Apr. is, 1921 
Carbon Tetrachlorid for the Removal of Worms 
159 
administration of the drug on 52 occasions, almost always with satisfac¬ 
tory results. He concludes: 
The observations thus briefly reported may offer sufficient ground to justify the be¬ 
lief that the tetrachlorid of carbon, carefully administered, will be found useful in 
removing pain, especially headache, dysmenorrheal distress, tic douloureux, toothache 1 
etc.; that it will be a valuable and safe means of mitigating the sufferings of labor 
without, apparently, hindering the natural efforts; in some cases, of inducing quiet 
sleep, and of removing for a time the effects of exhaustion of the nervous system. Its 
vapor, acting locally, seems to have been beneficial in alleviating the distressing irri¬ 
tation of “hay fever” in the few cases in which it has been tried; and when used per 
vaginum, in exerting a soothing influence and relieving pain. Tike all anesthetics, 
if recklessly used it might destroy life; yet, carefully managed, it may with impunity 
be employed to induce complete anesthesia. In the majority of cases there has been 
no nausea nor sickness following its use . . . whilst it has been often observed 
that the relief from pain obtained by it continued after its immediate anesthetic 
effects have disappeared. . . . 
Sansom (17, 18) reported in 1867 on the conditions in which the drug 
has been found beneficial, and reaches the following conclusions: 
In cases of natural labor, the tetrachloride has been employed . . . and in 
none of these cases . . . has it manifested any unfavorable effect; and it has 
greatly relieved, if it has not altogether abolished the suffering . .' . It increased 
muscular power, and certainly in no case did it suspend the efforts of labor. In the 
performance of surgical operations a state of narcotism is necessary; and it would 
appear that the prolonged employment of the tetrachloride in such cases is undesirable 
and likely to be injurious. So far as the earlier stages are concerned, the action of the 
tetrachloride is beneficial, as it is stimulant, anodyne and hypnotic, and produces no 
unpleasant effect; but its ponderous vapor, its insufficient volatility, and the conse¬ 
quent difficulty of its elimination from the system, are sufficient reason against its 
employment in anything like large doses. 
A consideration of the reports of Simpson, Smith, and Sansom shows 
the most favorable results, except as regards the idea that carbon tetra¬ 
chlorid is more depressant to the heart than chloroform ‘and that its 
lesser volatility and supposed difficulty of elimination are objections to 
its use in large doses. 
Andrews (z) in 1867 reported one test of it as an anesthetic in resection 
of the hip joint in a patient who was very weak and anemic. Before 
anesthesia was complete there was a sudden increase in pulse rate and 
pain in the vicinity of the heart, followed by cessation of heart beat and 
respiration. The patient was revived by artificial respiration, and the 
operation was completed under ether. Subsequently the patient died 
of exhaustion. 
Nunneley (15) in 1867 tested carbon tetrachlorid on cats and rabbits 
and on himself. He concluded that it was not a satisfactory and safe 
anesthetic but found it of value in his own case in bronchial catarrh, the 
condition clearing up after one inhalation. 
Morel (14) in 1877, on tests of carbon tetrachlorid, concluded that it 
was superior to chloroform, though not entirely controllable. It gives 
