Ublished a `full, true and particular account’ of a lithotomy operation

Ublished a `full, true and particular account’ of a lithotomy operation which he had performed before an audience of students and practitioners at Guy’s.65 Lithotomy, or the removal of calculi (`stones’) deposited in the bladder, was one of the most invasive of early nineteenth-century surgical procedures, requiring considerable skill and manual dexterity. Ideally, the operation took no more than ten minutes, the patient being at great risk from shock and blood loss. From the very beginning of The Lancet’s article, however, it was clear that this particular operation was far from ideal, the headline announcing that Cooper had taken `NEARLY ONE HOUR ! !’ to extract the stone. The report was prefaced by a sarcastic editorial observation that it would be ALS-8176MedChemExpress ALS-8176 instructive to the `country “draff”‘ (a derogatory term for provincial practitioners) to `learn how things are managed by one of the privileged order ?a Hospital surgeon ?nephew and surgeon, and surgeon because he is “nephew”‘. There followed an intensely melodramatic account of the operation itself, presented not in the conventional form of a hospital report, but as a theatrical `tragedy’ in two acts.66 `Act 1′ opened with a description of the patient, Stephen Pollard, an apparently healthy labouring man from Sussex. After he was placed on the table and bound, Mr Callaway, Cooper’s assistant, held the `straight staff’ (a grooved instrument used for guiding the passage of the knife) while Cooper attempted to make an incision in Pollard’s perineum. The opening made, `forceps were now handed over and for some time attempted to be introduced, but without effect’. Cooper, declaring that the aperture was not sufficient, allegedly called for `my uncle’s knife’ to widen it. The forceps were then reintroduced and `pushed onwards to a considerable distance, and with no small degree of force’. The first act closed with Cooper declaring that Pollard’s perineum was `very deep’ and that he could not reach the bladder with his finger.67 `Act 2′ opened in even more dramatic fashion, with Pollard subjected to such a horrific and invasive assault as to defy syntactic coherence: `The staff re-introduced and cutting gorget passed along it ?various forceps employed: a blunt gorget ?a scoop ?sounds and staves introduced at the opening in the perineum.’ `I really can’t conceive the difficulty,’ Cooper declared, before asking one of his RRx-001 price attendants if they had a longer finger than his own so that they might reach the stone. `Good God,’ he exclaimed `the forceps won’t touch it ?O dear! O dear!’ Such were the hurried exclamations of the operator. Every now and then there was a cry of Hush! which was succeeded by the stillness of death, broken only by the horrible squash, squash of the forceps in the perineum.65ibid.,9:239 (29 March 1828), 959. Pladek suggests that this mode of presentation can in some ways be read as a channelling of Wakley’s earlier inclusion of theatrical reviews. Pladek, `”A variety of tastes”‘, op. cit., 576?. Certainly, the link between melodrama and the politics of the oppressed was a resonant one in early nineteenth-century culture. T. W.Lacquer, `The Queen Caroline Affair: politics as art in the reign of George IV’, Journal of Modern History, LIV , 3 (1982), 417 ?6; Hadley, op. cit.; D. Worrall, Theatric Revolution: Drama, Censorship and Romantic Period Subcultures, 1773 ?832 (Oxford, 2005). 67The Lancet, 9:239 (29 March 1828), 959.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.By this time Pollard was in almost.Ublished a `full, true and particular account’ of a lithotomy operation which he had performed before an audience of students and practitioners at Guy’s.65 Lithotomy, or the removal of calculi (`stones’) deposited in the bladder, was one of the most invasive of early nineteenth-century surgical procedures, requiring considerable skill and manual dexterity. Ideally, the operation took no more than ten minutes, the patient being at great risk from shock and blood loss. From the very beginning of The Lancet’s article, however, it was clear that this particular operation was far from ideal, the headline announcing that Cooper had taken `NEARLY ONE HOUR ! !’ to extract the stone. The report was prefaced by a sarcastic editorial observation that it would be instructive to the `country “draff”‘ (a derogatory term for provincial practitioners) to `learn how things are managed by one of the privileged order ?a Hospital surgeon ?nephew and surgeon, and surgeon because he is “nephew”‘. There followed an intensely melodramatic account of the operation itself, presented not in the conventional form of a hospital report, but as a theatrical `tragedy’ in two acts.66 `Act 1′ opened with a description of the patient, Stephen Pollard, an apparently healthy labouring man from Sussex. After he was placed on the table and bound, Mr Callaway, Cooper’s assistant, held the `straight staff’ (a grooved instrument used for guiding the passage of the knife) while Cooper attempted to make an incision in Pollard’s perineum. The opening made, `forceps were now handed over and for some time attempted to be introduced, but without effect’. Cooper, declaring that the aperture was not sufficient, allegedly called for `my uncle’s knife’ to widen it. The forceps were then reintroduced and `pushed onwards to a considerable distance, and with no small degree of force’. The first act closed with Cooper declaring that Pollard’s perineum was `very deep’ and that he could not reach the bladder with his finger.67 `Act 2′ opened in even more dramatic fashion, with Pollard subjected to such a horrific and invasive assault as to defy syntactic coherence: `The staff re-introduced and cutting gorget passed along it ?various forceps employed: a blunt gorget ?a scoop ?sounds and staves introduced at the opening in the perineum.’ `I really can’t conceive the difficulty,’ Cooper declared, before asking one of his attendants if they had a longer finger than his own so that they might reach the stone. `Good God,’ he exclaimed `the forceps won’t touch it ?O dear! O dear!’ Such were the hurried exclamations of the operator. Every now and then there was a cry of Hush! which was succeeded by the stillness of death, broken only by the horrible squash, squash of the forceps in the perineum.65ibid.,9:239 (29 March 1828), 959. Pladek suggests that this mode of presentation can in some ways be read as a channelling of Wakley’s earlier inclusion of theatrical reviews. Pladek, `”A variety of tastes”‘, op. cit., 576?. Certainly, the link between melodrama and the politics of the oppressed was a resonant one in early nineteenth-century culture. T. W.Lacquer, `The Queen Caroline Affair: politics as art in the reign of George IV’, Journal of Modern History, LIV , 3 (1982), 417 ?6; Hadley, op. cit.; D. Worrall, Theatric Revolution: Drama, Censorship and Romantic Period Subcultures, 1773 ?832 (Oxford, 2005). 67The Lancet, 9:239 (29 March 1828), 959.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.By this time Pollard was in almost.