[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]
October 19, 1889


JAMA. 1889;XIII(16):561-562. doi:10.1001/jama.1889.02401120019003

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


Of late, much affectation of unbelief in the so-called urinæmic origin of the very large majority of cases of puerperal eclampsia has crept insidiously into the literature of the subject. This fact is particularly apparent in recent American contributions. For example, in the second volume of the American System of Obstetrics, Parvin gives a most confused account of the causation of this disorder, while Hirst, the editor of the System, asserts that " very little is known about the etiology of the disease." We have ventured to characterize this agnostic state of mind as an affectation, since these and all other authorities base the entire prophylaxis and very much of the therapy upon the notion that in the very large majority of cases, eclampsia is the expression of a toxæmia, conditioned upon functional or organic disease of the kidneys, or upon the obstruction to the flow of urine through the ureters.

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