Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R.S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, R.S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2001, Vol. 87, No. 6 813-815
© 2001 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Editorial

Editorial II

Comparative mortality in anaesthesia

R.S. Jones

Ever since the advent of general anaesthesia in 1846, the subject of anaesthetic mortality has been a source of considerable debate and discussion. In the late 1880s, the Hyderabad Commissions concluded that chloroform was a completely safe anaesthetic agent in the human species.1 The Lancet commissioned its own study and this was probably the first epidemiological investigation of the effects of anaesthetic agents in any species.2 On the basis of animal experiments, the Hyderabad Commissions had concluded that chloroform was a safe agent in man but the Lancet Commission challenged these findings. They concluded that death under chloroform anaesthesia was 8.7 times more likely than death under ether anaesthesia, whereas chloroform was only administered 6.1 times more often than ether. Whilst the members of the commission failed to establish the relative safety of ether or chloroform, they focused attention on the role of human error in the aetiology of anaesthetic . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Horses

Small animals

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
D. C. Brodbelt, D. U. Pfeiffer, L. E. Young, and J. L. N. Wood
Risk factors for anaesthetic-related death in cats: results from the confidential enquiry into perioperative small animal fatalities (CEPSAF)
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2007; 99(5): 617 - 623.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]