Macleod's Clinical Examination 14th

Edition J. Alastair Innes

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/macleods-clinical-examination-14th-edition-j-alastair-i
nnes/
Any screen.
Any time.
Anywhere.
Activate the eBook version
of this title at no additional charge.

Student Consult eBooks give you the power to browse and find content,
view enhanced images, share notes and highlights—both online and offline.

Unlock your eBook today.

1 Visit studentconsult.inkling.com/redeem Scan this QR code to redeem your
eBook through your mobile device:
2 Scratch off your code
3 Type code into “Enter Code” box

4 Click “Redeem”
5 Log in or Sign up
6 Go to “My Library”
It’s that easy!
Place Peel Off
Sticker Here

For technical assistance:

email studentconsult.help@elsevier.com
call 1-800-401-9962 (inside the US)
call +1-314-447-8200 (outside the US)

Use of the current edition of the electronic version of this book (eBook) is subject to the terms of the nontransferable, limited license granted on
studentconsult.inkling.com. Access to the eBook is limited to the first individual who redeems the PIN, located on the inside cover of this book, at studentconsult.inkling.com and
may not be transferred to another party by resale, lending, or other means.
2015v1.0
Macleod’s
Clinical Examination
 John Macleod (1915–2006)
John Macleod was appointed consultant physician at the Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, in 1950. He had major interests in rheumatology and medical education.
Medical students who attended his clinical teaching sessions remember him as
an inspirational teacher with the ability to present complex problems with great
clarity. He was invariably courteous to his patients and students alike. He had an
uncanny knack of involving all students equally in clinical discussions and used
praise rather than criticism. He paid great attention to the value of history taking
and, from this, expected students to identify what particular aspects of the physical
examination should help to narrow the diagnostic options.
His consultant colleagues at the Western welcomed the opportunity of contributing
when he suggested writing a textbook on clinical examination. The book was first
published in 1964 and John Macleod edited seven editions. With characteristic
modesty he was very embarrassed when the eighth edition was renamed Macleod’s
Clinical Examination. This, however, was a small way of recognising his enormous
contribution to medical education.
He possessed the essential quality of a successful editor – the skill of changing
disparate contributions from individual contributors into a uniform style and format
without causing offence; everybody accepted his authority. He avoided being
dogmatic or condescending. He was generous in teaching others his editorial
skills and these attributes were recognised when he was invited to edit Davidson’s
Principles and Practice of Medicine.

Content Strategist: Laurence Hunter

Content Development Specialist: Helen Leng
Project Manager: Anne Collett
Designer: Miles Hitchen
Illustration Manager: Karen Giacomucci
Macleod’s
14th Edition

Examination
Clinical
Edited by

J Alastair Innes
BSc PhD FRCP(Ed)
Consultant Physician, Respiratory Unit, Western General
Hospital, Edinburgh; Honorary Reader in Respiratory Medicine,
University of Edinburgh, UK

Anna R Dover
PhD FRCP(Ed)
Consultant in Diabetes, Endocrinology and General Medicine,
Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal
Infirmary of Edinburgh; Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer,
University of Edinburgh, UK

Karen Fairhurst
PhD FRCGP
General Practitioner, Mackenzie Medical Centre, Edinburgh;
Clinical Senior Lecturer, Centre for Population Health Sciences,
University of Edinburgh, UK

Illustrations by Robert Britton and Ethan Danielson

Edinburgh London New York Oxford Philadelphia St Louis Sydney 2018

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the publisher’s permissions policies and
our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency,
can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the publisher (other than
as may be noted herein).
First edition 1964 Sixth edition 1983 Eleventh edition 2005
Second edition 1967 Seventh edition 1986 Twelfth edition 2009
Third edition 1973 Eighth edition 1990 Thirteenth edition 2013
Fourth edition 1976 Ninth edition 1995 Fourteenth edition 2018
Fifth edition 1979 Tenth edition 2000

ISBN 978-0-7020-6993-2
International ISBN 978-0-7020-6992-5
Notices
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds or experiments described herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical
sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made. To the fullest extent
of the law, no responsibility is assumed by Elsevier, authors, editors or contributors for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any
methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

The
publisher’s
policy is to use
paper manufactured
from sustainable forests

Printed in Europe
Last digit is the print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgements ix
How to make the most of this book xi
Clinical skills videos xiii
Contributors xv

SECTION 1 PRINCIPLES OF CLINICAL HISTORY AND EXAMINATION 1

  1 Managing clinical encounters with patients 3

Karen Fairhurst, Anna R Dover, J Alastair Innes
  2 General aspects of history taking 9
J Alastair Innes, Karen Fairhurst, Anna R Dover
  3 General aspects of examination 19
Anna R Dover, J Alastair Innes, Karen Fairhurst

SECTION 2 SYSTEM-BASED EXAMINATION 37

  4 The cardiovascular system 39

Nicholas L Mills, Alan G Japp, Jennifer Robson
  5 The respiratory system 75
J Alastair Innes, James Tiernan
  6 The gastrointestinal system 93
John Plevris, Rowan Parks
  7 The nervous system 119
Richard Davenport, Hadi Manji
  8 The visual system 151
Shyamanga Borooah, Naing Latt Tint
  9 The ear, nose and throat 171
Iain Hathorn
10 The endocrine system 193
Anna R Dover, Nicola Zammitt
11 The reproductive system 211
Oliver Young, Colin Duncan, Kirsty Dundas, Alexander Laird
vi • Contents

12 The renal system 237

Neeraj Dhaun, David Kluth
13 The musculoskeletal system 251
Jane Gibson, Ivan Brenkel
14 The skin, hair and nails 283
Michael J Tidman

SECTION 3 APPLYING HISTORY AND EXAMINATION SKILLS IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS 295

15 Babies and children 297

Ben Stenson, Steve Cunningham
16 The patient with mental disorder 319
Stephen Potts
17 The frail elderly patient 329
Andrew Elder, Elizabeth MacDonald
18 The deteriorating patient 339
Ross Paterson, Anna R Dover
19 The dying patient 347
Anthony Bateman, Kirsty Boyd

SECTION 4 PUTTING HISTORY AND EXAMINATION SKILLS TO USE 353

20 Preparing for assessment 355

Anna R Dover, Janet Skinner
21 Preparing for practice 361
Karen Fairhurst, Gareth Clegg

