Original questions are transcribed from the public-domain edition. Credit: Wellcome Collection; original supplied by Royal College of Physicians, London. Source and public-domain rights statement.
The historical discussions reconstruct defensible reasoning available in December 1867; they are not an official answer key. Each is followed by a present-day correction where the underlying theory or treatment has changed. Clinical descriptions below are hypothetical teaching patterns, not records of actual patients. Historical quantities describe historical practice and are not current prescriptions.
Original question.
Under what circumstances would you resort to blood letting, general or local, and with what intention ?
An 1867 answer would distinguish general depletion to relieve a supposed dangerous circulatory overload from local depletion intended to relieve a circumscribed inflammatory condition. General bloodletting meant opening a vein by venesection. Local bloodletting meant medicinal leeches or wet cupping; ordinary dry cupping did not remove blood. In wet cupping, superficial incisions and a partially evacuated cup withdrew blood from the skin. The apparatus and the quantity removed mattered: a supposedly local procedure could still produce substantial systemic blood loss.
In the period's vocabulary, a robust person with an early “sthenic” attack, a strong full pulse, severe oppression of breathing and an apparently engorged lung might be considered for general bloodletting. The intention was to lessen vascular distension and the work imposed on the heart, or to arrest an advancing inflammation. Local bloodletting over a painful region was intended to moderate local inflammation without the full depletion of venesection. These were therapeutic theories, not proof that blood beneath the skin drained an inflamed organ selectively. A contemporary account of pneumonia explicitly preferred early bloodletting in severe “sthenic” cases and distinguished them from debilitated “asthenic” cases.[ref]
Even within that framework, the decision needed the stage of illness, previous blood loss, age, general strength and response to any previous depletion. A weak rapid pulse, pallor, faintness or exhausted convalescence argued against further bloodletting. “There is fever” or “the blood looks inflammatory” was not an adequate indication. A hot flushed face alone could not establish excess circulating volume. The period evidence also needs scrutiny: selecting the most severe cases for bloodletting, then comparing their recovery with mild unbled cases, confounds treatment with initial severity. The reported recoveries establish what was done; they do not isolate its causal effect.[ref]
Modern correction: remove blood only for a defined indication, not to treat ordinary fever, pneumonia or a presumed surplus of “inflammatory” blood. In haemochromatosis, controlled venesection removes iron contained in red blood cells; repeated replacement of those red blood cells draws down the body's iron stores. The amount and frequency depend on haemoglobin and ferritin monitoring.[ref] In polycythaemia vera, venesection reduces excessive red blood cell mass and the associated risk of thrombosis.[ref] These measurable targets are different from the historical idea of “plethora”. In an exhausted person, indiscriminate bloodletting can worsen anaemia and circulatory failure; modern care identifies and treats the cause of the respiratory distress or inflammation instead.
Original question.
Describe a typical case of chorea. What are the usual causes of this complaint, and what would be your treatment under various circumstances ?
The typical childhood picture is Sydenham's chorea: irregular involuntary movements, impaired sustained voluntary actions, variable weakness and emotional disturbance. A hypothetical schoolchild might gradually become unusually clumsy, drop utensils, spill drinks and produce deteriorating handwriting. Unpredictable movements pass between the face, trunk and limbs, giving facial grimaces and an unsteady gait. The chorea may be asymmetric. Asking the child to maintain a handgrip can reveal alternating tightening and relaxation; an outstretched hand or protruded tongue may not remain still. These are examples of motor impersistence, not wilful disobedience. Speech and feeding can become difficult. Marked weakness may accompany severe chorea. Anxiety or emotional lability may be conspicuous. This is a pattern to look for, not a claim that the unspecified person in the question has any particular finding.[ref][ref]
An 1867 account would associate childhood chorea with the period around puberty, preceding “rheumatism”, fright and general debility. It might also investigate supposed peripheral irritants such as intestinal parasites. These explanations were not equally secure. Fright could precede or aggravate the visible movements without establishing their fundamental cause, and finding intestinal parasites did not prove that they caused the chorea. Contemporary discussion already recognized spontaneous recovery and disputed whether reported drug cures exceeded it.[ref]
