Sinclair, Sir William J.: Semmelweis. His Life and his Doctrine (Manchester, 1909)
V. Life in Buda-Pesth
i6o CARL BRAUN Carl Braun said, in his book, “During the winter of 1849 a severe epidemic of puerperal fever prevailed in spite of the prescribed chlorine disinfection, and ceased in the beginning of the milder season in April without ascertainable cause. In the summer time only 29 deaths occurred among 1,818 patients, although clinical teaching was uninterrupted and the courses of operative midwifery on the cadaver were conducted by the assistant as usual. In the winter semester puerperal fever broke out again, as it usually does in the autumn, and 77 women died out of 1,888 delivered. These occurrences must completely shatter the belief in the protective efficacy of chloride of lime. . . In spite of the most conscientious and general disinfection of the examining hands the mortality of the epidemic rose from January to March to 5 per cent. Next summer it was found that the cadaveric odour was still retained by the hands of the students in spite of the prescribed disinfection, so disinfection was given up, and the students were forbidden from examining parturient or puerperal women on the same day as they had occasion to handle the cadaver. Still, in spite of the greatest care the puerperal fever mortality continued to rise* until in March, 1851, it carried off over 7 per cent, of the patients of the First Clinic. In the School for Midwives where cadaveric infection could not readily be produced, and where the greatest watchfulness was exercised (auf das strengste überwacht) they had the sad experience in January to March of losing 10 to 12 per cent, of the patients from puerperal fever.. “ These facts must completely annihilate the hypothesis of cadaveric infection which rested for the most part upon the past and led to some very bold conclusions, and they warn us that we must give consideration to other etiological factors.” In reply to all this Semmelweis, as is his custom, goes into great detail concerning the events in the work of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital for many years, and concludes that Carl Braun has not disproved his state-