Index 375

Despite the wealth of diagnostic tools available to the modern
physician, the acquisition of information by direct interaction
with the patient through history taking and clinical examination
remains the bedrock of the physician’s art. These time-honoured
skills can often allow clinicians to reach a clear diagnosis without
recourse to expensive and potentially harmful tests.
This book aims to assist clinicians in developing the consultation
skills required to elicit a clear history, and the practical skills
needed to detect clinical signs of disease. Where possible, the
physical basis of clinical signs is explained to aid understanding.
Formulation of a differential diagnosis from the information gained
is introduced, and the logical initial investigations are included for
each system. Macleod’s Clinical Examination is designed to be
used in conjunction with more detailed texts on pathophysiology,
differential diagnosis and clinical medicine, illustrating specifically
how the history and examination can inform the diagnostic
process.
In this edition the contents have been restructured and the
text comprehensively updated by a team of existing and new
authors, with the aim of creating an accessible and user-friendly
text relevant to the practice of medicine in the 21st century.
Section 1 addresses the general principles of good interaction
with patients, from the basics of taking a history and examining,
Preface
to the use of pattern recognition to identify spot diagnoses.
Section 2 deals with symptoms and signs in specific systems
and Section 3 illustrates the application of these skills to specific
clinical situations. Section 4 covers preparation for assessments
of clinical skills and for the use of these skills in everyday practice.
An expertly performed history and examination of a patient
allows the doctor to detect disease and predict prognosis, and is
crucial to the principle of making the patient and their concerns
central to the care process, and also to the avoidance of harm
from unnecessary or unjustified tests.
We hope that if young clinicians are encouraged to adopt
and adapt these skills, they not only will serve their patients
as diagnosticians but also will themselves continue to develop
clinical examination techniques and a better understanding of
their mechanisms and diagnostic use.
The 14th edition of Macleod’s Clinical Examination has an
accompanying set of videos available in the online Student
Consult electronic library. This book is closely integrated with
Davidson’s Principles and Practice of Medicine and is best read
in conjunction with that text.
JAI, ARD, KF
Edinburgh, 2018
This page intentionally left blank
 Acknowledgements
The editors would like acknowledge the immense contribution
made by Graham Douglas, Fiona Nicol and Colin Robertson
who edited the three previous editions of Macleod’s Clinical
Examination. Together they re-shaped the format of this textbook
and their efforts were rewarded by a substantial growth in both
its sales and international reputation.
The editors would like to acknowledge and offer grateful thanks
for the input of all previous editions’ contributors, without whom
this new edition would not have been possible. In particular, we
are indebted to those former authors who step down with the
arrival of this new edition. They include: Elaine Anderson, John
Bevan, Andrew Bradbury, Nicki Colledge, Allan Cumming, Graham
Devereux, Jamie Douglas, Rebecca Ford, David Gawkrodger,
Neil Grubb, James Huntley, John Iredale, Robert Laing, Andrew
Longmate, Alastair MacGilchrist, Dilip Nathwani, Jane Norman,
John Olson, Paul O’Neill, Stephen Payne, Laura Robertson,
David Snadden, James C Spratt, Kum-Ying Tham, Steve Turner
and Janet Wilson.
We are particularly grateful to the following medical students,
who undertook detailed reviews of the book and gave us a wealth
of ideas to implement in this latest edition. We trust we have listed
all those who contributed, and apologise if any names have been
accidentally omitted: Layla Raad Abd Al-Majeed, Ali Adel Ne’ma
Abdullah, Aanchal Agarwal, Hend Almazroa, Alhan Alqinai, Amjed
Alyasseen, Chidatma Arampady, Christian Børde Arkteg, Maha
Arnaout, Rashmi Arora, Daniel Ashrafi, Herry Asnawi, Hemant Atri,
Ahmed Ayyad, Kainath N Azad, Sadaf Azam, Arghya Bandhu,
Jamie Barclay, Prithiv Siddarth Saravana Bavan, Rajarshi Bera,
Craig Betton, Apoorva Bhagat, Prachi Bhageria, Geethanjali
Bhas, Navin Bhatt, Shahzadi Nisar Bhutto, Abhishek Ghosh
Biswas, Tamoghna Biswas, Debbie Bolton, Claude Borg, Daniel
Buxton, Anup Chalise, Amitesh Kumar Chatterjee, Subhankar
Chatterjee, Farhan Ashraf Chaudhary, Aalia Chaudhry, Jessalynn
Chia, Bhaswati Chowdhury, Robin Chowdhury, Marshall Colin,
Michael Collins, Margaret Cooper, Barbara Corke, Andrea Culmer,
Gowtham Varma Dantuluri, Abhishek Das, Sonali Das, Aziz Dauti,
Mark Davies, Adam Denton, Muinul Islam Dewan, Greg Dickman,
Hengameh Ahmad Dokhtjavaherian, Amy Edwards, Muhammad
Eimaduddin, Laith Al Ejeilat, Divya G Eluru, Emmanuel Ernest, El
Bushra El Fadil, Fathima Ashfa Mohamed Faleel, Malcolm Falzon,
Emma Farrington, Noor Fazal, Sultana Ferdous, Matthew Formosa,
Brian Forsyth, David Fotheringham, Bhargav Gajula, Dariimaa
Ganbat, Lauren Gault, Michaela Goodson, Mounika Gopalam,
Ciaran Grafton-Clarke, Anthony Gunawan, Aditya Gupta, Digvijay
Gupta, Kshitij Gupta, Sonakshi Gupta, Md. Habibullah, Kareem
Haloub, Akar Jamal Hamasalih, James Harper, Bruce Harper-
McDonald, Jon Harvey, Alexandra Hawker, Raja K Haynes, Emma
Hendry, Malik Hina, Bianca Honnekeri, Justina Igwe, Chisom
Ikeji, Sushrut Ingawale, Mohammad Yousuf ul Islam, Sneha Jain,
Maria Javed, Ravin Jegathnathan, Helge Leander B Jensen,
Li Jie, Ali Al Joboory, Asia Joseph, Christopher Teow Kang
Jun, Janpreet Kainth, Ayush Karmacharya, JS Karthik, Aneesh
Karwande, Adhishesh Kaul, Alper Kaymak, Ali Kenawi, Abdullah
Al Arefin Khadem, Haania Khan, Muhammad Hassan Khan,
Sehrish Khan, Shrayash Khare, Laith Khweir, Ankit Kumar, Vinay
Kumar, Ibrahim Lafi, Armeen Lakhani, Christopher Lee, David Lee,
Benjamin Leeves, Soo Ting Joyce Lim, Chun Hin Lo, Lai Hing Loi,
Chathura Mihiran Maddumabandara, Joana Sousa Magalhães,
Aditya Mahajan, Mahabubul Islam Majumder, Aaditya Mallik,
Mithilesh Chandra Malviya, Santosh Banadahally Manjegowda,
Jill Marshall, Balanuj Mazumdar, Alan David McCrorie, Paras
Mehmood, Kartik Mittal, Mahmood Kazi Mohammed, Amber
Moorcroft, Jayne Murphy, Sana Mustafa, Arvi Nahar, Akshay
Prakash Narad, Shehzina Nawal, Namia Nazir, Viswanathan
Neelakantan, Albero Nieto, Angelina Choong Kin Ning, Faizul
Nordin, Mairead O’Donoghue, Joey O’Halloran, Amit Kumar Ojha,
Ifeolu James Oyedele, Anik Pal, Vidit Panchal, Asha Pandu, Bishal
Panthi, Jacob Parker, Ujjawal Paudel, Tanmoy Kumar Paul, Kate
Perry, Daniel Pisaru, David Potter, Dipesh Poudel, Arijalu Syaram
Putra, Janine Qasim, Muhammad Qaunayn Qays, Mohammad
Qudah, Jacqueline Quinn, Varun MS Venkat Raghavan, Md.
Rahmatullah, Ankit Raj, Jerin Joseph Raju, Prasanna A Ramana,
Ashwini Dhanraj Rangari, Anurag Ramesh Rathi, Anam Raza,
Rakesh Reddy, Sudip Regmi, Amgad Riad, Patel Riya, Emily
Robins, Grace Robinson, Muhammad’Azam Paku Rozi, Cosmin
Rusneac, Ahmed Sabra, Anupama Sahu, Mohammad Saleh,
Manjiri Saoji, Saumyadip Sarkar, Rakesh Kumar Shah, Basil Al
Shammaa, Sazzad Sharhiar, Anmol Sharma, Homdutt Sharma,
Shivani Sharma, Shobhit Sharma, Johannes Iikuyu Shilongo,
Dhan Bahadur Shrestha, Pratima Shrestha, Anurag Singh,
Kareshma Kaur Ranjit Singh, Nishansh Singh, Aparna Sinha,
Liam Skoda, Ethan-Dean Smith, Prithviraj Solanki, Meenakshi
Sonnilal, Soundarya Soundararajan, Morshedul Islam Sowrav,
Kayleigh Spellar, Siddharth Srinivasan, Pradeep Srivastava,
Anthony Starr, Michael Suryadisastra, Louisa Sutton, Komal
Ashok Tapadiya, Areeba Tariq, Imran Tariq, Jia Chyi Tay, Javaria
Tehzeeb, Daniel Theron, Michele Tosi, Pagavathbharathi Sri Balaji
Vidyapeeth, Amarjit Singh Vij, Cathrine Vincent, Ghassan Wadi,
Amirah Abdul Wahab, James Warrington, Luke Watson, Federico
Ivan Weckesser, Ben Williamson, Kevin Winston, Kyi Phyu Wint,
Harsh Yadav, Saroj Kumar Yadav, Amelia Yong, Awais Zaka
and Nuzhat Zehra.
This page intentionally left blank
 How to make
the most of this book
The purpose of this book is to document and explain how to:
• interact with a patient as their doctor
• take a history from a patient
• examine a patient
• formulate your findings into differential diagnoses
• rank these in order of probability
• use investigations to support or refute your differential
diagnosis.
Initially, when you approach a section, we suggest that you
glance through it quickly, looking at the headings and how it
is laid out. This will help you to see in your mind’s eye the
framework to use.
Learn to speed-read. It is invaluable in medicine and in life
generally. Most probably, the last lesson you had on reading
was at primary school. Most people can dramatically improve
their speed of reading and increase their comprehension by
using and practising simple techniques.
Try making mind maps of the details to help you recall and
retain the information as you progress through the chapter. Each
of the systems chapters is laid out in the same order:
• Introduction: anatomy and physiology.
• The history: common presenting symptoms, what
questions to ask and how to follow them up.
• The physical examination: what and how to examine.
• Investigations: how to select the most relevant and
informative initial tests, and how these clarify the diagnosis.
• Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
examples: a couple of short clinical scenarios included to
illustrate the type of problems students may meet in an
OSCE assessment of this system.
• Integrated examination sequence: a structured list of steps
to be followed when examining the system, intended as a
prompt and revision aid.
Return to this book to refresh your technique if you have
been away from a particular field for some time. It is surprising
how quickly your technique deteriorates if you do not use it
regularly. Practise at every available opportunity so that you
become proficient at examination techniques and gain a full
understanding of the range of normality.
Ask a senior colleague to review your examination technique
regularly; there is no substitute for this and for regular practice.
Listen also to what patients say – not only about themselves
but also about other health professionals – and learn from these
comments. You will pick up good and bad points that you will
want to emulate or avoid.
Finally, enjoy your skills. After all, you are learning to be able
to understand, diagnose and help people. For most of us, this
is the reason we became doctors.
Examination sequences
Throughout the book there are outlines of techniques that you
should follow when examining a patient. These are identified
with a red ‘Examination sequence’ heading. The bullet-point list
provides the exact order in which to undertake the examination.
To help your understanding of how to perform these techniques
many of the examination sequences have been filmed and these
are marked with an arrowhead.
This page intentionally left blank
 Clinical skills videos
Included with your purchase are clinical examination videos,
custom-made for this textbook. Filmed using qualified doctors,
with hands-on guidance from the author team, and narrated
by former Editor Professor Colin Robertson, these videos offer
you the chance to watch trained professionals performing many
of the examination routines described in the book. By helping
you to memorise the essential examination steps required for
each major system and by demonstrating the proper clinical
technique, these videos should act as an important bridge
between textbook learning and bedside teaching. The videos
will be available for you to view again and again as your clinical
skills develop and will prove invaluable as you prepare for your
clinical OSCE examinations.
Each examination routine has a detailed explanatory narrative
but for maximum benefit view the videos in conjunction with the
book. See the inside front cover for your access instructions.
Video production team
Director and editor
Key points in examinations: photo galleries Dr Iain Hennessey

Many of the examination sequences are included as photo Producer

galleries, illustrating with captions the key stages of the Dr Alan G Japp
examination routine. These will act as a useful reminder of the
main points of each sequence. See the inside front cover for Sound and narrators
your access instructions. Professor Colin Robertson
Dr Nick Morley
Video contents Clinical examiners
Dr Amy Robb
• Examination of the cardiovascular system.
Dr Ben Waterson
• Examination of the respiratory system.
• Examination of the gastrointestinal system. Patients
• Examination of the neurological system.
Abby Cooke
• Examination of the ear.
Omar Ali
• Examination of the thyroid gland.
• Examination of the musculoskeletal system.
This page intentionally left blank