A reasonable historical treatment outline begins with quiet surroundings, rest, adequate food, assistance with feeding and protection from injury in violent chorea. Genuine associated illness, including anaemia, required attention. Preparations of iron were common “tonics”; other remedies of the period included experimental mineral drugs. Their use should be reported as historical practice, not as an effective modern recipe. A recovery after weeks of treatment does not distinguish a pharmacological effect from the natural course of Sydenham's chorea.[ref]
Modern correction: the usual cause of the classic childhood syndrome is an immune-mediated consequence of preceding group A streptococcal infection, not fright, moral weakness or an intestinal “irritation”. Sydenham's chorea, named after Thomas Sydenham, can be the sole late manifestation of acute rheumatic fever. Assess for carditis even without an obvious heart murmur: echocardiography can reveal otherwise silent valve disease. Treat residual group A streptococcal infection and institute appropriate secondary antibiotic prophylaxis; these measures prevent further attacks rather than instantly stopping established movements.[ref]
Management varies with function. Mild Sydenham's chorea may need supportive measures alone. When eating, walking or self-care is substantially impaired, specialist care can add a movement-suppressing drug such as carbamazepine. Severe disease may justify corticosteroid treatment; very severe or refractory disease may need further specialist immunotherapy. Evidence and practice differ between guidelines, and improvement is not necessarily immediate. sodium valproate is another option in selected circumstances, but its reproductive and other adverse effects are material limitations.[ref][ref] Atypical onset, progression, exposure to relevant drugs or other focal neurological signs calls for reconsideration of the cause of the chorea, rather than automatic assignment to acute rheumatic fever.
Original question.
What would you do in cases of Pityriasis versicolor, Tinea decalvans, and contagious Ringworm, and what common principle runs through their rational treatment ?
The historical common principle was to identify and destroy a superficial fungal parasite, remove material harbouring it and prevent reinfection. Modern diagnosis preserves this principle for genuine fungal infection, but rejects its indiscriminate application to “tinea decalvans”. The three labels must therefore be discussed separately.
In pityriasis versicolor, look for finely scaling patches of altered skin pigmentation, commonly on the trunk. Examine superficial skin scrapings by microscopy when uncertain. Historically, washing, removal of loose scale and a topical “parasiticide” aimed to reach the organism in the outer epidermis. Today pityriasis versicolor is associated with overgrowth of Malassezia yeasts already present on the skin; it is not ordinary contagious ringworm and is not evidence of poor cleanliness.[ref] Topical ketoconazole or selenium sulfide can control it. Extensive or recurrent disease sometimes needs other treatment. Loss of scale and control of the yeast need not immediately restore skin pigmentation; residual colour can persist for weeks or months. A Wood's lamp can assist examination, but is not a substitute for the whole clinical assessment.[ref]
“Tinea decalvans” is the critical historical trap. Some nineteenth-century writers interpreted patchy baldness as parasitic and advocated extraction of affected hairs followed by prolonged topical treatment. A January–June 1867 digest explicitly calls the condition contagious and reports a mercury(II) chloride preparation. That is evidence of a contemporary belief, not evidence that the proposed organism caused every case of patchy baldness.[ref] The label often covered what is now called alopecia areata, an immune-mediated form of hair loss. Smooth bald patches require differentiation from scaly patches with broken hairs and demonstrated fungal infection. Confirm the diagnosis before treating. In established alopecia areata, a period “parasiticide” is inappropriate: observation or diagnosis-specific treatment, including local corticosteroids in suitable cases, is considered instead. Neither mercury(II) chloride nor destructive epilation is a modern treatment for alopecia areata.[ref]
For contagious ringworm, establish the site and extent. An enlarging scaly ring on bare skin suggests tinea corporis; scaly bald areas with broken hairs suggest tinea capitis. Examine scrapings or hairs by microscopy and, where appropriate, fungal culture. Clean clothing, towels, combs and brushes; avoid sharing them and investigate relevant human or animal sources. These measures address transmission, while an antifungal drug treats the affected tissue.[ref] Limited tinea corporis can often be treated topically. Tinea capitis needs an oral antifungal drug, such as griseofulvin or terbinafine chosen for the circumstances, because a cream alone does not clear the infected hair-bearing site. An adjunctive shampoo can reduce spread but does not replace systemic treatment. Unsupervised corticosteroid cream can mask or worsen ringworm.[ref][ref]
Thus the useful unifying idea is cause-directed treatment that reaches the affected tissue, with transmission control when infection is transmissible. It does not follow that all three nineteenth-century names denote the same class of disease, or that every bald patch requires killing a parasite.
