The discovery of anesthesia spread quickly through the United States and
around the world. As fast as the steamers of that day in mid-nineteenth
century could carry the news, it sped to the major cities of Great Britain and
Europe. This great boom was not uniformly received with the great joy that
the thought of significant historical events would have most of us believe.
There were many reasons why there were many objectors to its use. It is
necessary to explore and understand some of these reasons why anesthesia
might be rejected by either the profession or by patients. A brief examination
of some of these objections will indicate their nature and the vehemence that
was applied to opposing the use of anesthesia.

In a search through the records of the Massachusetts General Hospital,
which played such a very important role in the first public demonstration of
the use of ether in 1846, Martin Pernick describes from a case record the story
of a immigrant laborer, presumably of Irish extraction, who lived in
Philadelphia to illustrate one aspect of the rejection of anesthesia:

Mr. McGonigle fell while intoxicated and severely fractured his
ankle. At the Pennsylvania Hospital, his foot was amputated as an
emergency procedure. This incident occurred approximately sixteen
years after the discovery of anesthesia and in fact its use had been
adopted by the Pennsylvania Hospital as early as 1852. This patient
received no anesthetic of any kind and in two days post operatively
he died of shock. No further explanation of these events is
forthcoming. ¹

Pernick makes the point also that McGonigle's case was not unusual. He
describes the situation at the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, where he
found that 32 percent of all major limb amputations for fractures at the
Pennsylvania Hospital took place on conscious patients who were not
anesthetized. ²

-137-