Anthony Bateman MD MRCP FRCA FFICM
Consultant in Critical Care and Long Term Ventilation, Critical
Care NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
Shyamanga Borooah MRCP(UK) MRCS(Ed)
FRCOphth PhD
Fulbright Fight for Sight Scholar, Shiley Eye Institute,
University of California, San Diego, USA
Kirsty Boyd PhD FRCP MMedSci
Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh;
Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer, Primary Palliative Care
Research Group, University of Edinburgh, UK
Ivan Brenkel FRCS(Ed)
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Orthopaedics, NHS Fife,
Kirkcaldy, UK
Gareth Clegg PhD MRCP FRCEM
Senior Clinical Lecturer, University of Edinburgh; Honorary
Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of
Edinburgh, UK
Steve Cunningham PhD
Consultant and Honorary Professor in Paediatric Respiratory
Medicine, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, UK
Richard Davenport DM FRCP(Ed)
Consultant Neurologist, Western General Hospital and Royal
Infirmary of Edinburgh; Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of
Edinburgh, UK
Neeraj Dhaun PhD
Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Nephrologist,
University of Edinburgh, UK
Anna R Dover PhD FRCP(Ed)
Consultant in Diabetes, Endocrinology and General Medicine,
Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal
Infirmary of Edinburgh; Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer,
University of Edinburgh, UK
Colin Duncan MD FRCOG
Professor of Reproductive Medicine and Science, University
of Edinburgh; Honorary Consultant Gynaecologist, Royal
Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK
Contributors
Kirsty Dundas DCH FRCOG
Consultant Obstetrician, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh;
Honorary Senior Lecturer and Associate Senior Tutor,
University of Edinburgh, UK
Andrew Elder FRCP(Ed) FRCPSG FRCP FACP FICP(Hon)
Consultant in Acute Medicine for the Elderly, Western General
Hospital, Edinburgh; Honorary Professor, University of
Edinburgh, UK
Karen Fairhurst PhD FRCGP
General Practitioner, Mackenzie Medical Centre, Edinburgh;
Clinical Senior Lecturer, Centre for Population Health
Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK
Jane Gibson MD FRCP(Ed) FSCP(Hon)
Consultant Rheumatologist, Fife Rheumatic Diseases Unit,
NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, Fife; Honorary Senior Lecturer, University
of St Andrews, UK
Iain Hathorn DOHNS PGCME FRCS(Ed) (ORL-HNS)
Consultant ENT Surgeon, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK;
Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK
Iain Hennessey FRCS MMIS
Clinical Director of Innovation, Consultant Paediatric and
Neonatal Surgeon, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital,
Liverpool, UK
J Alastair Innes BSc PhD FRCP(Ed)
Consultant Physician, Respiratory Unit, Western General
Hospital, Edinburgh; Honorary Reader in Respiratory
Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK
Alan G Japp PhD MRCP
Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh;
Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK
David Kluth PhD FRCP
Reader in Nephrology, University of Edinburgh, UK
Alexander Laird PhD FRCS(Ed) (Urol)
Consultant Urological Surgeon, Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, UK
xvi • Contributors
Elizabeth MacDonald FRCP(Ed) DMCC
Consultant Physician in Medicine of the Elderly, Western
General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
Hadi Manji MA MD FRCP
Consultant Neurologist and Honorary Senior Lecturer,
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery,
London, UK
Nicholas L Mills PhD FRCP(Ed) FESC
Chair of Cardiology and British Heart Foundation Senior
Clinical Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh; Consultant
Cardiologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK
Nick Morley MRCS(Ed) FRCR FEBNM
Consultant Radiologist, University Hospital of Wales,
Cardiff, UK
Rowan Parks MD FRCSI FRCS(Ed)
Professor of Surgical Sciences, Clinical Surgery, University of
Edinburgh; Honorary Consultant Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic
Surgeon, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK
Ross Paterson FRCA DICM FFICM
Consultant in Critical Care, Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, UK
John Plevris DM PhD FRCP(Ed) FEBGH
Professor and Consultant in Gastroenterology, Royal Infirmary
of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, UK
Stephen Potts FRCPsych FRCP(Ed)
Consultant in Transplant Psychiatry, Royal Infirmary of
Edinburgh; Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, University of
Edinburgh, UK
Colin Robertson FRCP(Ed) FRCS(Ed) FSAScot
Honorary Professor of Accident and Emergency Medicine,
University of Edinburgh, UK
Jennifer Robson PhD FRCS
Clinical Lecturer in Surgery, University of Edinburgh, UK
Janet Skinner FRCS MMedEd FCEM
Director of Clinical Skills, University of Edinburgh; Emergency
Medicine Consultant, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK
Ben Stenson FRCPCH FRCP(Ed)
Consultant Neonatologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh;
Honorary Professor of Neonatology, University of
Edinburgh, UK
Michael J Tidman MD FRCP(Ed) FRCP (Lond)
Consultant Dermatologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK
James Tiernan MSc(Clin Ed) MRCP(UK)
Consultant Respiratory Physician, Royal Infirmary of
Edinburgh; Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, University of
Edinburgh, UK
Naing Latt Tint FRCOphth PhD
Consultant Ophthalmic Surgeon, Ophthalmology, Princess
Alexandra Eye Pavilion, Edinburgh, UK
Oliver Young FRCS(Ed)
Clinical Director, Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General
Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
Nicola Zammitt MD FRCP(Ed)
Consultant in Diabetes, Endocrinology and General Medicine,
Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal
Infirmary of Edinburgh; Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer,
University of Edinburgh, UK
 Section 1
Principles of clinical history
and examination
1 Managing clinical encounters with patients 3
2 General aspects of history taking 9
3 General aspects of examination 19
This page intentionally left blank
 1

Managing clinical encounters

Karen Fairhurst
Anna R Dover
J Alastair Innes
1
with patients
The clinical encounter 4 Alternatives to face-to-face encounters 6
Reasons for the encounter 4 Professional responsibilities 6
The clinical environment 4 Confidentiality and consent 7
Opening the encounter 5 Social media 7
Gathering information 5
Personal responsibilities 7
Handling sensitive information and third parties 5
Managing patient concerns 5
Showing empathy 5
Showing cultural sensitivity 6
Addressing the problem 6
Concluding the encounter 6
4 • Managing clinical encounters with patients

A range of cultural factors may also influence help-seeking

The clinical encounter behaviour. Examples of person-specific factors that reduce
the propensity to consult include stoicism, self-reliance, guilt,
The clinical encounter between a patient and doctor lies at the unwillingness to acknowledge psychological distress, and
heart of most medical practice. At its simplest, it is the means by embarrassment about lifestyle factors such as addictions. These
which people who are ill, or believe themselves to be ill, seek the factors may vary between patients and also in the same person
advice of a doctor whom they trust. Traditionally, and still most in different circumstances, and may be influenced by gender,
often, the clinical encounter is conducted face to face, although education, social class and ethnicity.
non-face-to-face or remote consultation using the telephone or
digital technology is possible and increasingly common. This The clinical environment
chapter describes the general principles that underpin interactions
with patients in a clinical environment. You should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the
consultation is conducted in a calm, private environment. The
Reasons for the encounter layout of the consulting room is important and furniture should
be arranged to put the patient at ease (Fig. 1.1A) by avoiding
The majority of people who experience symptoms of ill health face-to-face, confrontational positioning across a table and the
do not seek professional advice. For the minority who do seek incursion of computer screens between patient and doctor (Fig.
help, the decision to consult is usually based on a complex 1.1B). Personal mobile devices can also be intrusive if not used
interplay of physical, psychological and social factors (Box 1.1). judiciously.
The perceived seriousness of the symptoms and the severity of For hospital inpatients the environment is a challenge, yet
the illness experience are very important influences on whether privacy and dignity are always important. There may only be
patients seek help. The anticipated severity of symptoms is curtains around the bed space, which afford very little by way
determined by their intensity, the patient’s familiarity with them, of privacy for a conversation. If your patient is mobile, try to
and their duration and frequency. Beyond this, patients try to use a side room or interview room. If there is no alternative to
make sense of their symptoms within the context of their lives. speaking to patients at their bedside, let them know that you
They observe and evaluate their symptoms based on evidence understand your conversation may be overheard and give them
from their own experience and from information they have permission not to answer sensitive questions about which they
gathered from a range of sources, including family and friends, feel uncomfortable.
print and broadcast media, and the internet. Patients who present
with a symptom are significantly more likely to believe or worry
that their symptom indicates a serious or fatal condition than
non-consulters with similar symptoms; for example, a family
history of sudden death from heart disease may affect how a
person interprets an episode of chest pain. Patients also weigh
up the relative costs (financial or other, such as inconvenience)
and benefits of consulting a doctor. The expectation of benefit
from a consultation – for example, in terms of symptom relief
or legitimisation of time off work – is a powerful predictor of
consultation. There may also be times when other priorities in
patients’ lives are more important than their symptoms of ill health
and deter or delay consultation. It is important to consider the
timing of the consultation. Why has the patient presented now?
Sometimes it is not the experience of symptoms themselves that
provokes consultation but something else in the patients’ lives
A
that triggers them to seek help (Box 1.2).

1.1 Deciding to consult a doctor

• Perceived susceptibility or vulnerability to illness

• Perceived severity of symptoms
• Perceived costs of consulting
• Perceived benefits of consulting

1.2 Triggers to consultation

• Interpersonal crisis
• Interference with social or personal relations
• Sanctioning or pressure from family or friends
• Interference with work or physical activity
• Reaching the limit of tolerance of symptoms
B
Fig. 1.1 Seating arrangements. A In this friendly seating arrangement
the doctor sits next to the patient, at an angle. B Barriers to
communication are set up by an oppositional/confrontational seating
arrangement. The desk acts as a barrier, and the doctor is distracted by
looking at a computer screen that is not easily viewable by the patient.