Original question.
What circumstances would guide your recommendation of Paracentesis thoracis in a case of fluid in the pleura ?
Recommend thoracentesis when removing pleural fluid is likely to relieve important respiratory compromise or answer a consequential diagnostic question; the size, course, cause and accessibility of the pleural effusion govern the decision. “Paracentesis thoracis” is the older name. Merely detecting some fluid is insufficient.
At the bedside in 1867, the assessment would combine the history with asymmetry of chest movement, enlargement of the affected side, percussion dullness, diminished breath sounds on auscultation and displacement of the heart. A large or increasing pleural effusion with oppressive dyspnoea, inability to lie comfortably, a displaced heart or failure to improve was a stronger indication than a small resolving collection. The opposite lung's condition also mattered: someone with limited reserve could tolerate compression poorly. These signs have to be interpreted together because extensive lung disease can also produce dullness or abnormal breath sounds.
The distinction between a serous pleural effusion and empyema changes the object of the operation. In the former, the immediate object is decompression and allowing the compressed lung to expand. In empyema, evacuation of infected material is required and continuing drainage may be necessary. Recurrent pleural fluid implies a persisting cause. Conversely, an improving small collection could be watched while treating the associated disease. A period report describes waiting for absorption, then confirming fluid with a grooved needle and evacuating it through a trocar and cannula when the signs and displacement persisted. It illustrates contemporary instruments and reasoning; it is not a safe modern procedural template.[ref]
Modern correction: separate diagnostic aspiration, therapeutic aspiration and drainage of pleural infection. Use imaging to establish the collection and a safe route. A new unexplained unilateral pleural effusion may need sampling even without severe dyspnoea. Pleural fluid testing can include biochemical analysis, cytology and microbiological culture, selected for the suspected cause. With suspected pleural infection, frank pus or sufficiently low pleural fluid pH supports chest drainage rather than repeated simple taps. For example, in the relevant suspected-infection pathway, pH at or below 7.2 signifies high risk and supports drainage if an accessible volume can be drained safely. A typical bilateral collection responding to treatment of heart failure can be approached differently from an unexplained unilateral one.[ref]
Risk assessment includes bleeding risk, ability to cooperate and the availability of an accessible fluid pocket. A very small or inaccessible collection may make aspiration inappropriate. Thoracic ultrasonography is required for pleural effusion aspiration. For therapeutic aspiration, drain slowly with an appropriate catheter; generally do not exceed 1.5 litres in one attempt and stop earlier for chest pain, tightness, persistent cough or worsening dyspnoea. Complications include pneumothorax, bleeding and re-expansion pulmonary oedema. Repeated accumulation requires a plan for its underlying cause and, where indicated, a longer-term drainage strategy.[ref] The durable principle is to compare the harm caused by the collection with the benefit and risk of the proposed procedure, rather than using a single physical sign as an automatic command to operate.
Original question.
What are the doses of Alcohol which may be advantageously given in various forms of Fever? Describe the symptoms which regulate its administration.
No single dose of ethanol can be inferred from the word fever. In 1867, wine or spirits were used variably for supposed exhaustion; the quantities describe disputed historical practice, not a beneficial modern treatment. It is essential to distinguish ounces of wine or spirits from ounces of absolute ethanol. Equal beverage volumes do not contain equal ethanol quantities, and the historical sources do not provide a universal standardized strength.
The intended historical distinction was between an uncomplicated febrile illness in a person maintaining circulation and food intake, for which a stimulant might be omitted, and a low or “adynamic” state with increasing prostration. In typhus, prescribers who used ethanol as a stimulant looked for deterioration of the pulse, cold extremities, weakness, tremulousness, inability to take nourishment and failing responsiveness. In typhoid fever, the same general assessment had to be combined with attention to abdominal complications; a new collapse might signify gastrointestinal bleeding or intestinal perforation, rather than an abstract need for more wine. A fever with a hot skin and rapid but well-sustained pulse did not by itself establish a need for ethanol. Nor did delirium distinguish exhaustion from drug effects.
