This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
On June 21st there was a very lively debate on "Electrolysis in the Treatment of Diseases of Women," in the Obstetrical Society of London, following the reading of papers by Drs. Steavenson, Lovell Drage, Gibbons and Shaw.
Dr. Steavenson would not admit, with some, that the electrolytic action of electricity was limited to its cauterizing properties, but advocated a more extensive use of electrolysis in those diseases of women in which caustics are more usually employed. While the apparatus was cumbersome, and its management difficult, to those that could manage the apparatus electrolysis would prove a more efficient and elegant way of applying caustic than any other method. He maintained that this caustic action was true electrolytic action. Electrolysis, he said, certainly takes place at the poles, and he believes that it also takes place between the poles, in the substance of a tumor, for example. In regard to the
THE DEBATE ON ELECTROLYSIS. JAMA. 1888;XI(3):94–95. doi:10.1001/jama.1888.02400550022005
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: