[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
December 25, 1937


JAMA. 1937;109(26):2157-2158. doi:10.1001/jama.1937.02780520047021

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  In The Journal, November 6, Prof. Yandell Henderson discusses resuscitation of the new-born, particularly as it applies to the E. & J. resuscitator. With no attempt to question in any way the background of facts on which Professor Henderson draws his conclusions, it seems fair to point out that much of the argument used by him to sustain his thesis is hardly germane to the conclusions he draws.At least one source of conflict rests on an improper use of terms. To speak of resuscitation in the new-born is a misnomer, when one is considering the initiation of respiration in an organism that has never breathed. Asphyxia neonatorum and asphyxia due to carbon monoxide gas are two different conditions, and the approach to the treatment of one may not be the approach to the treatment of the other. The attempt to apply to the problems inherent in

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