1^ 
Lider the prefTure of the fin 
I follow in a kindly manner 
the fourth 
any other medicine fucceedi 
j;er, we may expet^ the diuretic effeds 
^"= Of the inferences which he deduces, 
that if it (Digitalis) fails, there is but little chance of 
P-.'* Thus we are to infer, that men of 
g 
V 
natural flrength, and under the other circumftances juil men- 
i. when afTeded with dropfy, have little to hope for from the ufe 
ie/ As this obfer- 
of this diuretic, and fcill lefs from any other medici 
the refult of exp 
and of confid 
X3 
practical 
fequence, wq wifh particularly to prefs it on the attention of the me 
dical reader. Althouo;h the Digitalis is now generally admitted to be ; 
I adduced of its fuc 
very powerful di 
and many cafes may b 
cefsful ufe ' in addition to thofe already publiflied, yet it is but juil 
acknowledge that this medicine has more frequently failed than could 
have b 
by Dr. W 
h 
afonably expeded, from a comparifon of the fads ftated 
^ 
The dofe of the dried 
■ 1 
pov\^der, is from 
grain to three twice a day. . But if a liquid medicine be preferred 
s. 
dram 
;■ 
1. C. p 
8 
- ^ In fuch 
Dr. W 
N 
conftitutlon, and thereby to fit it for the aaion of the Digitalis, 
purging, according to Sydenham's plan, fucceed beft in thefe cafes ? 
Would 
■5 
The 
the Digitalis : a clinical patient 
G 
1 
of the good efFe6!:s of 
N 
afforded a ftriking proof of the efficacy of this medicine in hydrothorax. ^ 
^ Among the principal of the unfuccefsful cafes we may notice the eight fatal ones 
Medical Mem 
D 
o 
who authorizes me to fay, that as his only objeft in this bufmefs is the inveftigation of 
truth, he wiUingly appeals to the juftice and candour of the public, how far his pra6lice 
is fairly reprefented in Dr. Withering's letter : 
SIR, ^ Pleafe to accept my thanks for your offer of inferting any thing ntw 
which I might have to fay refpe£ting the Digitalis ; but I really have nothing new to 
obferve, nor have I any thing to retra6t of v/hat I have faid before. Under my own 
management, under that of the medical practitioners in this part of England, and I may 
add, alfo in the hands of fome worthy and refpeftable Clergymen in village fituations, it 
continues to be the moil certain, and the leaft ofFenfive diuretic we know ; in fuch cafes, 
and in fuch conftitutlons, as I have advifed its exhibition. Ihave alfo the fatisfa6lion to 
find, by letters from fome of the moil eminent Phyficians in difFerent parts of England, 
that^it is equally ufeful and fafe in their hands. But I complain of the treatment this 
medicine has had in London. Its ill fuccefs there cannot be altogether owing to diffe- 
rence of conftitutlons. Dr. Lettfom has related his unfuccefsful attempts with a degree 
of courage, and of candour, which do the highefl honour to his Integrity;^ but no one 
unfit 
y 
* Memolrsof the Med* Society of London; volt n»p«J45» | Account of the Fox-glove p* i8i; 184, etfeq. 
without 
1 