A useful dose answer must supply actual contemporary quantities while admitting their limits. The 1867 Dundee typhus report records marked variation: only 44.7% of 2476 cases in its stimulant table received them. Among treated cases, the reported averages of each individual's maximum daily quantity were 3.19 ounces of wine and 2.6 ounces of spirits. Its corresponding figures below age 25 were 3.5 and 1.09 ounces; above age 50, 2.1 and 5.7 ounces. These are beverage amounts in historical ounces, not amounts of pure ethanol, and not a recommendation to combine both in every case. The author expressly warns that “stimulation” could describe very different quantities and that averages can mislead.[ref] The defensible period rule is small divided quantities, if used at all, reassessed by effect rather than a fixed allowance for every disease name. Those observational figures cannot establish an advantageous dose for typhoid fever, scarlet fever or another distinct illness.
A second report published in October 1867 stresses individual response: even half an ounce of port could produce flushing or sleep, while an occasional adult two-ounce whisky draught was described as a sedating intervention. These examples span very different physiological effects; they are not interchangeable routine doses. The author rejects a fixed schedule that continues unchanged despite a changing condition.[ref]
The signs a historical prescriber hoped to see after a trial were a fuller, steadier pulse, warmer extremities, clearer awareness, more restful sleep and improved ability to take food. Increasing flushing, excitement, worsening vomiting, stupor or a deteriorating pulse argued against simply escalating it. These are a reconstruction of the period's claimed bedside test, not validated endpoints proving that ethanol treats the underlying infection.[ref] Natural improvement, fluid intake and selection of the sickest people for treatment all complicate causal interpretation of the reports.
Modern correction: there is no therapeutic beverage-alcohol dose for fever or sepsis. Measure severity and identify the cause, maintain appropriate fluid and nutritional support, and treat relevant infection. In suspected sepsis, assessment of blood pressure, consciousness, pulmonary ventilation and perfusion guides escalation; current guidance specifies assessed intravenous fluid resuscitation and reassessment, not wine as a circulatory treatment.[ref] If habitual heavy ethanol exposure introduces a risk of alcohol withdrawal, that is a separate diagnosis. Monitored benzodiazepine treatment and indicated thiamine address that risk; administering wine for the fever is not its modern management.[ref]
Original question.
How do you treat severe Hæmoptysis in a Phthisical person ?
Severe haemoptysis in a person described historically as “phthisical” requires immediate attention to breathing and circulatory danger; the treatment of chronic wasting cannot wait in place of control of the acute bleeding. The historical label suggests pulmonary tuberculosis, but does not itself prove that diagnosis or identify the bleeding vessel.
In period terms, the sensible supportive aims were quiet, reduced exertion and observation of the blood loss and general condition. The intent was to avoid provoking further cough or dislodging a clot, while preserving the person's remaining strength. A depleted person with chronic wasting was a poor candidate for reflex general bloodletting. The historical pharmacological literature included astringents, mineral salts and external cold, but the mere sequence “remedy administered, bleeding stopped” could not establish efficacy: haemoptysis often varied or stopped temporarily on its own.
This uncertainty was recognized before the examination. An 1862 discussion lists astringents such as lead acetate, emetic drugs and external ice among competing treatments, and questions the evidential value of events following their use. It also records opposing fashions of severe dietary restriction and frequent feeding with stimulants.[ref] The same author advocated a digitalis preparation with close pulse observation for severe attacks, hoping to influence the circulation; he emphasized its dangers. This is a period proposal, not modern emergency treatment. The historical explanation is why rest and supposed haemostatic remedies were attempted, not a claim that they reliably closed a ruptured vessel. No toxic nineteenth-century mixture is recommended here.
Modern correction: life-threatening haemoptysis is an airway emergency, often killing through obstruction and loss of gas exchange. Its severity depends on respiratory and circulatory effects, not just the estimated volume in a basin. Obtain emergency specialist support, maintain oxygenation and protect the unaffected lung; when the bleeding side is known, positioning that side down can limit contamination of the other side. Secure suitable intravenous access, assess haemoglobin and coagulation, prepare for needed blood transfusion and correct important coagulopathy. In unstable ongoing bleeding, securing the airway and bronchoscopy can take precedence over transport for imaging.[ref]
Once sufficiently stable, computed tomography angiography helps locate the source and plan treatment. Bronchial artery embolisation is a principal means of controlling severe or recurrent haemoptysis from abnormal systemic vessels. Bronchoscopy can assist localization and temporary control; selected lesions or failed endovascular control may require surgery. Do not assume every tuberculosis-associated haemorrhage comes from the same vascular bed. The intervention must match the demonstrated source. Modern management also treats the underlying disease; stopping bleeding alone does not cure pulmonary tuberculosis.[ref] Suspected active pulmonary tuberculosis warrants appropriate respiratory infection-control measures, diagnostic sampling when safe and a susceptibility-informed multidrug antibiotic regimen once the diagnosis and treatment plan are established.[ref] Quiet surroundings can still help, but neither ice nor a historical astringent substitutes for these measures.
