Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 55-56. (Budapest, 1970)

TANULMÁNYOK - Benedek, István: The Illness and Death of Semmelweis (angol nyelvű közlemény)

did not require surgical interference; they simply did not mention it because they saw it had nothing to do with the psychosis. When later the autopsy threw light on the pyaemia and discovered — among others, — the serious destruction on the fingers of the right hand, the injury during the operation and the panaritium were suddenly remembered and the direct cause of the death was attributed to it. That the injury during an operation took place in early June was made probable also by the examination after the exhumation. Gyula Regöly-Mérei found fracture caused by an osteomyelitic process on the Und, Illrd, and IVth metacarpus of the right hand with local osteoporosis and in the beginning of osteophyte-formulation, from which he concluded that the process started G—

8 weeks earlier, that is in June. Further, on the right scapula and in the bone structure of the left-side ribs he found decomposition of a nature suggesting septical inflammation. In spite of the above expert opinion based on factual examination I abide by the possibility that there was no injury at all, or if there was any it did not cause osteomyelitis, in that case the inflammatory processes observed on the bone were all the consequences of the brutal treatment in the hospital. What is my basis for that assumption? Two negative facts: first that neither Markusovszky nor Fleischer nor any other eyewitness made mention of the injury, and secondly that even an expert opinion is not infallible. It is not a revelation but a contention, a supposition backed by scientific arguments, which can be challenged by another supposition backed by other scientific arguments. In the present case we have two expert opinions which contradict each other on many points. In 19G6 Lajos Bartucz, though he was unable to conclude his work, published the results of his examinations on the bones of Semmelweis, and the expert opinions of the two scientist are far from being in conformity (10). According to Regöly-Mérei for instance "the state of remanence of the bones is good, there is no advanced decomposition"

, while professor Bartucz found the skeleton decomposed, broken and incomplete to the extent that the examination of some of the bones encountered the greatest difficulties. On the bones of the hand Regöly-Mérei writes: "The bones have survived very well, they are entirely spared from decomposition", while at Bartucz : "From the skeleton of Semmelweis the bones of the hand were spared the least, as six carpal bones, one metacarpal bone, and 15 phalanxes are missing" Regöly-Mérei : "We definitely emphasize that the rest of the metacarpal bones and phalanxes are in a very good state of remanence and they bear no marks of decomposition." But how does he know that when a considerable part of the bones is missing and he did not even examine all the available ones, most probably only those which were in a good state of remanence? According to Bartucz among the carpal bones the left side navicular and hamatum show corrosion indicating festering, and the right side multangulum majus is injured; "though the metacarpal bones of the right hand are all preserved, none of them are intact entirely, on most the capitulum is injured with corrosions indicating a festering process with great probability and with fistulae leading into the bone." So not only on metacarpal II — III — IV, as claimed by Regöly-Mérei, but "on