Pearn John, Winkel Kenneth D
Department of Paediatrics & Child Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane Qld 4029, Australia.
Toxicon. 2006 Dec 1;48(7):726-37. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.07.027. Epub 2006 Aug 3.
The medical management of those envenomed by snakes, spiders and poisonous fish in Australia featured extensively in the writings 19th century doctors, expeditioners and anthropologists. Against the background of this introduced medical doctrine there already existed an extensive tradition of Aboriginal medical lore; techniques of heat treatment, suction, incision and the application of plant-derived pharmacological substances featured extensively in the management of envenomed victims. The application of a hair-string or grass-string ligature, suctioning of the bite-site and incision were practised in a variety of combinations. Such evolved independently of and pre-dated such practices, which were promoted extensively by immigrant European doctors in the late 19th century. Pacific scientific toxinology began in the 17th century with Don Diego de Prado y Tovar's 1606 account of ciguatera. By the end of the 19th century more than 30 papers and books had defined the natural history of Australian elapid poisoning. The medical management of snakebite in Australia was the focus of great controversy from 1860 to 1900. Dogmatic claims of the supposed antidote efficacy of intravenous ammonia by Professor G.B. Halford, and that of strychnine by Dr. Augustus Mueller, claimed mainstream medical attention. This era of potential iatrogenic disaster and dogma was brought to a conclusion by the objective experiments of Joseph Lauterer and Thomas Lane Bancroft in 1890 in Brisbane; and by those of C.J. Martin (from 1893) and Frank Tidswell (from 1898), both of Sydney. The modern era of Australian toxinology developed as a direct consequence of Calmette's discovery, in Paris in 1894, of immune serum, which was protective against snakebite. We review the key contributors and discoveries of toxinology in colonial Australia.
19世纪的医生、探险者和人类学家的著作中大量介绍了澳大利亚蛇、蜘蛛和有毒鱼类致伤的医疗处理方法。在这种引入的医学理论背景下,原住民医学知识已经有了广泛的传统;热处理、抽吸、切开以及应用植物源药理物质等技术在处理中毒受害者时被广泛应用。毛发线或草线绑扎、咬伤部位抽吸和切开以各种组合方式进行。这些方法独立发展且早于19世纪后期欧洲移民医生广泛推广的那些方法。太平洋科学毒素学始于17世纪,当时唐·迭戈·德·普拉多·伊·托瓦尔在1606年描述了雪卡毒素中毒。到19世纪末,已有30多篇论文和书籍阐述了澳大利亚眼镜蛇科中毒的自然史。1860年至1900年期间,澳大利亚蛇咬伤的医疗处理成为激烈争论的焦点。G.B. 哈尔福德教授关于静脉注射氨所谓解毒功效的教条式主张,以及奥古斯塔斯·米勒博士关于士的宁的主张,引起了主流医学的关注。1890年约瑟夫·劳特勒和托马斯·莱恩·班克罗夫特在布里斯班进行的客观实验,以及悉尼的C.J. 马丁(从1893年开始)和弗兰克·蒂茨韦尔(从1898年开始)的实验,结束了这个潜在医源性灾难和教条的时代。澳大利亚毒素学的现代时代是1894年卡尔梅特在巴黎发现抗蛇毒免疫血清的直接结果。我们回顾了澳大利亚殖民地毒素学的主要贡献者和发现。