BELLADONNA.

859

PI*** to be such), belladonna has gained no slight repute from itsjt s b 0s od resolvent or discutient properties. That it may give relief by!l |" <K b’ lle powers we can easily understand, but that it lias any real1)(. Ven ^ or discutient properties in the diseases just enumerated, may(0 ^ Ona bly doubted, notwithstanding the favourable reports of Gataker]{j on the intern. Use of the Solanum, 1757), Cullen (Mat. Med),1* h (Essay on the Use of Atropa Belladonna , 1826), and others (see

Wtf Tlier. t. ii.) Bromlield ( Account of the English Night-ly i*’ an ( l others have reported unfavourably of it, and no one, I

,. n °w places any reliance on it.

do ’ a prophylactic against Scarlatina .— The introduction of bella-ab "^ * n i° P ra ctice as a preventive of scarlet fever, is owing to theSur d homoeopathic axiom of “ sitrdlia similibus curantur:" for as thisgives rise to an affection of the throat, and sometimes to a scarlet

Want

^Wi on t] le skin, its power of guarding the system against the receptions carlet fever has been assumed; and the assumption has been endea-7 y , re< l to be established by an appeal to experience. Bayle (Bibl.«i ,> * . ii. p. 504) has collected from various publications 2,027 casestjj I l(irs ons who took this medicine, and were exposed to the contagion; ofit f Se ^^8 escaped. Oppenheim ( Bond. Med. Gaz. vol. xiii. p. 814) gavetof soldiers, and only 12 became affected. To the authorities here^ ej red to maybe added Hufeland [Lancet, May 2, 1829) and Koreff() | ° n d- Med. Gaz. vol. iv. p. 297), who admit, from their own personaljj JSe rvations, the efficacy of the remedy, though they have not specifiedtjj ,Ul mber of cases in which they have tried it. But bearing in mind°th " e ^'known capriciousness evinced by scarlet fever (as indeed bytli T c °ntagious disorders) in regard to the subjects of its attacks, andtl) 6 r« e number of those who, though exposed to its influence, escape,, ? best evidence hitherto adduced in favour of the notion must be ad-lUf to 136 inconclusive. While, therefore, the facts brought forwardl j ) lav our of the existence of this prophylactic power are only negative,t M ° Se "’bich can be adduced against it are positive. For I conceivetef eut y cases of failure are more conclusive against the opinion herej erred to, than one thousand of non-occurrence are in favour of it. Now4 . ' lnan (Bayle, Bibl. Therap. t. ii. p. 417), Barth [Ibid.), Wendt (ltust111 ^ as per’s Krit. Repert. Bd. xxii. S. 27), Mulirbeck (Rust’s Magaz.

• Xxiv. S. 495), Hoffmann [Ibid. Bd. xxv. S. 115), Bock [Ibid.tli .• )> and many others that I could refer to, declare it has failed in

jj * lr hands to evince its prophylactic powers. In this country we havea extended series of observations to quote; but the cases which I am^'I'Ciinted with are decidedly against the efficacy of the remedy. Ap'^arkable failure is mentioned by Dr. Sigmond [Lancet, 1836-7, vol. ii.^, ) of a family of eleven persons who took the supposed specific, yet

® r y individual contracted the disease.

n/ n ^ ever , w ' 1 ^ 1 contraction of the pupil. —Dr. Graves [Dubl. Journ.do ^ e< ^- Science, July 1, 1838) has recently proposed the use of bella-v ana in those cases of fever with cerebral disease which are attendedsii 1 c °ntraction of the pupil. It is not unreasonable, he observes, “ toPpose that the state of the brain which accompanies dilatation of thej W is different from that which accompanies contraction; and if bella-kiti 11 * 1 ^ las an efibet in producing that cerebral state which is attendedl | dilatation, it is not going too far to infer, that its admiuis-