DEP/DUA/1/22/14 (Normalised version)

Bell McPherson

(1779-1780)

---

Bell McPherson.

Was but very short time under our care till dismissed free from affection

At same time cure could not be considered as consequence of any measures which we here employed.

And indeed only measures taken were with view of obviating symptoms not meant for radical cure of disease.

Selected this patient on presumption that was to treat a case of Amenorrhea

And that too in most simple & uncomplicated state.

Here complaints to which subjected pain of breast, difficulty of respiration, pain of head & sleepiness, such as occur in many different aspects.

And among others very common symptoms in Amenorrhea.

To this source in instance before us had little difficulty in attributing them.

For patient from commencement of disease, had in this respect been very irregular.

During 12 months were told that had appeared only twice, & that too in small quantity.

While for several months before came under our care, had been entirely wanting.

Of such obstructions, well known, that symptoms mentioned in case of our patient, one of most common consequences.

Here then little doubt that connected as cause & effect.

And that amenorrhea was affection under which our patient laboured.

Before came under care, could not be said to have obstinately resisted remedies.

For excepting vomit, are informed that none had been used.

Disease however, according to account had already continued for considerable length of time

And would appear at least that efforts of [system] inadequate for removal.

From this then led to conclusion that should probably find it an obstinate affection.

In this however soon appeared that were mistaken.

And that too without aid of any medicine to which could be attributed.

For here before entering on any plan of cure for Amenorrhea, wished to have [case] at least for week or two [under.]

As during that time might have better opportunity of judging whether real or pretended.

Or rather whether obstruction diseased state or effect of pregnancy.

This as had occasion to observe in case of Mary Monro always to be particularly regarded.

And there, notwithstanding very plausible story that was told us, now appears that too much grounds for what then suggested as possible supposition.

For after deserting us, went to the Infirmary¹.

There however continued also but for short time

And is only since left the hospital that complaints have been entirely [removed] from being delivered of a child.

The frequency of such cases, must give suspicion in every instance.

And accordingly with present patient, before prescribe any active medicine, wished to have opportunity of making some farther inquiries at different times respecting symptoms.

In meanwhile as a refrigerant cathartic, proposed to give repeated doses of Sal Glauber

And by this hoped that some of symptoms might be alleviated.

Particularly that headache as well as drowsiness might be mitigated.

And that thus though did not cure might alleviate complaint.

But soon after first dose had a return of menstrual discharge.

A consequence which could not reasonably attribute to this medicine.

And which had any active medicine been employed would have been with injustice attributed to it.

Is however on such accidental coincidences, that reputation of many [illegible ] founded.

What was cause of return of flux here cannot pretend to conject.

But whatever it was, as according to representation flowed to usual extent farther attendance here became [unnecessary].

And that the rather as, drowsiness excepted was at same time freed from all other symptoms.

A circumstance serving among others to corroborate opinions offered with regard to the case.

---

Explanatory notes:

1) The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, established in 1729.