DEP/DUA/1/23/04 (Transcript version)

Susan Tait

(1780)

---

Susan Tait.

Affect of this patient infant of very distressing nature

At same time so far obvious that might be supp. no room for doubt as to name.

Can be little question that princip affection is that of eyes.

These so much affectd with inflam & intoller of light, as to afford charact of ophthalm.

Would naturally therefore look for it under this genus.

But at same time to be observed that subj also to other sympt.

Partic ulcerat on neck now of three months standing.

From contin of sore, from appear which has – from age at which has occured, as well as from gener habit of patient no doubt of being scrophu

And this indeed corrob. also by other sympt. with which conj.

Such for ex as swelling of upper lip & enlargement of abdom.

These well known to be Scroph. sympt.

Upon whole then no hesit in pron. that scroph here exists.

And when consid contin of affect of eyes little room for doubt that disease also in these dep on Scrophul.

In reality therefore perhaps with more prop. referred to this than to any other genus.

For is unquest the compl. on ultim remov of which, radic cure to be alone effected.

Yet in first inst at least Ophthal claims attent.

From this therefore practit in gener. would denom the affect.

And according to nosol of Mr Sauv. could have no hesit in employin term Ophthalmia Scrophulosa.

Yet although give it this name must still consider it as an inst of Scroph. affect. the eyes.

Thus then in few words stated opin as to name & nature of disease

Here however will naturally occur as quest. whether any other affect.

And may observe, that sympt here occurr which commonly consid as diagn of pres of worms in alim. can.

This partic the case with respect to grinding of teeth

That freq a sympt of worms cannot be denied.

And wherever occurs some inclind to susp. pres.

If however there are pract. who put much confid on this mark others still greater reliance on anoth sympt here pres.

That is swelling of upper lip.

Of late repres. as infallib diagnost of presence.

But notwith concurr. of both am here inclind to think that have no share.

For to be obs that although affec has now contin near twelve months no worms observed.

Nor indeed any of other sympt as glairy stools, gripes, vorac appet &e with which commonly attended.

This however hardly possib if really pres.

Were they even therefore to appear hereafter should still consider them as having had no share in giving pres sympt.

And Upon whole therefore consider pres. case as affording proof that grinding of teeth & swelling of lip cannot be considered as diagnost. of worms.

Would by no means howevr [repr] as singul in inst before us.

For every day observd to accomp. scrophul affect.

If however from these med expec disapp, shall still have more expect. from trial of other artic of tribe of Nerv. med, than any other class

And with this view may have recourse to Valer or to Camphor.

As from both one & other have I think seen remark benef obt in such cases.

If all these trials without success must be directed to future meas by situat in which shall then find patient.

At pres therfore any farther suggest. unnecss.