¢ 
os (earE. 
equally insensible to the stimulus of an emetic, as 
when a total loss of sensorial power accompanies 
the obtunded or paralyzed corporeal functions. 
This could not be the case, if Dr. Paris’ position 
were true. Neither can I see reason to admit, 
that in case of incipient intoxication, or slighter 
wounds, or contusions of the head. the stomach is 
in a state of such increased excitability, that 
‘** vomiting under such circumstances is excited by 
the slightest causes.” Who has not observed 
spontaneous vomiting to occur frequently in cases 
of excessive intoxication? And who does not know 
that vomiting, accompanying. or soon following a 
wound or contusion of the head, affords an indi- 
cation of the great violence done to the brain, and 
from which indeed an unfavourable augury is gen- 
erally, and seldom incorrectly derived? 
Dr. Chirac also conceived the stomach, to be 
‘a passive instrument under controul of the abdo- 
minal muscles and diaphragm in the process under 
notice, as much so as a glyster-bag under pressure 
of the hand of the operator, in throwing the con- 
tents into the rectum. Some French writers de- 
clare the abdominal muscles unrequired to effect 
vomiting ; and that the contents of the stomach can 
be discharged after their action is taken away. 
Rosenstein and Schulze believe the stomach to be 
universally active, but that the diaphragm by its 
compression of that viscus, causes puking. Mr. 
- Haighton’s experiments noticed. He believed 
from them that the diaphragm and abdominal mus- 
cles are essential and effective ; but that these un- 
aided by the stomach itself as an active agent, cannot 
induce the actiou, Both are therefore, in his opinion 
required to operate in unison. Dr. Brian Robin- 
son’s and Cullen’s theories noticed. Mr. John 
Hunter’s sympathetic theory of the effect of vomit- 
