DEP/DUA/1/32/33 (Normalised version)

David Shiels

(1783)

---

David Shiels.

As hardly subject of treatment almost unnecessary to say anything.

His disease although not without some peculiarities appeared to me to be a Rheumatic affection.

And as such you will observe began treatment of it by Volatile Elixir of Guaiacum.

For introduction of this medicine in Gouty & Rheumatic cases are I think indebted to Dr Thomas Dawson of London.

At least was on his authority that for my own part first employed it in practice.

And experience I have had has afforded me full evidence that is a most efficacious & useful medicine.

In a volume of medical cases published some years ago¹ have inserted a Rheumatic affection cured by that medicine.

That case I intended as a testimony in favour of the medicine.

But I am sorry to observe by the last edition of Dr Dawsons work, to which he has made very considerable additions, that he is of a different opinion.

And he has attacked me not without considerable severity, for what I have said in observations mentioned, in answer to a former remark of his with respect to me.

But although his present publication might by some be considered as a challenge to a [illegible] controversy yet I must here observe that I do not intend to accept of it.

Although I flatter myself that I am zealous for the improvement of medicine yet I trust that I shall always demonstrate a disposition to shun disputes as much as possible.

And on this occasion I would the rather wish to avoid it, because I am convinced that Dr Dawson & myself differ not in reality but in words only.

We both agree in opinion that the volatile Tincture of Guaiacum in large doses is a most useful remedy in certain Rheumatic cases.

To him I acknowledge myself indebted for the use I have made of it.

And I have now often employed it in many different cases with great success.

Respecting the practice then I may safely venture to say we are agreed.

And I think I can appeal to all who have heard my lectures that I am as little the advocate for mere idle theory as he is.

He cannot despise more than I do the absurd chimera of those who [pretend], that cure of all disease may be conducted on a few simple principles.

Medicine has been [pestered] with such nonsense ever since the humours of Galen.

And no general theory has been since proposed that is one while more rational or more just.

Yet it is wonderful to think with what [obstructive] bigotry such theories have been & are supported.

Nay the keenness of the advocates for them seems to me to be increased in proportion to their absurdity

While however I have uniformly [treated] all these theories with the contempt which I think they deserve, I must still hold that the [illegible] the grounds on which medicine operates from a careful observation of facts is of utmost consequence towards the improvement of the healing art.

And whoever takes the trouble of examining Dr Dawsons publication will have no difficulty in discovering that he is of the same opinion.

And it is of no consequence whether give this the name of theory or employ any other term.

Upon the whole then have in reality no foundation for dispute with Dr Dawson.

At same time, although he seems to have been offended at the expression must again repeat wish, that he had treated me with more lenity.

And I am not without hopes that he may yet express himself in a favourable manner of my endeavours to improve medicine as I have often done of his & never without sincerely believing what I said.

To these remarks on use of Guaiacum can add nothing from present case

For although ordered for this patient & entertained hopes of success, yet have not been able to learn whether he has employed it or not.

---

Explanatory notes:

1) Andrew Duncan, Medical cases, selected from the records of the Public Dispensary at Edinburgh : with remarks and observations : being the substance of case-lectures, delivered during the years 1776-7 (1778).