Opening the encounter
At the beginning of any encounter it is important to start to
establish a rapport with the patient. Rapport helps to relax and
engage the person in a useful dialogue. This involves greeting
the patient and introducing yourself and describing your role
clearly. A good reminder is to start any encounter with ‘Hello,
my name is … .’ You should wear a name badge that can
be read easily. A friendly smile helps to put your patient at
ease. The way you dress is important; your dress style and
demeanour should never make your patients uncomfortable or
distract them. Smart, sensitive and modest dress is appropriate.
Wear short sleeves or roll long sleeves up, away from your
wrists and forearms, particularly before examining patients or
carrying out procedures. Avoid hand jewellery to allow effective
hand washing and reduce the risk of cross-infection (see Fig.
3.1). Tie back long hair. You should ensure that the patient is
physically comfortable and at ease.
How you address and speak to a patient depends on the
person’s age, background and cultural environment. Some older
people prefer not to be called by their first name and it is best to
ask patients how they would prefer to be addressed. Go on to
establish the reason for the encounter: in particular, the problems
or issues the patient wishes to address or be addressed. Ask
an open question to start with to encourage the patient to talk,
such as ‘How can I help you today?’ or ‘What has brought you
along to see me today?’
Gathering information
The next task of the doctor in the clinical encounter is to
understand what is causing the patient to be ill: that is, to reach
a diagnosis. To do this you need to establish whether or not
the patient is suffering from an identifiable disease or condition,
and this requires further evaluation of the patient by history
taking, physical examination and investigation where appropriate.
Chapters 2 and 3 will help you develop a general approach to
history taking and physical examination; detailed guidance on
history taking and physical examination in specific systems and
circumstances is offered in Sections 2 and 3.
Fear of the unknown, and of potentially serious illness,
accompanies many patients as they enter the consulting room.
Reactions to this vary widely but it can certainly impede clear recall
and description. Plain language is essential for all encounters. The
use of medical jargon is rarely appropriate because the risk of
the doctor and the patient having a different understanding of the
same words is simply too great. This also applies to words the
patient may use that have multiple possible meanings (such as
‘indigestion’ or ‘dizziness’); these terms must always be defined
precisely in the course of the discussion.
Active listening is a key strategy in clinical encounters, as it
encourages patients to tell their story. Doctors who fill every
pause with another specific question will miss the patient’s
revealing calm reflection, or the hesitant question that reveals
an inner concern. Instead, encourage the patient to talk freely
by making encouraging comments or noises, such as ‘Tell me
a bit more’ or ‘Uhuh’. Clarify that you understand the meaning
of what patients have articulated by reflecting back statements
and summarising what you think they have said.
Non-verbal communication is equally important. Look for
non-verbal cues indicating the patient’s level of distress and
mood. Changes in your patients’ demeanour and body language
The clinical encounter • 5
during the consultation can be clues to difficulties that they
cannot express verbally. If the their body language becomes 1
‘closed’ – for example, if they cross their arms and legs, turn
away or avoid eye contact – this may indicate discomfort.
Handling sensitive information
and third parties
Confidentiality is your top priority. Ask your patient’s permission
if you need to obtain information from someone else: usually a
relative but sometimes a friend or a carer. If the patient cannot
communicate, you may have to rely on family and carers to
understand what has happened to the patient. Third parties may
approach you without your patient’s knowledge. Find out who
they are, their relationship to the patient, and whether your patient
knows the third party is talking to you. Tell third parties that you
can listen to them but cannot divulge any clinical information
without the patient’s explicit permission. They may tell you about
sensitive matters, such as mental illness, sexual abuse or drug
or alcohol addiction. This information needs to be sensitively
explored with your patient to confirm the truth.
Managing patient concerns
Patients are not simply the embodiment of disease but individuals
who experience illness in their own unique way. Identifying their
disease alone is rarely sufficient to permit full understanding of
an individual patient’s problems. In each encounter you should
therefore also seek a clear understanding of the patient’s personal
experience of illness. This involves exploring the patients’ feelings
and ideas about their illness, its impact on their lifestyle and
functioning, and their expectations of its treatment and course.
Patients may even be so fearful of a serious diagnosis that
they conceal their concerns; the only sign that a patient fears
cancer may be sitting with crossed fingers while the history is
taken, hoping inwardly that cancer is not mentioned. Conversely,
do not assume that the medical diagnosis is always a patient’s
main concern; anxiety about an inability to continue to work
or to care for a dependent relative may be equally distressing.
The ideas, concerns and expectations that patients have about
their illness often derive from their personal belief system, as well
as from more widespread social and cultural understandings of
illness. These beliefs can influence which symptoms patients
choose to present to doctors and when. In some cultures, people
derive much of their prior knowledge about health, illness and
disease from the media and the internet. Indeed, patients have
often sought explanations for their symptoms from the internet
(or from other trusted sources) prior to consulting a doctor, and
may return to these for a second opinion once they have seen
a doctor. It is therefore important to establish what a patient
already understands about the problem. This allows you and the
patient to move towards a mutual understanding of the illness.
Showing empathy
Being empathic is a powerful way to build your relationship with
patients. Empathy is the ability to identify with and understand
patients’ experiences, thoughts and feelings and to see the world
as they do. Being empathic also involves being able to convey
that understanding to the patient by making statements such
as ‘I can understand you must be feeling quite worried about
what this might mean.’ Empathy is not the same as sympathy,
6 • Managing clinical encounters with patients
which is about the doctor’s own feelings of compassion for or
sorrow about the difficulties that the patient is experiencing.
Showing cultural sensitivity
Patients from a culture that is not your own may have different
social rules regarding eye contact, touch and personal space.
In some cultures, it is normal to maintain eye contact for
long periods; in most of the world, however, this is seen as
confrontational or rude. Shaking hands with the opposite sex
is strictly forbidden in certain cultures. Death may be dealt with
differently in terms of what the family expectations of physicians
may be, which family members will expect information to be
shared with them and what rites will be followed. Appreciate and
accept differences in your patients’ cultures and beliefs. When
in doubt, ask them. This lets them know that you are aware of,
and sensitive to, these issues.
Addressing the problem
Communicating your understanding of the patient’s problem
to them is crucial. It is good practice to ensure privacy for this,
particularly if imparting bad news. Ask the patient who else they
would like to be present – this may be a relative or partner – and
offer a nurse. Check patients’ current level of understanding and
try to establish what further information they would like. Information
should be provided in small chunks and be tailored to the patient’s
needs. Try to acknowledge and address the patient’s ideas,
concerns and expectations. Check the patient’s understanding
and recall of what you have said and encourage questions. After
this, you should agree a management plan together. This might
involve discussing and exploring the patient’s understanding of
the options for their treatment, including the evidence of benefit
and risk for particular treatments and the uncertainties around
it, or offering recommendations for treatment.
Concluding the encounter
Closing the consultation usually involves summarising the
important points that have been discussed during the consultation.
This aids patient recall and facilitates adherence to treatment.
Any remaining questions that the patient may have should be
addressed, and finally you should check that you have agreed
a plan of action together with the patient and confirmed
arrangements for follow-up.
Alternatives to face-to-face
encounters
The use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-
face consultation has become accepted practice in parts of
some healthcare systems, such as general practice in the UK.
However, research suggests that, compared to face-to-face
consultations, telephone consultations are shorter, cover fewer
problems and include less data gathering, counselling/advice
and rapport building. They are therefore considered to be most
suitable for uncomplicated presentations. Telephone consultation
with patients increases the chance of miscommunication, as
there are no visual cues regarding body language or demeanour.
The telephone should not be used to communicate bad news
or sensitive results, as there is no opportunity to gauge reaction
or to offer additional support. When using the telephone, it is
even more important to listen actively and to check your mutual
understanding frequently.
Similarly, asynchronous communication with patients, using
email or web-based applications, has been adopted by some
doctors. This is not yet widely seen as a viable alternative
to face-to-face consultation, or as a secure way to transmit
confidential information. Despite the communication challenges
that it can bring, telemedicine (using telecommunication and other
information technologies) may be the only means of healthcare
provision for patients living in remote and rural areas and its use is
likely to increase, as it has the advantage of having the facility to
incorporate the digital collection and transmission of medical data.
Professional responsibilities
Clinical encounters take place within a very specific context
configured by the healthcare system within which they occur,
the legal, ethical and professional frameworks by which we are
bound, and by society as a whole.
From your first day as a student, you have professional
obligations placed on you by the public, the law and your
colleagues, which continue throughout your working life. Patients
must be able to trust you with their lives and health, and you
will be expected to demonstrate that your practice meets the
expected standards (Box 1.3). Furthermore, patients want more
from you than merely intellectual and technical proficiency; they
will value highly your ability to demonstrate kindness, empathy
and compassion.
1.3 The duties of a registered doctor
Knowledge, skills and performance
• Make the care of your patient your first concern
• Provide a good standard of practice and care:
• Keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date
• Recognise and work within the limits of your competence
Safety and quality
• Take prompt action if you think that patient safety, dignity or
comfort is being compromised
• Protect and promote the health of patients and the public
Communication, partnership and teamwork
• Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity:
• Treat patients politely and considerately
• Respect patients’ right to confidentiality
• Work in partnership with patients:
• Listen to, and respond to, their concerns and preferences
• Give patients the information they want or need in a way they
can understand
• Respect patients’ right to reach decisions with you about their
treatment and care
• Support patients in caring for themselves to improve and
maintain their health
• Work with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients’ interests
Maintenance of trust
• Be honest and open, and act with integrity
• Never discriminate unfairly against patients or colleagues
• Never abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the
profession
Courtesy General Medical Council (UK).

Fundamentally, patients want doctors who:
• are knowledgeable
• respect people, healthy or ill, regardless of who they are
• support patients and their loved ones when and where
needed
• always ask courteous questions, let people talk and listen
to them carefully
• promote health, as well as treat disease
• give unbiased advice and assess each situation carefully
• use evidence as a tool, not as a determinant of practice
• let people participate actively in all decisions related to
their health and healthcare
• humbly accept death as an important part of life, and
help people make the best possible choices when death
is close
• work cooperatively with other members of the
healthcare team
• are advocates for their patients, as well as mentors for
other health professionals, and are ready to learn from
others, regardless of their age, role or status.
One way to reconcile these expectations with your inexperience
and incomplete knowledge or skills is to put yourself in the
situation of the patient and/or relatives. Consider how you would
wish to be cared for in the patient’s situation, acknowledging that
you are different and your preferences may not be the same.
Most clinicians approach and care for patients differently once
they have had personal experience as a patient or as a relative
of a patient. Doctors, nurses and everyone involved in caring for
patients can have profound influences on how patients experience
illness and their sense of dignity. When you are dealing with
patients, always consider your:
• A: attitude – How would I feel in this patient’s situation?
• B: behaviour – Always treat patients with kindness and
respect.
• C: compassion – Recognise the human story that
accompanies each illness.
• D: dialogue – Listen to and acknowledge the patient.
Confidentiality and consent
As a student and as a healthcare professional, you will be
given private and intimate information about patients and their
families. This information is confidential, even after a patient’s
death. This is a general rule, although its legal application varies
Personal responsibilities • 7
between countries. In the UK, follow the guidelines issued by the
General Medical Council. There are exceptions to the general 1
rules governing patient confidentiality, where failure to disclose
information would put the patient or someone else at risk of
death or serious harm, or where disclosure might assist in the
prevention, detection or prosecution of a serious crime. If you find
yourself in this situation, contact the senior doctor in charge of
the patient’s care immediately and inform them of the situation.
Always obtain consent before undertaking any examination or
investigation, or when providing treatment or involving patients
in teaching or research.
Social media
Through social media, we are able to create and share web-based
information. As such, social media has the potential to be a
valuable tool in communicating with patients, particularly by
facilitating access to information about health and services, and
by providing invaluable peer support for patients. However, they
also have the potential to expose doctors to risks, especially when
there is a blurring of the boundaries between their professional
and personal lives. The obligations on doctors do not change
because they are communicating through social media rather than
face to face or through other conventional media. Indeed, using
social media creates new circumstances in which the established
principles apply. If patients contact you about their care or other
professional matters through your private profile, you should
indicate that you cannot mix social and professional relationships
and, where appropriate, direct them to your professional profile.
Personal responsibilities
You should always be aware that you are in a privileged
professional position that you must not abuse. Do not pursue
an improper relationship with a patient, and do not give medical
care to anyone with whom you have a close personal relationship.
Finally, remember that, to be fit to take care of patients, you
must first take care of yourself. If you think you have a medical
condition that you could pass on to patients, or if your judgement
or performance could be affected by a condition or its treatment,
consult your general practitioner. Examples might include serious
communicable disease, significant psychiatric disease, or drug
or alcohol addiction.
This page intentionally left blank
 2
2
J Alastair Innes
Karen Fairhurst
Anna R Dover

