Reprinted from the New York Medical Journal 
for December 8, 189 If. 
INTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS. 
New York, December 4, 189 
To the Editor of the New York Medical Journal : 
Sir: In connection with my paper on Intestinal Anastomo- 
sis, published in your journal of December 1st, there appeared 
a critical examination by Professor Murphy of the objections 
that I made to his button. Permit me to reply that Professor 
Murphy's remarks as to the retention of the button in cases of 
intestinal fistulas do not apply to the particular case mentioned 
in my paper, as there was no fistula, and that the second opera- 
tion terminated fatally was ample proof that there was danger. 
The doctor's answer to the second point adds force to the 
objection and proves it to have been well taken, as it is obvi- 
ously impracticable to submit all buttons for Dr. Murphy's in- 
spection and approval. 
The other objections made seem to be conceded by tLe in- 
ventor, as he has made no effort to answer them. 
In collecting the cases of Maunsell's method of intestinal 
anastomosis it is regretted that a case reported by Dr. Parker 
Syms in the course of the discussion on the writer's case of 
Contusion and Rupture of the Ileum (Yew York Medical Jour- 
nal, December 9, 1893, page 702) was overlooked. 
Frederick Holme Wiggin, M.D. 
Copyright, 1894, by D. Appleton and Company.