveyed through the nerves to the part ultimately affected.[2] They have endeavoured to found this theory upon evidence, that the poison is not carried beyond the venous system; or that, if conveyed farther, it is carried incidentally, and not for the purpose of impregnating the textures of the organ which suffers. The evidence they have brought forward on this head is chiefly the following. 1. Poisons which act on a particular organ at a distance do not act more quickly when introduced into the artery which supplies it, than when introduced into its vein, or even into the principal artery of a distant part of the body.[3] 2.
