ENTERITIS 



203 



after death, in only a few, comparatively, have I been able 

 to trace any distinct twist, intussusception, or strangula- 

 tion.' 



Causes. — Seeing that nothing is clear, we can only 

 reason by analogy. We know that in at least one other 

 disease such appearances as are revealed in a post- 

 mortem of a case of enteritis are certainly caused by a 

 bacterial invasion of the intestinal bloodvessels. We 

 also know that the symptoms closely correspond, that 

 the pain is just as agonizing, and that the illness is just 

 as fatally rapid. I am referring to anthrax. 



When, after the experience of such a case, one meets 

 with another in which the onset is similar, the symptoms 

 almost identical, the issue just as much a foregone con- 

 clusion, and the post - mortem appearances hardly 

 distinguishable, one may be excused for referring it to 

 a similar cause. In the first case the cause has been 

 carefully and indisputably shown to be anthrax. ^ In the 

 second, the most painstaking search fails to reveal its 

 presence. We know that the second case is not anthrax, 

 for the methods that revealed it once should expose it a 

 second time, and are therefore able to assume that its 

 cause must be a rapid invasion of the lacteals and blood- 

 stream by some germ or other as yet undemonstrated. 



Allowing this to be the fact, it does not, for a moment, 

 detract much from what other writers have put down as 

 the usual causes. Take, for instance, such commonly 

 quoted causes as over-fatigue, cold from exposure, and 

 washing the belly with very cold water when the animal 



1 I am able to vouch for the truth of that statement from the 

 experience of a case that occurred in my own practice. The animal 

 died, showing every symptom of so-called enteritis. The case was 

 diagnosed as such and treated as such. As a result of the post- 

 mortem, I was able to definitely demonstrate the presence of the 

 Bacillus anthracis in the blood.— H. C. R. 



