Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 62-63. (Budapest, 1971)

TANULMÁNYOK - Meigs, J. Wister: Kontagionisták, antikontagionisták és a gyermekágyi láz (angol nyelven)

1842- Charles D. Meigs published an anthology reprinting Gordon, Armstrong, Hey and Lee but gave no opinion about contagion. 1843- O. W. Holmes presented his essay with vigorous criticism of Philadelphians and especially Meigs. 1845- Holmes's essay was praised by England's Registrar General. 1848- Meigs rejected contagion in print for the first time. 1850-53 Meigs repeated his rejections in several editions of textbooks. 1854- Meigs published a monograph on puerperal fever with emotional denials of contagion and references to Holmes and McClintock. 1855- Holmes republished his essay with a long introduction emphasizing Meigs's incompetence. 1856 and thereafter — Meigs's views on contagion were rejected on all sides, (Meigs died 1869.) 1855-1890 Persistent epidemics of puerperal fever. 1860, 1861, 1883, 1891 Holmes repeated his attacks on Meigs and the anticontagionists. You will notice the odd sequence of 1842-43. In 1842 Meigs republished the essays of three contagionists and one skeptic on the subject of puerperal fever. They were the accepted authorities of the English school. Robert Lee's monograph of 1832 was republished almost intact in the 1833 Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine and was thus stamped as more or less official British doctrine. Meigs noted in his reprint of Gordon, Armstrong, Hey and Lee that he intended it for students, and he commended Gordon with special warmth. However, he took no position on contagion at that time [22]. In February 1843, less than a year later, Holmes wrote his essay, quoting the same English authorities as Meigs. He also commended Gordon's views to his Table 2. PHYSICIANS IDENTIFIED BY NAME, TITLE OR OCCUPATION IN HOLMES'S TEXT CLASSIFIED BY ALLEGED VIEWS ON CONTAGION AND COUNTRY OR PLACE OF PRACTICE Place of Practice Views about contagion _ . . , _ New Other _. ., . , , . .„ Britain* Europe England U. S. Philadelphia All Pro 40 3 7 2 3 55 Anti 6 3 0 0 5** 14 46 6 7 2 8 69 * 2 British physicians could not be classified either pro or anti ** X

2 = 7,06 p < .oi