US presidential shootings: When would medicine have actually become modern enough for various assassinated US Presidents to survive?

WolfBear

Well-known member
In regards to US presidential shootings, when would medicine have actually become modern enough for various assassinated US Presidents to survive? I suspect that even nowadays both Lincoln and JFK would have still died since they were shot in the head, but when exactly would medicine have become modern enough for Garfield and McKinley to survive their shootings?

In regards to Garfield, it's actually a common misconception that he died from infections caused by his doctors. In reality, the more likely explanation for Garfield's death is that his shooting triggered cholecystitis (an inflammation of his gallbladder, which can sometimes occur as a result of trauma even when this trauma does not itself directly affect the gallbladder), which subsequently caused Garfield's downhill decline starting from late July 1881 and also that the fact that Guiteau's bullet grazed Garfield's splenic artery resulted in the creation of a pseudoaneurysm on this artery which prevented Garfield from bleeding to death right after he was shot but did cause Garfield to bleed to death almost 80 days later when it finally ruptured, as pseudoaneurysms sometimes tend to do:


The article above says that the first successful case of cholecystectomy occurred in 1882, one year after President Garfield's untimely death. But when was the first successful case of treating/removing an aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm on one's splenic artery?

And what about McKinley's bullet wounds? When would modern medicine have actually become developed enough to have saved McKinley's life?
 

Surgical removal of aneurysms of the splenic artery has been reported by Winckler (21), Mulley (17), Davis (7), Goullioud (10), Brockman (4), Lower and Farrell (15), Lindboe (14), and Parsons (18). Winckler stated in his article that Selten was the first to operate on such a case with success. In some instances, the spleen was removed together with the aneurysm. Marshall (16) operated on a patient with an aneurysm produced by a bullet wound and was able to produce a cure by proximal and distal ligation. Hoegler (11) was the first to diagnose a case of aneurysm of the splenic artery on the basis of signs and symptoms. Roentgen studies revealed calcium deposits in the lesion over which a clear swishing, systolic murmur was audible. The reports of Davis, Goullioud, and Lindboe also contained roentgen findings of significance, Lindboe's patient being operated on successfully on the basis of the roentgen diagnosis of calcified aneurysm of the splenic artery.

But I couldn't actually find out when exactly Selten actually did this first successful operation! :(
 
And what about McKinley's bullet wounds? When would modern medicine have actually become developed enough to have saved McKinley's life?
Gangrene on the stomach lining got McKinley. Modern medicine definitely would have been able to save him.

I'm not sure when that would have been detectable. By '43 removing his stomach and pumping him full of penicillin would been possible.

EDIT: Lincoln died 8hrs later. Kenedy died 26hrs later. That might be enough time for a modern trauma team with a neurosurgeon to work a miracle.
 
Last edited:
Gangrene on the stomach lining got McKinley. Modern medicine definitely would have been able to save him.

I'm not sure when that would have been detectable. By '43 removing his stomach and pumping him full of penicillin would been possible.

EDIT: Lincoln died 8hrs later. Kenedy died 26hrs later. That might be enough time for a modern trauma team with a neurosurgeon to work a miracle.

Wouldn't removing his stomach have killed him due to starvation?
 
Wouldn't removing his stomach have killed him due to starvation?
Liquid diet.

The stomach mostly breaks up what you swallow into smaller pieces. The small intestine is where nutrients get absorbed. The large intestine turns what's left over into poop.
 
Liquid diet.

The stomach mostly breaks up what you swallow into smaller pieces. The small intestine is where nutrients get absorbed.

A liquid diet for the rest of his life would have definitely sucked! Though I do suppose that it's better than guaranteed death.
 
Definitely better.

(Sorry about the two rapid fire edits. Fat fingers hit "post reply" instead of the edit box.)

Do you know when the first successful surgery for a splenic aneurysm was? Apparently some German guy named Selten did it--as per my link above here:


But I couldn't actually find out when exactly Selten actually did this first successful operation! :(

This is relevant to the question of saving James Garfield's life.
 
Do you know when the first successful surgery for a splenic aneurysm was? Apparently some German guy named Selten did it--as per my link above here:



This is relevant to the question of saving James Garfield's life.
From the abstract, the patient was admitted in '37. The article was published in '41.

My guess would be sometime in '37-8 unless someone else did one before then that didn't make the journals.
 
From the abstract, the patient was admitted in '37. The article was published in '41.

My guess would be sometime in '37-8 unless someone else did one before then that didn't make the journals.

It apparently mentions a Winckler article from 1905 in regards to this, very possibly in German. I know because I looked at this entire article from 1941 on LibGen.
 
Gangrene on the stomach lining got McKinley. Modern medicine definitely would have been able to save him.

I'm not sure when that would have been detectable. By '43 removing his stomach and pumping him full of penicillin would been possible.

EDIT: Lincoln died 8hrs later. Kenedy died 26hrs later. That might be enough time for a modern trauma team with a neurosurgeon to work a miracle.

Kennedy would have been doomed even with modern medicine. He was declared dead 26 hours later but he died immediately. It's possible Lincoln could have survived but he would have become disabled.
 
Kennedy would have been doomed even with modern medicine. He was declared dead 26 hours later but he died immediately. It's possible Lincoln could have survived but he would have become disabled.

But both Garfield and McKinley would have survived, right?
 
Part of the problem with both Garfield and McKinley (but especially the former) is that medicine in the late 19th/early 20th century was still ignorant of basic things like washing hands, using sterile clothing and equipment, etc. So if you're asking "Had the surgeons been on top of their game and known what we know now about infection and the like" then...*possibly*. Gunshot wounds tended to go off course because of slower velocities and the like, which made finding the bullet hard. So it wasn't just staving off infection, you also needed a surgeon who knew what they were really doing and was *extremely* dexterous...which wasn't exactly common back then.


Now, someone in 1881 was actually shot much the same way as Garfield; however, the surgeon in the other case did such novel things like using lye soap as a disinfectant. That other person did survive.

Garfield, on the other hand, was not only not treated properly, the doctor who attended him was a complete fucking idiot and a total quack.

Even in the early 20th century such things weren't fully understood, and it came down to the intelligence of the surgeon and whether anything like using x-rays was considered (McKinley wasn't x-rayed despite there being an x-ray machine *at the World's Fair* because it might have "disturbed the patient."
 
Now, someone in 1881 was actually shot much the same way as Garfield; however, the surgeon in the other case did such novel things like using lye soap as a disinfectant. That other person did survive.

Which person, exactly? Also, this other person didn't actually develop cholecystitis, did they? Nor did they develop any aneurysms or pseudoaneurysms on their blood vessels, did they?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top