General aspects of
history taking
The importance of a clear history 10 Difficult situations 16
Gathering information 10 Patients with communication difficulties 16
Beginning the history 10 Patients with cognitive difficulties 16
The history of the presenting symptoms 11 Sensitive situations 16
Past medical history 13 Emotional or angry patients 16
Drug history 13
Family history 14
Social history and lifestyle 14
Systematic enquiry 16
Closing the interview 16
10 • General aspects of history taking
The importance of a clear history
Understanding the patient’s experience of illness by taking a
history is central to the practice of all branches of medicine.
The process requires patience, care and understanding to yield
the key information leading to correct diagnosis and treatment.
In a perfect situation a calm, articulate patient would clearly
describe the sequence and nature of their symptoms in the order
of their occurrence, understanding and answering supplementary
questions where required to add detail and certainty. In reality a
multitude of factors may complicate this encounter and confound
the clear communication of information. This chapter is a guide
to facilitating the taking of a clear history. Information on specific
symptoms and presentations is covered in the relevant system
chapters.
Gathering information
Beginning the history
Preparation
Read your patient’s past records, if they are available, along with
any referral or transfer correspondence before starting.
Allowing sufficient time
Consultation length varies. In UK general practice the average
time available is 12 minutes. This is usually adequate, provided the
doctor knows the patient and the family and social background.
In hospital, around 10 minutes is commonly allowed for returning
outpatients, although this is challenging for new or temporary
staff unfamiliar with the patient. For new and complex problems
a full consultation may take 30 minutes or more. For students,
time spent with patients learning and practising history taking
is highly valuable, but patients appreciate advance discussion
of the time students need.
Starting your consultation
Introduce yourself and anyone who is with you, shaking hands
if appropriate. Confirm the patient’s name and how they prefer
to be addressed. If you are a student, inform patients; they are
usually eager to help. Write down facts that are easily forgotten,
such as blood pressure or family tree, but remember that writing
notes must not interfere with the consultation.
Using different styles of question
Begin with open questions such as ‘How can I help you
today?’ or ‘What has brought you along to see me today?’
Listen actively and encourage the patient to talk by looking
interested and making encouraging comments, such as ‘Tell me
a bit more.’ Always give the impression that you have plenty of
time. Allow patients to tell their story in their own words, ideally
without interruption. You may occasionally need to interject to
guide the patient gently back to describing the symptoms, as
anxious patients commonly focus on relating the events or the
reactions and opinions of others surrounding an episode of illness
rather than what they were feeling. While avoiding unnecessary
repetition, it may be helpful occasionally to tell patients what
you think they have said and ask if your interpretation is correct
(reflection).
The way you ask a question is important:
• Open questions are general invitations to talk that avoid
anticipating particular answers: for example, ‘What was
the first thing you noticed when you became ill?’ or ‘Can
you tell me more about that?’
• Closed questions seek specific information and are used
for clarification: for example, ‘Have you had a cough
today?’ or ‘Did you notice any blood in your bowel
motions?’
Both types of question have their place, and normally clinicians
move gradually from open to closed questions as the interview
progresses.
The following history illustrates the mix of question styles
needed to elucidate a clear story:
When did you first feel unwell, and what did you
feel? (Open questioning)
Well, I’ve been getting this funny feeling in my chest
over the last few months. It’s been getting worse and
worse but it was really awful this morning. My husband
called 999. The ambulance came and the nurse said I
was having a heart attack. It was really scary.
When you say a ‘funny feeling’, can you tell me
more about what it felt like? (Open questioning,
steering away from events and opinions back to
symptoms)
Well, it was here, across my chest. It was sort of tight,
like something heavy sitting on my chest.
And did it go anywhere else? (Open but clarifying)
Well, maybe up here in my neck.
What were you doing when it came on? (Clarifying
precipitating event)
Just sitting in the kitchen, finishing my breakfast.
How long was the tightness there? (Closed)
About an hour altogether.
So, you felt a tightness in your chest this morning
that went on for about an hour and you also felt it
in your neck? (Reflection)
Yes that’s right.
Did you feel anything else at the same time?
(Open, not overlooking secondary symptoms)
I felt a bit sick and sweaty.
Showing empathy when taking a history
Being empathic helps your relationship with patients and improves
their health outcomes (p. 5). Try to see the problem from their
point of view and convey that to them in your questions.
Consider a young teacher who has recently had disfiguring
facial surgery to remove a benign tumour from her upper jaw.
Her wound has healed but she has a drooping lower eyelid and
facial swelling. She returns to work. Imagine how you would feel
in this situation. Express empathy through questions that show
you can relate to your patient’s experience.
So, it’s 3 weeks since your operation. How is your
recovery going?
OK, but I still have to put drops in my eye.
And what about the swelling under your eye?
That gets worse during the day, and sometimes by the
afternoon I can’t see that well.

