Such was the case with a schoolmaster, who when living, resided in the village of H—. He prematurely suffered from Idiopathic irritation of the bladder, for on carefully sounding him, no stone could be detected, and therefore it was conceived, that inflammatory action in that viscus existed, which accompanied with pain at intervals, especially during the night annoyed him exceedingly. Disease advancing, he consulted a general practitioner in the neighbourhood, and subsequently other medical men, among them an eminent physician in Norwich. But the obstinacy of the disease soon caused his confidence to be shaken, and fearing the result, he yielded to the foolish solicitation of meddling acquaintance, who persuaded him to consult a notorious quack. Complying with their wish, he followed the advice given by the remorseless pretender to knowledge in disease, and applied bullock’s milts to the feet, partook of stimulants (ammonia and spirits of turpentine) in the day, with brandy and laudanum at night; on taking only two doses of the former, his anguish increased considerably, which became partially allayed by the laudanum, but no sleep succeeded—the expression “the complaint has flown upwards,” escaped the lips of the dying man, and delirium closed the scene.
To consult the accelerator of his death—the iniquitous quack—he undertook a journey of forty miles, only four days previously; and although the disease might eventually have killed him, still his condition was good, emaciation had made but little progress, and his appetite continued excellent. From taking stimulants, the gradual decay of nature was denied him. His agony was such, that in cases like his, an Infinite and Merciful Being has wisely ordained that collapse should take place, that the nervous system should receive a lasting shock, and thus was the schoolmaster the victim of credulity, relieved of his earthly pilgrimage.
Such a sudden termination in the death of this unfortunate being naturally aroused the attention of the neighbours. A coroner’s inquest was summoned, and the gentleman in office proceeded to his duty; but the cause of death not being ascertained to the mutual understanding of himself and jury, an adjournment took place. In this instance, though informed that a general practitioner in the neighbourhood attended the schoolmaster in the earlier period of his illness, yet the coroner neglected to call him as evidence, but observed to the jury he should take the phials left in the possession of the friends of the deceased, to have the contents analyzed. Returning homewards, he called on a medical gentlemen, stated his mission, and requested he would on a day named, attend and give evidence. This was assented to, and on the investigation being resumed, the question put to the witness was “What is the nature of the disease, and the cause of death?” he replied, “He could not tell, as he had not been consulted by the deceased during his illness, but he believed the medicine prescribed was harmless—would neither kill nor cure—although he did not approve of the treatment.”