ANTISEPTICS— PAST AND PRESENT 35 



infe<.'tecl, with or without a breach of the surface, and 

 here the surgeon's efforts are directed to diminishing 

 the effects of already existing sepsis, or it may be in a 

 few cases even to eradicating it." 



Mr. Lockwood, who steers a middle course, says in his 

 work on Aseptic Surgery, "Any method of wound treat- 

 ment which aims at sterility wdll be called aseptic." 



The "bone of contention" between these two systems 

 would appear to be the question of the employment of 

 antiseptics; those of the aseptic school holding that 

 these agents, by causing irritation, interfere with the 

 normal powers of resistance of the tissues, and thus re- 

 tard healing. This weakening of the resisting power 

 of the tissues may even enable micro-organisms to enter 

 and take eff'ect, in cases where surgical cleanliness was 

 neglected, although antiseptics were employed. 



Sir Watson Cheyne, however, points out in the Bracl- 

 sliaw Lecture on the Treatment of Wounds (1908), that 

 the Listerian principles in wound treatment include tw^o 

 important postulates : 



1. Exclusion of bacteria especially of pathogenic organisms, as 



far as possible during and after an operation. 



2. Avoidance of irritation of the surface of a wound, so as not 



to interfere with healing or with the powers of the tissues, 

 to prevent the growth of any bacteria which have entered. 



This authority clearly explains that, by the Listerian 

 system, every precaution is taken to prevent irritation 

 from the antiseptics employed, and also states that, even 

 with adherence to the strict principles of the so-called 

 aseptic system, suppuration has occurred when opera- 

 tions were carried out in regions other than the peri- 

 toneum. He believes "that of late many surgeons have 

 gone to extremes in the avoidance of antiseptic solu- 

 tion," and that the aseptic system, so called, is "only 

 carrying to an extreme the ])rinciple of avoiding irri- 