And how does that feel at work?
Well, it’s really difficult. You know, with the kids and
everything. It’s all a bit awkward.
I can understand that that must feel pretty
uncomfortable and awkward. How do you cope?
Are there are any other areas that are awkward for
you, maybe in other aspects of your life, like the
social side?
The history of the presenting symptoms
Using these questioning tools and an empathic approach, you
are now ready to move to the substance of the history.
Ask the patient to think back to the start of their illness and
describe what they felt and how it progressed. Begin with some
open questions to get your patient talking about the symptoms,
gently steering them back to this topic if they stray into describing
events or the reactions or opinions of others. As they talk, pick
out the two or three main symptoms they are describing (such
as pain, cough and shivers); these are the essence of the history
of the presenting symptoms. It may help to jot these down as
single words, leaving space for associated clarifications by closed
questioning as the history progresses.
Experienced clinicians make a diagnosis by recognising
patterns of symptoms (p. 362). With experience, you will refine
your questions according to the presenting symptoms, using
a mental list of possible diagnoses (a differential diagnosis) to
guide you. Clarify exactly what patients mean by any specific
term they use (such as catarrh, fits or blackouts); common terms
can mean different things to different patients and professionals
(Box 2.1). Each answer increases or decreases the probability
of a particular diagnosis and excludes others.
In the following example, the patient is a 65-year-old male
smoker. His age and smoking status increase the probability
of certain diagnoses related to smoking. A cough for 2 months
2.1 Examples of terms used by patients that should be clarified
Patient’s term Common underlying problems
Allergy True allergy (immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction)
Intolerance of food or drug, often with nausea or
other gastrointestinal upset
Indigestion Acid reflux with oesophagitis
Abdominal pain due to:
Peptic ulcer
Gastritis
Cholecystitis
Pancreatitis
Arthritis Joint pain
Muscle pain
Immobility due to prior skeletal injury
Catarrh Purulent sputum from bronchitis
Infected sinonasal discharge
Nasal blockage
Fits Transient syncope from cardiac disease
Epilepsy
Abnormal involuntary movement
Dizziness Labyrinthitis
Syncope from hypotension
Cerebrovascular event
Gathering information • 11
increases the likelihood of lung cancer and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD). Chest pain does not exclude COPD
since he could have pulled a muscle on coughing, but the pain
may also be pleuritic from infection or thromboembolism. In
2
turn, infection could be caused by obstruction of an airway by
lung cancer. Haemoptysis lasting 2 months greatly increases the
chance of lung cancer. If the patient also has weight loss, the
positive predictive value of all these answers is very high for lung
cancer. This will focus your examination and investigation plan.
What was the first thing you noticed wrong when
you became ill? (Open question)
I’ve had a cough that I just can’t get rid of. It started
after I’d had flu about 2 months ago. I thought it would
get better but it hasn’t and it’s driving me mad.
Could you please tell me more about the cough?
(Open question)
Well, it’s bad all the time. I cough and cough, and
bring up some phlegm. It keeps waking me at night so
I feel rough the next day. Sometimes I get pains in my
chest because I’ve been coughing so much.
Already you have noted ‘Cough’, ‘Phlegm’ and
‘Chest pain’ as headings for your history. Follow up
with key questions to clarify each.
Cough: Are you coughing to try to clear something
from your chest or does it come without warning?
(Closed question, clarifying)
Oh, I can’t stop it, even when I’m asleep it comes.
Does it feel as if it starts in your throat or your
chest? Can you point to where you feel it first?
It’s like a tickle here (points to upper sternum).
Phlegm: What colour is the phlegm? (Closed
question, focusing on the symptom)
Clear.
Useful distinguishing features
Visible rash or swelling, rapid onset
Predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms
Retrosternal burning, acid taste
Site and nature of discomfort:
Epigastric, relieved by eating
Epigastric, with vomiting
Right upper quadrant, tender
Epigastric, severe, tender
Redness or swelling of joints
Muscle tenderness
Deformity at site
Cough, yellow or green sputum
Yellow or green nasal discharge
Anosmia, prior nasal injury/polyps
Witnessed pallor during syncope
Witnessed tonic/clonic movements
No loss of consciousness
Nystagmus, feeling of room spinning, with no other neurological deficit
History of palpitation or cardiac disease, postural element
Sudden onset, with other neurological deficit
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
have vastly increased the product,—would have improved and
beautified the whole face of the country; and the Moral and
Intellectual advantages thence accruing would alone have been
inestimable. A season of suspension of labor in a community is
usually one of aggravated dissipation, drunkenness, and crime.
But let me more clearly illustrate the effect of foreign competition
in raising prices to the consumer. To do this, I will take my own
calling for an example, because I understand that best; though any of
you can apply the principle to that with which he may be better
acquainted. I am a publisher of newspapers, and suppose I afford
them at a cheap rate. But the ability to maintain that cheapness is
based on the fact that I can certainly sell a large edition daily, so that
no part of that edition shall remain a dead loss on my hands. Now, if
there were an active and formidable Foreign competition in
newspapers,—if the edition which I printed during the night were
frequently rendered unsalable by the arrival of a foreign ship
freighted with newspapers early in the morning,—the present rates
could not be continued: the price must be increased or the quality
would decline. I presume this holds equally good of the production of
calicoes, glass, and penknives as of newspapers, though it may be
somewhat modified by the nature of the article to which it is applied.
That it does hold true of sheetings, nails, and thousands of articles, is
abundantly notorious.
I have not burdened you with statistics,—you know they are the
reliance, the stronghold, of the cause of Protection, and that we can
produce them by acres. My aim has been to exhibit not mere
collections of facts, however pertinent and forcible, but the laws on
which those facts are based,—not the immediate manifestation, but
the ever-living necessity from which it springs. The contemplation of
these laws assures me that those articles which are supplied to us by
Home Production alone are relatively cheaper than those which are
rivalled and competed with from abroad. And I am equally confident
that the shutting out of Foreign competition from our markets for
other articles of general necessity and liberal consumption which can
be made here with as little labor as anywhere would be followed by a
corresponding result,—a reduction of the price to the consumer at
the same time with increased employment and reward to our
Producing Classes.
 But, Mr. President, were this only on one side true,—were it
certain that the price of the Home product would be permanently
higher than that of the Foreign, I should still insist on efficient
Protection, and for reasons I have sufficiently shown. Grant that a
British cloth costs but $3 per yard, and a corresponding American
fabric $4, I still hold that the latter would be decidedly the cheaper
for us. The Fuel, Timber, Fruits, Vegetables, &c., which make up so
large a share of the cost of the Home product, would be rendered
comparatively valueless by having our workshops in Europe. I look
not so much to the nominal price as to the comparative facility of
payment. And, where cheapness is only to be attained by a
depression of the wages of Labor to the neighborhood of the
European standard, I prefer that it should be dispensed with. One
thing must answer to another; and I hold that the farmers of this
country can better afford, as a matter of pecuniary advantage, to pay
a good price for manufactured articles than to obtain them lower
through the depression and inadequacy of the wages of the artisan
and laborer.
You will understand me, then, to be utterly hostile to that idol of
Free Trade worship, known as Free or unlimited Competition. The
sands of my hour are running low, and I cannot ask time to examine
this topic more closely; yet I am confident I could show that this Free
Competition is a most delusive and dangerous element of Political
Economy. Bear with a brief illustration: At this moment, common
shirts are made in London at the incredibly low price of three cents
per pair. Should we admit these articles free of duty and buy them
because they are so cheap? Free trade says Yes; but I say No! Sound
Policy as well as Humanity forbids it. By admitting them, we simply
reduce a large and worthy and suffering class of our population from
the ability they now possess of procuring a bare subsistence by their
labor to unavoidable destitution and pauperism. They must now
subsist upon the charity of relatives or of the community,—unless we
are ready to adopt the demoniac doctrine of the Free Trade
philosopher Malthus, that the dependent Poor ought to be rigorously
starved to death. Then what have we gained by getting these articles
so exorbitantly cheap? or, rather, what have we not lost? The labor
which formerly produced them is mainly struck out of existence; the
poor widows and seamstresses among us must still have a
subsistence; and the imported garments must be paid for: where are
the profits of our speculation?
But even this is not the worst feature of the case. The labor which
we have here thrown out of employment by the cheap importation of
this article is now ready to be employed again at any price,—if not
one that will afford bread and straw, then it must accept one that will
produce potatoes and rubbish; and with the product some Free-
Trader proceeds to break down the price and destroy the reward of
similar labor in some other portion of the earth. And thus each
depression of wages produces another, and that a third, and so on,
making the circuit of the globe,—the aggravated necessities of the
Poor acting and reacting upon each other, increasing the
omnipotence of Capital and deepening the dependence of Labor,
swelling and pampering a bloated and factitious Commerce, grinding
down and grinding down the destitute, until Malthus’s remedy for
Poverty shall become a grateful specific, and, amid the splendors and
luxuries of an all-devouring Commercial Feudalism, the squalid and
famished Millions, its dependants and victims, shall welcome death
as a deliverer from their sufferings and despair.
I wish time permitted me to give a hasty glance over the doctrines
and teachings of the Free Trade sophists, who esteem themselves the
Political Economists, christen their own views liberal and
enlightened, and complacently put ours aside as benighted and
barbarous. I should delight to show you how they mingle subtle
fallacy with obvious truth, how they reason acutely from assumed
premises, which, being mistaken or incomplete, lead to false and
often absurd conclusions,—how they contradict and confound each
other, and often, from Adam Smith, their patriarch, down to
McCulloch and Ricardo, either make admissions which undermine
their whole fabric, or confess themselves ignorant or in the dark on
points the most vital to a correct understanding of the great subject
they profess to have reduced to a Science. Yet even Adam Smith
himself expressly approves and justifies the British Navigation Act,
the most aggressively Protective measure ever enacted,—a measure
which, not being understood and seasonably counteracted by other
nations, changed for centuries the destinies of the World,—which
silently sapped and overthrew the Commercial and Political
greatness of Holland,—which silenced the thunder of Van Tromp,
and swept the broom from his mast-head. But I must not detain you
longer. I do not ask you to judge of this matter by authority, but from
facts which come home to your reason and your daily experience.
There is not an observing and strong-minded mechanic in our city
who could not set any one of these Doctors of the Law right on
essential points. I beg you to consider how few great practical
Statesmen they have ever been able to win to their standard,—I
might almost say none; for Huskisson was but a nominal disciple,
and expressly contravened their whole system upon an attempt to
apply it to the Corn Laws; and Calhoun is but a Free-Trader by
location, and has never yet answered his own powerful arguments in
behalf of Protection. On the other hand, we point you to the long
array of mighty names which have illustrated the annals of
Statesmanship of modern times,—to Chatham, William Pitt, and the
Great Frederick of Prussia; to the whole array of memorable French
Statesmen, including Napoleon the first of them all; to our own
Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison; to our two
Clintons, Tompkins, to say nothing of the eagle-eyed and genial-
hearted LIVING master-spirit [Henry Clay] of our time. The opinions
and the arguments of all these are on record; it is by hearkening to
and heeding their counsels that we shall be prepared to walk in the
light of experience and look forward to a glorious National destiny.
My friends! I dare not detain you longer. I commit to you the cause
of the Nation’s Independence, of her Stability and her Prosperity.
Guard it wisely and shield it well; for it involves your own happiness
and the enduring welfare of your countrymen!
Henry A. Wise
 Against Know-Nothingism, Sept. 18, 1852.
The laws of the United States—federal and state laws—declare and
defend the liberties of our people. They are free in every sense—free
in the sense of Magna Charta and beyond Magna Charta; free by the
surpassing franchise of American charters, which makes them
sovereign and their wills the sources of constitutions and laws.
In this country, at this time, does any man think anything? Would
he think aloud? Would he speak anything? Would he write anything?
His mind is free; his person is safe; his property is secure; his house
is his castle; the spirit of the laws is his body-guard and his house-
guard; the fate of one is the fate of all measured by the same common
rule of right; his voice is heard and felt in the general suffrage of
freemen; his trial is in open court, confronted by witnesses and
accusers; his prison house has no secrets, and he has the judgment of
his peers; and there is nought to make him afraid, so long as he
respects the rights of his equals in the eye of the law. Would he
propagate truth? Truth is free to combat error. Would he propagate
error? Error itself may stalk abroad and do her mischief, and make
night itself grow darker, provided truth is left free to follow, however
slowly, with her torches to light up the wreck! Why, then, should any
portion of the people desire to retire in secret, and by secret means to
propagate a political thought, or word, or deed, by stealth? Why band
together, exclusive of others, to do something which all may not
know of, towards some political end? If it be good, why not make the
good known? Why not think it, speak it, write it, act it out openly and
aloud? Or, is it evil, which loveth darkness rather than light? When
there is no necessity to justify a secret association for political ends,
what else can justify it? A caucus may sit in secret to consult on the
general policy of a great public party. That may be necessary or
convenient; but that even is reprehensible, if carried too far. But here
is proposed a great primary, national organization, in its inception—
What? Nobody knows. To do what? Nobody knows. How organized?
Nobody knows. Governed by whom? Nobody knows. How bound? By
what rites? By what test oaths? With what limitations and restraints?
Nobody, nobody knows! All we know is that persons of foreign birth
and of Catholic faith are proscribed; and so are all others who don’t
proscribe them at the polls. This is certainly against the spirit of
Magna Charta.

A Prussian born subject came to this country. He complied with

our naturalization laws in all respects of notice of intention,
residence, oath of allegiance, and proof of good moral character. He
remained continuously in the United States the full period of five
years. When he had fully filled the measure of his probation and was
consummately a naturalized citizen of the United States, he then,
and not until then, returned to Prussia to visit an aged father. He was
immediately, on his return, seized and forced into the Landwehr, or
militia system of Prussia, under the maxim: “Once a citizen, always a
citizen!” There he is forced to do service to the king of Prussia at this
very hour. He applies for protection to the United States. Would the
Know-Nothings interpose in his behalf or not? Look at the principles
involved. We, by our laws, encouraged him to come to our country,
and here he was allowed to become naturalized, and to that end
required to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the king
of Prussia, and to swear allegiance and fidelity to the United States.
The king of Prussia now claims no legal forfeiture from him—he
punishes him for no crime—he claims of him no legal debt—he
claims alone that very allegiance and fidelity which we required the
man to abjure and renounce. Not only so, but he hinders the man
from returning to the United States, and from discharging the
allegiance and fidelity we required him to swear to the United States.
The king of Prussia says he should do him service for seven years, for
this was what he was born to perform; his obligations were due to
him first, and his laws were first binding him. The United States say
—true, he was born under your laws, but he had a right to expatriate
himself; he owed allegiance first to you, but he had a right to
forswear it and to swear allegiance to us; your laws first applied, but
this is a case of political obligation, not of legal obligation; it is not
for any crime or debt you claim to bind him, but it is for allegiance;
and the claim you set up to his services on the ground of his political
obligation, his allegiance to you, which we allow him to abjure and
renounce, is inconsistent with his political obligation, his allegiance,
which we required him to swear to the United States; he has sworn
fidelity to us, and we have, by our laws, pledged protection to him.
 Such is the issue. Now, with which will the Know-Nothings take
sides? With the king of Prussia against our naturalized citizen and
against America, or with America and our naturalized citizen? Mark,
now, Know-Nothingism is opposed to all foreign influence—against
American institutions. The king of Prussia is a pretty potent foreign
influence—he was one of the holy alliance of crowned heads. Will
they take part with him, and not protect the citizen? Then they will
aid a foreign influence against our laws! Will they take sides with our
naturalized citizen? If so, then upon what grounds? Now, they must
have a good cause of interposition to justify us against all the
received dogmas of European despotism.
Don’t they see, can’t they perceive, that they have no other grounds
than those I have urged? He is our citizen, nationalized, owing us
allegiance and we owing him protection. And if we owe him
protection abroad, because of his sworn allegiance to us as a
naturalized citizen, what then can deprive him of his privileges at
home among us when he returns? If he be a citizen at all, he must be
allowed the privileges of citizenship, or he will not be the equal of his
fellow-citizens. And must not Know-Nothingism strike at the very
equality of citizenship, or allow him to enjoy all its lawful privileges?
If Catholics and naturalized citizens are to be citizens and yet to be
proscribed from office, they must be rated as an inferior class—an
excluded class of citizens. Will it be said that the law will not make
this distinction? Then are we to understand that Know-Nothings
would not make them equal by law? If not by law, how can they
pretend to make them unequal, by their secret order, without law
and against law? For them, by secret combination, to make them
unequal, to impose a burthen or restriction upon their privileges
which the law does not, is to set themselves up above the law, and to
supersede by private and secret authority, intangible and
irresponsible, the rule of public, political right. Indeed, is this not the
very essence of the “Higher Law” doctrine? It cannot be said to be
legitimate public sentiment and the action of its authority. Public
sentiment, proper, is a concurrence of the common mind in some
conclusion, conviction, opinion, taste, or action in respect to persons
or things subject to its public notice. It will, and it must control the
minds and actions of men, by public and conventional opinion.
Count Molé said that in France it was stronger than statutes. It is so
here. That it is which should decide at the polls of a republic. But,
here is a secret sentiment, which may be so organized as to
contradict the public sentiment. Candidate A. may be a native and a
Protestant, and may concur with the community, if it be a Know-
Nothing community, on every other subject except that of
proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens: and candidate B. may
concur with the community on the subject of this proscription alone,
and upon no other subject; and yet the Know-Nothings might elect B.
by their secret sentiment against the public sentiment. Thus it
attacks not only American doctrines of expatriation, allegiance, and
protection, but the equality of citizenship, and the authority of public
sentiment. In the affair of Koszta, how did our blood rush to his
rescue? Did the Know-Nothing side with him and Mr. Marcy, or with
Hulseman and Austria? If with Koszta, why? Let them ask
themselves for the rationale, and see if it can in reason abide with
their orders. There is no middle ground in respect to naturalization.
We must either have naturalization laws and let foreigners become
citizens, on equal terms of capacities and privileges, or we must
exclude them altogether. If we abolish naturalization laws, we return
to the European dogma: “Once a citizen, always a citizen.” If we let
foreigners be naturalized and don’t extend to them equality of
privileges, we set up classes and distinctions of persons wholly
opposed to republicanism. We will, as Rome did, have citizens who
may be scourged. The three alternatives are presented—Our present
policy, liberal, and just, and tolerant, and equal: or the European
policy of holding the noses of native born slaves to the grind-stone of
tyranny all their lives; or, odious distinctions of citizenship tending
to social and political aristocracy. I am for the present laws of
naturalization.
As to religion, the Constitution of the United States, art. 6, sec. 3,
especially provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The state of Virginia has, from her earliest history, passed the most
liberal laws, not only towards naturalization, but towards foreigners.
But I have said enough to show the spirit of American laws and the
true sense of American maxims.
3d. Know-Nothingism is against the spirit of Reformation and of
Protestantism.
What was there to reform?
 Let the most bigoted Protestant enumerate what he defines to have
been the abominations of the church of Rome. What would he say
were the worst? The secrets of Jesuitism, of the Auto da fe, of the
Monasteries and of the Nunneries. The private penalties of the
Inquisition’s Scavenger’s Daughter. Proscription, persecution,
bigotry, intolerance, shutting up of the book of the word. And do
Protestants now mean to out-Jesuit the Jesuits? Do they mean to
strike and not be seen? To be felt and not to be heard? To put a
shudder upon humanity by the masks of mutes? Will they wear the
monkish cowls? Will they inflict penalties at the polls without
reasoning together with their fellows at the hustings? Will they
proscribe? Persecute? Will they bloat up themselves into that bigotry
which would burn nonconformists? Will they not tolerate freedom of
conscience, but doom dissenters, in secret conclave, to a forfeiture of
civil privileges for a religious difference? Will they not translate the
scripture of their faith? Will they visit us with dark lanterns and
execute us by signs, and test oaths, and in secrecy? Protestantism!
forbid it!
If anything was ever open, fair, and free—if anything was ever
blatant even—it was the Reformation. To quote from a mighty British
pen: “It gave a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. The effect of the concussion was general, but the
shock was greatest in this country” (England). It toppled down the
full grown intolerable abuses of centuries at a blow; heaved the
ground from under the feet of bigoted faith and slavish obedience;
and the roar and dashing of opinions, loosened from their
accustomed hold, might be heard like the noise of an angry sea, and
has never yet subsided. Germany first broke the spell of misbegotten
fear, and gave the watchword; but England joined the shout, and
echoed it back, with her island voice, from her thousand cliffs and
craggy shores, in a longer and louder strain. With that cry the genius
of Great Britain rose, and threw down the gauntlet to the nations.
There was a mighty fermentation: the waters were out; public
opinion was in a state of projection; liberty was held out to all to
think and speak the truth; men’s brains were busy; their spirits
stirring; their hearts full; and their hands not idle. Their eyes were
opened to expect the greatest things, and their ears burned with
curiosity and zeal to know the truth, that the truth might make them
free. The death-blow which had been struck at scarlet vice and
bloated hypocrisy, loosened tongues, and made the talismans and
love tokens of popish superstitions with which she had beguiled her
followers and committed abominations with the people, fall harmless
from their necks.
The translation of the Bible was the chief engine in the great work.
It threw open, by a secret spring, the rich treasures of religion and
morality, which had then been locked up as in a shrine. It revealed
the visions of the Prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired
teachers to the meanest of the people. It gave them a common
interest in a common cause. Their hearts burnt within them as they
read. It gave a mind to the people, by giving them common subjects
of thought and feeling. It cemented their Union of character and
sentiment; it created endless diversity and collision of opinion. They
found objects to employ their faculties, and a motive in the
magnitude of the consequences attached to them, to exert the utmost
eagerness in the pursuit of truth, and the most daring intrepidity in
maintaining it. Religious controversy sharpens the understanding by
the subtlety and remoteness of the topics it discusses, and braces the
will by their infinite importance. We perceive in the history of this
period a nervous, masculine intellect. No levity, no feebleness, no
indifference; or, if there were, it is a relaxation from the intense
activity which gives a tone to its general character. But there is a
gravity approaching to piety, a seriousness of impression, a
conscientious severity of argument, an habitual fervor of enthusiasm
in their method of handling almost every subject. The debates of the
schoolmen were sharp and subtle enough: but they wanted interest
and grandeur, and were besides confined to a few. They did not affect
the general mass of the community. But the Bible was thrown open
to all ranks and conditions “to own and read,” with its wonderful
table of contents, from Genesis to the Revelation. Every village in
England would present the scene so well described in Burns’s
“Cotter’s Saturday Night.” How unlike this agitation, this shock, this
angry sea, this fermentation, this shout and its echoes, this impulse
and activity, this concussion, this general effect, this blow, this
earthquake, this roar and dashing, this longer and louder strain, this
public opinion, this liberty to all to think and speak the truth, this
stirring of spirits, this opening of eyes, this zeal to know—not
nothing—but the truth, that the truth might make them free. How
unlike to this is Know-Nothingism, sitting and brooding in secret to
proscribe Catholics and naturalized citizens! Protestantism protested
against secrecy, it protested against shutting out the light of truth, it
protested against proscription, bigotry, and intolerance. It loosened
all tongues, and fought the owls and bats of night with the light of
meridian day. The argument of Know-Nothings is the argument of
silence. The order ignores all knowledge. And its proscription can’t
arrest itself within the limit of excluding Catholics and naturalized
citizens. It must proscribe natives and Protestants both, who will not
consent to unite in proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens.
Nor is that all; it must not only apply to birth and religion, it must
necessarily extend itself to the business of life as well as to political
preferments.
 Kenneth Raynor, of North Carolina, on
Fusion of Fremont and Fillmore Forces.

Extracts from his Speech at Philadelphia, November 1, 1856.

My brother Americans, do you intend to let these mischief-makers
put you and me together by the ears? [Many voices; “no, no.”] Then
let us beat James Buchanan for the Presidency. [“We will—we will,”
and great applause.] He is the representative of slavery agitation; he
is the representative of discord between sections; he is the man
whom Northern and Southern agitators have agreed to present as
their candidate. If he be elected now, and the difficulties in Kansas be
healed, at the end of four years they will spring upon you another
question of slavery agitation. It will be the taking of Cuba from Spain,
or cutting off another slice from Mexico for the purpose of
embroiling the North against the South; and then, if I shall resist that
agitation, I shall be called an Abolitionist, again.

My countrymen, God forbid that I should attempt to dictate to you

or even advise you. I am not competent to do so. I know that
divisions exist among you, while I feel also confident that the same
purpose animates all your hearts. Do not suppose for one moment
that I am the representative of any clique or faction.
Unfortunately, I find that our friends here are in the same
condition in which the Jews were, when besieged by the Roman
general, Titus. Whilst the battering-rams of the Romans were beating
down their walls, and the firebrand of the heathen was consuming
their temple, the historian tells us that that great people were
engaged in intestine commotions, some advocating the claims of one,
and some of another, to the high priesthood of that nation; and
instead of the Romans devouring them, they devoured each other.
God forbid that my brother Americans should devour each other, at a
time when every heart and every hand should be enlisted in the same
cause, of overthrowing the common enemy of us all.
Who is that common enemy? [Voices, “The Democratic party.”]
Yes, that party have reviled us, abused us, persecuted us, and all only
because we are determined to adhere to the Constitution of our
country. Give Buchanan a lease of power for four years, and we must
toil through persecution, submit to degradation, or cause the streets
of our cities to run blood. But we will submit to degradation provided
we can see the end of our troubles. We are willing to go through a
pilgrimage, not only of four years, but of ten, or twenty, or forty
years, provided we can have an assurance that at last we shall reach
the top of Pisgah, and see the promised land which our children are
to inherit. God has not given to us poor frail mortals the power, at all
times, of controlling events. When we cannot control events, should
we not, where no sacrifice of honor is involved, pursue the policy of
Lysander, and where the lion’s skin is too short, eke it out with the
fox’s [applause]—not where principle is involved—not where a
surrender of our devotion to our country is at stake. No; never,
never!
I know nothing of your straight-out ticket; I know nothing of your
Union ticket; I know nothing of Fremont. I do know something of
Fillmore; but I would not give my Americanism, and the hopes which
I cherish of seeing Americanism installed as the policy of this nation,
for all the Fillmores, or Fremonts, or Buchanans, that ever lived on
the face of the earth.
St. Paul says, “if it offends my brother, I will eat no meat;” and if it
offends my brother here, I will not open my mouth. Nobody can
suspect me. [Voices: “certainly not.”] Then I say, can’t you combine
the vote of this state, and beat Buchanan? [This question was
responded to in the affirmative, with the greatest enthusiasm.]
Repeated cheers were proposed for the straight ticket, but the
responding voices were by no means numerous, and were mingled
with hisses. Such was the universal excitement, that for some
minutes the speaker was obliged to pause. He finally raised his voice
above the subsiding storm, and said:—
Come, my friends, we are all brothers; we are all seeking the same
end. Our object is the same. We are all struggling to reach the same
haven of safety. The only difference of opinion is as to the proper
means by which to accomplish our common end. Will not Americans
learn prudence from the past? Misfortune should have taught us
charity for each other. We have passed through the ordeal of
persecution together; we have been subjected to the same difficulties,
and the same oppression; we have been baptized (I may say) in the
same stream of calumny. Then, in the name of God—in the name of
our common country—in the name of Americanism—in the name of
American nationality—in the name of religious freedom—in the
name of the Union, I beseech you to learn charity for the difference
of opinion which prevails among you. Let brethren forbear with
brethren. Let us recollect that it is not by vituperation, by the censure
of our brethren, that we can ever accomplish this great end of
conquering a common enemy. My friends, how long are we to suffer?
How long will it be before we shall learn that it is only by a union of
counsels, a concentration of energy, a combination of purpose, that
we can destroy the common enemy of every conservative man. [Great
applause.]
I shall not attempt to advise you, for I am not competent to do it.
You have information which I do not possess. You know all the
undercurrents of opinion which prevail here in your community,
with which I am unacquainted; but will you allow an humble man to
express his opinion to brethren whom he loves? May I do it? I am a
Fillmore man—nothing but a Fillmore man, and if I resided here, I
would vote no ticket which had not the name of Millard Fillmore at
its head, and I would advise no Fillmore man to vote a ticket with
Fremont’s name on it; but I would vote for that ticket which would
make my voice tell at the polls.
Now let us look at this thing practically. In reading history I have
always admired the character of Oliver Cromwell. What was the great
motive by which he was actuated in overthrowing the house of
Stuart? It was unfailing devotion to principle. His motto was, “Put
your trust in God, and keep your powder dry.” I admire the devotion
to principle in every man who says that he does not intend to vote
any but the straight ticket, for it shows that Americanism has such a
lodgment in his heart, that he cannot bear even seemingly to
compromise it. That is “putting your trust in God;” but, my friends, is
it “keeping your powder dry?” The enemy may steal into the camp
while you are asleep, and may pour water upon your cartridges, so
that when the day of battle shall come, you may shoot, but you will
kill nobody. I want the vote of every American, on Tuesday next, to
tell. Would to God that you could give the twenty-seven electoral
votes of Pennsylvania to Fillmore. Then vote the straight ticket, if
that will give him the twenty-seven votes. But suppose it will not
(and I am afraid it will not), then the question is, had you better give
Buchanan the twenty-seven votes, or give Fillmore eight, ten, twelve,
or twenty, as the case may be. I go for beating Buchanan.
Gentlemen, you do not know what we Americans suffer at the
South. I am abused and reviled for standing up in defence of you.
When I hear the whole North denounced as a set of Abolitionists,
whose purpose it is to interfere with the peculiar institutions of the
South, I brand such charges as slanders on the Northern people. I tell
them that the great mass of the Northern people are sound on this
question; that they are opposed to slavery, as I should be if I were a
Northern man; but that I do not believe that the great mass of the
Northern people have any idea of interfering with the constitutional
rights of the people of the South. I know that such men as Garrison
and Forney have. I know that Garrison believes the Constitution to
be a “league with hell,” and would therefore destroy it if he could;
and I know that Forney loves office so well, that even at the risk of
snapping the Union, he will keep alive slavery agitation. But Garrison
does not represent New England, and Forney does not represent you.
As much as I have been reviled for standing by you, I am so
anxious to have Buchanan beaten, that were I residing here, if I could
not give Fillmore the whole twenty-seven votes, I would give him all I
could, by giving him the number to which he might be entitled by the
numerical proportion of the votes at the ballot-box. Yet, if there is a
brother American here who feels in his “heart of hearts,” that by
voting that Union ticket, he would compromise his Americanism, I
say to such an one, “do not vote that ticket.” At the same time,
candor compels me to say, that I differ in opinion with him. If I
believed that that ticket was a fusion, or that it called upon any
Fillmore man to vote for Fremont, I would advise no one to vote it. I
would not vote a ticket that had on it the name of Fremont; but I
would vote a ticket with Fillmore’s name upon it, and which would
give him (if not the twenty-seven electoral votes) seven, or ten, or
twenty, just as the numerical proportion of the votes might decide.
 I appeal to every conservative, Union-loving man in this nation,
who is disposed to give to the South all the constitutional privileges
to which she is entitled, and who wishes to rebuke the Democratic
party for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and for keeping up
the eternal agitation of slavery. I appeal to you as a southern man—as
a slaveholder. I do not ask you to be pro-slavery men, to be the
advocates of slavery, when I say to you that we, your brethren of the
South, expect you to preserve our constitutional rights—and, God
knows, we ask nothing more—against fanatics, either north or south.
Will you do it?
My friends, the election is fast approaching. There is but little time
for deliberation left. Is there no way by which the votes of the anti-
Buchanan party can be concentrated on the same ticket? I would
shed tears of blood—God knows I would—if I could be instrumental
in prevailing on all true Americans to combine. I cannot tell you how
to combine; but is it yet too late? If it is too late to do it throughout
the state, cannot you in Philadelphia do it? The Presidential election
may depend upon the state of Pennsylvania, and the state of
Pennsylvania may depend upon the city of Philadelphia. On the vote
of the city of Philadelphia may depend not only our own rights, but
the rights of our children and our children’s children. I appeal to my
brother Americans, for I have no right to appeal to anybody else; I
cannot address the Fremont party, for I have no affiliation with
them; I cannot address the Buchanan party, for my object is to
destroy them if possible. To my American brethren, then, I appeal,
for God’s sake, do not let the sun rise upon that wrath, which I see
divides you. Your object is the same—to rescue your common
country.
Let me advise you who know nothing of your divisions—who
belong neither to one clique or the other. I say with the deepest
sincerity that I think all parties ought to have concentrated upon the
Fillmore ticket. Mr. Fillmore is a northern man. Your southern
brethren were willing to support him. He had guided the ship of state
safely through the storm, and it was but reasonable to suppose that
in time of difficulty he would again be found the same good pilot. But
if we cannot get all others to unite on Mr. Fillmore, each of us must
inquire, “What is my duty? If the mountain will not come to
Mahomet, shall not Mahomet go to the mountain; and if he will not
go to the mountain, in heaven’s name, shall he not go half way?”
I am fighting for the victory which we may obtain in this contest.
And what an issue is now pending! We read in the Iliad how, for ten
long years, a great people of antiquity were engaged in the siege of
Troy. What was the stake for which they contended? It was nothing
more than a beautiful woman, who had been ravished by a sprig of
the royal line of Troy. What is the stake for which we contend? It is
constitutional liberty—the right of the American people to govern
their own country—the right of every citizen to worship God
according to the dictates of his conscience. The great issue is,
whether the American flag shall still wave in glory when we shall
have gone to our graves, or whether it shall be trailed in dishonor—
whether the “blackness of darkness” which would follow the
dissolution of this Union, shall cover the land.
I do not tell you how to combine: but I urge you to resort to that
mode (if there is such a mode possible), by which you can get
together—by which your votes can be made effectual at the polls—by
which Millard Fillmore can go before the House of Representatives
with the strong moral power which a large electoral vote will give
him.
That is the way in which we must view the question as practical
men. Yet so different are the conditions of our nature, so different
the sentiments which actuate us, that I will not be guilty of such
presumption, as to tell any man what particular course he should
take. You know my opinions; if they are worth anything, receive
them into your hearts, simply as the sentiments of a brother
American; if they are worth nothing, let them pass as the idle wind.
In conclusion I will only say that whether we be defeated or
whether we be victorious, the only reward I ask for in the labor in
which I am engaged is, that you may recollect me as one who had at
heart only the welfare of his country, and who endeavored to
promote it by appealing to the associations of the past, and all the
hopes of the future.
 Religious Test.

Debate in the Convention on that article in the Constitution in

regard to it.
Mr. Pinkney moved that no religious test shall ever be required as
a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality
being a sufficient security against all such tests.
Rev. Mr. Backus of Mass. I beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon
the Constitution proposed to us; and I shall begin with the exclusion
of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it;
but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures,
than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and
that, therefore, no man or set of men can impose any religious test
without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ministers first assumed this power under the Christian name, and
then Constantine approved of the practice when he adopted the
profession of Christianity as an engine of state policy. And let the
history of all nations be searched, from that day to this, and it will
appear that the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest
engine of tyranny in the world.
Oliver Wolcott of Conn. For myself I should be content either
with or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test
laws. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I
do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to
establish one religious sect and lay all others under legal disabilities.
But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test
would be destructive of the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it
superfluous to have added a clause which secures us from the
possibility of such oppression.
 Mr. Madison of Va. I confess to you, sir, that were uniformity of
religion to be introduced by this system, it would, in my opinion, be
ineligible; but I have no reason to conclude that uniformity of
government will produce that of religion. This subject is, for the
honor of America, left perfectly free and unshackled. The
government has no jurisdiction over it—the least reflection will
convince us there is no danger on this ground. Happily for the states,
they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from
that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, and which is the
best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For, where
there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one
sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
Mr. Iredell of N. C. used this language: “Every person in the least
conversant with the history of mankind, knows what dreadful
mischiefs have been committed by religious persecution. Under the
color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised.
Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in
themselves, that they alone had the right to dictate to the rest of
mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and
impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been that each
church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecutions
and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place
in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to
think more rationally—that a man may be of religious sentiments
differing from our own, without being a bad member of society. The
principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those
errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed even in the most
intolerant countries. In Roman Catholic lands, principles of
moderation are adopted, which would have been spurned a century
or two ago. It will be fatal, indeed, to find, at the time when examples
of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country,
so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt
principles on this subject that were narrow, despotic, and illiberal.”