You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 146 No. 12, December 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  THE EDITORIAL BOARD SPEAKS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Rumination on the History of Recognition of Dehydration

Am J Dis Child. 1992;146(12):1425.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The opportunity for unreviewed publication leads me to ruminate a bit on history important to medicine as a whole and to pediatrics in particular. I refer to a seminal event in medical history: the recognition of dehydration as an important disturbance, and the prescription of fluid therapy as a corrective. Not only is it good to be reminded of these events, but I believe that there is a mystery hidden in the account as we know it, about which I wish to speculate.

First is the story as we know it, from James Gamble's paper in 19531 and other medical historians.2-3 W. B. O'Shaughnessy, then working in London, in December 1831 published in the Lancet the results of clinical analyses of serum and stool water from patients with cholera, a disease seen in epidemic form that year for the first time in the British Isles.4 He noted that the water content of the serum was sharply reduced and that the two fluids had similar concentrations of inorganic ions. He then hypothesized that replacing the water and salts would lead to recovery from a disease in which the mortality rate was fearful (probably 25% to 50% among London's poor). . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1992 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.