[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 6, 1902


JAMA. 1902;XXXIX(10):576-577. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.02480360056007

If a physician were to neglect disinfection by some simple, recognized method of the stools in typhoid fever, he would be held blamable, and justly so. If he were to omit cautioning the consumptive in regard to the dangerously infectious character of the sputum, he would be regarded as careless and negligent. Again, if the physician were to permit his scarlet fever patients to run about in the neighborhood before desquamation is completed, it would spread consternation through the community and the general condemnation of such action would not be slow in making itself effectively heard.

Numerous other instances could be mentioned of equally glaring sins of omission and commission in the preventive treatment of infectious diseases against which the general professional conscience would protest. How is it in the case of the urine in typhoid fever? It is demonstrated beyond doubt that in a considerable percentage of the patients

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview