On tlie Alleged Special Liability 
of Benign Laryngeal Growths 
to undergo Malignant Degen- 
eration after Intralaryngeal 
Operations, 
BT 
FELIX SEMON. 
REPRINTED FROM THE 
Kcto Yorfe puiitcal Journal 
for September 1, 1894- Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal 
for September 1, 189 
ON THE ALLEGED SPECIAL LIABILITY OF BENIGN LARYN- 
GEAL GROWTHS TO UNDERGO MALIGNANT DEGENERA- 
TION AFTER INTRALARYNGEAL OPERATIONS. 
To the Editor of the New York Medical Journal: 
London, August 15, 1891/.. 
Sin ; The method of Mr. Letmox Browne’s letter published 
in the New York Medical Journal of August 4th will not sur- 
prise any one acquainted with bis controversial tactics. It is 
constructed upon the old recipe: “No case, abuse plaintiff’s 
attorney 1 ” Mr. Browne, exactly as on previous occasions, at- 
tempts to pass with a few high-sounding phrases over the real 
question at issue, and to turn the tables by representing a pro- 
test against the perversion of scientific facts as the mere out- 
come of paltry personal spite. In speaking of Dr. Newman’s 
and my own “attempt by a side blast to discredit his contribu- 
tion ” he conveniently forgets that it was he who attempted to 
discredit the weight of our statements by misrepresenting our 
facts, and that we only acted in self-defense; in complaining of 
our ‘notions of honorable fighting’ he equally conveniently for- 
gets that he never informed us what use he had made in a test- 
book, published in America, of our unambiguous words, and 
that we, too, had seen his article only by a chance visit to a 
public library. Thus again he simply reverses the facts of the 
case. His insinuations of disloyalty against the late Sir Morell 
Mackenzie I can afford to treat with the contempt they deserve. 
I have frankly opposed Sir Morell when 1 considered this to be 
my duty while he was alive, but I have not misrepresented his 
views and statements nor distorted his cases after he was dead. 
Copyright, 1894 by D. Appleton and Company. 2 
But, sir, all this is wide of the mark. The real question 
stands thus: I have brought a series of grave charges against 
Mr. Browne and I have given chapter and verse for every 
charge I made. Mr. Browne does neither attempt to traverse a 
single one of the facts I have stated nor to apologize for the in- 
excusable manipulations he has permitted himself ; and his reply, 
after some empty protestations of good faith, which are perfect- 
ly meaningless after his actual deeds, in his own words amounts 
to this: that “such paltry matters are unworthy Transatlantic 
publication—at any rate, he could be no party to a correspondence 
on them under the obvious disadvantages attendant thereon.” 
I need not ask you, sir, whether your opinion coincides with 
that of Mr. Browne, because you would probably not have ex- 
tended to us the hospitality of your journal if you had consid- 
ered the charges we brought so “paltry ” as to be unworthy of 
Transatlantic publication, hut I should he greatly obliged to 
you if you would in an editorial addendum to this letter state 
your views as to the ethical aspect of the whole question. A 
reply to that effect, it is true, has already been given by the 
editors of two of your English contemporaries—viz., the editors 
of the Lancet and of the Glasgow Medical Journal. Dr. New- 
man raised a protest against Mr. Browne’s literary methods in 
these two Journals, limiting himself strictly, however, to the 
perversion of his own statements of which Mr. Browne had 
been guilty. A controversy in both journals followed, which 
in both instances was ended by editorial notes, which I here 
verbatim append : 
Editorial note in the Glasgoic Medical Journal: 
“We publish Mr. Lennox Browne’s letter, but must at the 
same time express regret at its tone and method. Dr. Newman 
pointed out that Mr. Browne, in what he cites as an exact quota- 
tion, alters an important word, thereby changing the meaning 
entirely. Mr. Browne does not deny altering the word, and we 
are convinced that his contention that he has not altered the 
meaning is not made good. When an author who is citing a 
case as cancerous from the onset states that at one period he 
believed it to be innocent, it is altering his meaning entirely to 
substitute ‘demonstrated ’ tor ‘ believed,’ and to make it appear 3 
that he still believes it to be innocent at the time of the first 
examination. Mr. Browne’s further claim that Dr. Newman 
was at one time an adherent of the opinion that such innocent 
growths may by surgical interference be transformed into malig- 
nant tumors seems to us to be equally devoid of foundation. 
The passages quoted by Mr. Browne from Dr. Newman’s writ- 
ings show that the latter believes in the transformation of inno- 
cent into malignant growths, but we have not discovered a 
single word favoring the idea that he ever believed that in- 
strumental interference is an element in producing such trans- 
formation. The long quotations in which Mr. Browne indulges 
are thus entirely wide of the mark and do not bear out his con- 
tention. We have made these remarks without consulting Dr. 
Newman, and simply to bring back the reader to the points in 
dispute, which Mr. Browne obscures in a cloud of words. 
“Editors G. M. 
“ *** The matters in dispute between Dr. Newman and Mr. 
Lennox Browne have been much simplified by Mr. Browne’s 
last letter to us. It will be seen that he expresses regret for 
substituting one word for another in quoting or abstracting a 
report of one of Dr. Newman’s cases. We highly approve of 
this apology, and only regret that it did not come sooner. It is 
always incumbent in public controversy, in quoting an author, 
to do so with absolute accuracy, using only the ipsissima verba ; 
half the misunderstandings which occur between public men 
arise from the neglect of this obvious rule. The rule is, of 
course, most binding in matters so grave as that of surgical in- 
terference in cases of intralaryngeal growth. It is quite open 
to Mr. Browne to argue in favor of his views from the pub- 
lished cases of Dr. Newman or any other laryngologist, but he 
does not advance his argument by misquoting the statements of 
those whom he criticises. We are not called upon on this occa- 
sion to express an opinion on one of the most serious and urgent 
questions of surgery which has been projected into prominence 
by historical events and controversies of recent years. If such 
a correspondence as that we have published settles anything 
it settles this; that even from an expert’s view there is much 
Editorial note in the Lancet, July 14, 1894: 4 
difficulty in defining the coarse of professional duty in any given 
case, and that in any given case much responsibility will rest on 
the general advisers of the patient. We can not devote further 
space to this correspondence.—Ed. L.” 
Now, sir, although the editors of both these journals, as you 
and your readers will have seen from the foregoing notes, have 
spoken plainly enough, their judgment refers, as it were, to one 
third only of the evidence which I have laid before you and 
your readers. My charges are even more serious than Dr. New- 
man’s, because from them it appears that Dr. Newman’s case 
does not stand alone, and that Mr. Browne has in fact resorted 
to a perfect system of misrepresentations of the facts of his op- 
ponents. I can not believe that Americans should judge less 
severely of breaches of literary good faith than their English 
confreres. 
What I, with a slight variation of Dr. Newman’s words in 
his letter to the editors of the Lancet of July 7th, wish to know 
is this: Are medical ethics merely nominal, and good enough to 
be preached to students in introductory addresses, but “ paltry ” 
enough to be with impunity disregarded in practice, or is there 
a moral obligation on the part of every member of the profes- 
sion to truly render the exact meaning of the unambiguous 
words of other writers? Felix Semox. 
*** We coincide entirely in our English contemporaries’ 
comments on this controversy, and can not consent to its fur- 
ther prolongation in our columns. In our opinion, it goes with- 
out saying that ethical principles are good for nothing if they 
are not to be lived up to, and that an injurious misquotation, 
even if it is made by accident, should always be acknowledged 
promptly and without evasion. The New York Medical Journal. 
A WEEKLY REVIEW OF MEDICINE. 
EDITED BY 
FRANK P. FOSTER, M.D. 
THE PHYSICIAN who would keep abreast with the advances in 
medical science must read a live weekly medical journal, in which 
scientific facts are presented in a clear manner; one for which the 
articles are written by men of learning, and by those who are good and 
accurate observers ; a journal that is stripped of every feature irrelevant 
to medical science, and gives evidence of being carefully and conscien- 
tiously edited; one that bears upon every page the stamp of desire to 
elevate the standard of the profession of medicine. Such a journal 
fulfills its mission—that of educator—to the highest degree, for not 
only does it inform its readers of all that is new in theory and practice, 
but, by means of its correct editing, instructs them in the very important 
yet much-neglected art of expressing their thoughts and ideas in a clear 
and correct manner. Too much stress can not be laid upon this feature, 
so utterly ignored by the “ average ” medical periodical. 
Without making invidious comparisons, it can be truthfully stated 
that no medical journal in this country occupies the place, in these par- 
ticulars, that is held by The New York Medical Journal. No 
other journal is edited with the care that is bestowed on this; none 
contains articles of such high scientific value, coming as they do from 
the pens of the brightest and most learned medical men of America. A 
glance at the list of contributors to any volume, or an examination of 
any issue of the Journal, will attest the truth of these statements. It 
is a journal for the masses of the profession, for the country as well as 
for the city practitioner; it covers the entire range of medicine and 
surgery. A very important feature of the Journal is the number and 
character of its illustrations, which are unequaled by those of any other 
journal in the world. They appear in frequent issues, whenever called 
for by the article which they accompany, and no expense is spared to 
make them of superior excellence. 
Subscription price, $5.00 per annum. Volumes begin in 
January and July. 
PUBLISHED by 
D. APPLETON & CO., 72 Fifth Avenue, New York.