Original question.
What guides you in the treatment of chronic Vomiting—on what may it depend—and in what manner do you proceed according to your diagnosis ?
The guide is the diagnosis and the physiological cost of persistent vomiting, not the symptom alone. Establish whether material is truly vomited, search for local and extra-gastric causes, correct depletion and then treat the cause. A distinction between vomiting, passive regurgitation and rumination syndrome prevents several different disorders being forced into one category. First assess inability to retain fluid, weight loss, dehydration, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe abdominal pain or distension and neurological signs. Significant danger requires prompt investigation and support before a prolonged trial of symptom remedies.[ref]
The history should establish duration, relation to meals, retained undigested food, pain, nausea, the character of the material, bowel function, weight change, pregnancy possibility and exposure to drugs or ethanol. Delayed large-volume vomiting of food with weight loss suggests retention, but does not distinguish gastric outlet obstruction from impaired emptying by itself. Early postprandial discomfort, haematemesis or an abdominal mass changes the investigation. Bilious vomiting with distension and failure to pass stool raises concern for gastrointestinal obstruction. Headache, visual disturbance or focal neurological signs directs attention beyond the stomach; kidney disease, metabolic disturbances and pregnancy are also possible causes. None can be chosen as the diagnosis from the short source question alone.[ref]
An 1867 physician could already distinguish suspected gastric ulcer, chronic gastritis, cancer, obstruction near the pylorus, pregnancy-related vomiting, uraemia and “sympathetic” vomiting accompanying disease elsewhere. The therapeutic reasoning was to remove a provoking dietary or medicinal cause, adapt food to what could be retained, investigate an obstructive or destructive lesion and address the associated systemic disease. Symptom suppression alone could conceal continued starvation. A 1867 digest reproduces an account of opium controlling vomiting in advanced consumption. It establishes an example of period palliation, not proof of cure and not a general prescription for chronic vomiting.[ref]
Modern investigations are chosen by that differential: examination and appropriate blood tests for depletion or systemic disease, a pregnancy test where relevant, endoscopy for a suspected upper digestive lesion, and imaging when gastrointestinal obstruction is possible. Gastroparesis specifically means delayed gastric emptying without mechanical obstruction. After excluding obstruction, demonstrate abnormal emptying rather than diagnosing it from vomiting alone. A standardized gastric emptying scintigraphy follows a labelled meal with a gamma camera; serial measurements test how much remains in the stomach. This apparatus addresses a physiological question that simple inspection of vomited food cannot answer.[ref]
Treatment then branches with the diagnosis. Obstruction needs decompression and treatment of the obstructing lesion; escalating an antiemetic does not remove it. A confirmed peptic ulcer may require Helicobacter pylori eradication, proton pump inhibitor treatment and withdrawal of an ulcer-provoking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug where possible. A suspected malignant lesion needs tissue diagnosis and appropriate specialist treatment.[ref] In confirmed gastroparesis, smaller suitable meals, nutritional planning, correction of a contributing diabetes problem and selected prokinetic or antiemetic treatment have distinct purposes: an antiemetic may reduce nausea without accelerating gastric emptying. Persistent nutritional failure may require feeding beyond the stomach.[ref]
Medication-induced vomiting, metabolic disease, pregnancy-related illness and central causes require their own treatment pathways. Fluid and electrolyte losses need assessment and correction throughout. Reassess intake, weight and function as well as the frequency of vomiting. If no structural or metabolic explanation is established, investigate the relevant disorder of motility or gut–brain interaction on positive criteria; “nothing found yet” does not justify either a fabricated diagnosis or a dismissal of the symptom.

Ancestors (9)

  1. Second examination
  2. 1867
  3. Past exam of the medicine course of the University of Oxford
  4. Medicine course of the University of Oxford
  5. Undergraduate course of the University of Oxford
  6. Course of the University of Oxford
  7. University of Oxford
  8. List of universities
  9. Home

View article source

Discussion (0) New discussion

There are no discussions about this article yet.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.
See all articles in the same topic Create my own version