Letter from O. O. R. Schwidetzky to Michael E. DeBakey
Number of Image Pages:
2 (2,198,060 Bytes)
1932-11-21 (November 21, 1932)
Schwidetzky, O. O. R.
Becton, Dickinson & Company
DeBakey, Michael E.
Courtesy of Katrin DeBakey.
The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science
program has made every effort to secure proper permissions
for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however,
it has either not been possible to identify or contact the
current copyright owner.
If you have information regarding the copyright owner,
please contact us at
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Equipment and Supplies
From Tulane School of Medicine to the U.S. Army, 1928-1946
We have made a thorough study of your blood transfusion apparatus. The apparatus is certainly novel and the combination which
you employ has, according to my best knowledge, not been used before.
It is, however, somewhat similar to the apparatus which Dr. George I. Miller of Brooklyn, New York, is using. He is also using
the slide action, same as you are using. Whether you employ a metal slide action or a stopcock, the principle is practically
the same. In the one instance you make your connection by slide action; in the other you make your connection by turning.
There is one disadvantage to the slide action -- it is a mechanical and rather difficult problem to make two parallel bodies
absolutely tight, which must be done in your case.
For this reason a stopcock such as is used on the Unger and Scannell apparatus, and many others, has found more favor. If
your apparatus sticks it is mighty hard to loosen. Furthermore, we have found that metal and blood are not as friendly as
glass and blood.
In your apparatus the blood must first flow through the side opening, then into the longitudinal opening and is then drawn
into the syringe. It is expelled in the reverse rotation -- it has to travel first, through the longitudinal opening, and
then through the side opening to the recipient.
No doubt, your apparatus will work, but it will not be as safe and as positive as the apparatus which we demonstrated to Dr.
Ochsner and Dr. Cutting while we were in New Orleans. Unless a blood transfusion apparatus has a distinct improvement over
the present type used, it will not be a success.
We made a careful study of blood transfusion work and have practically every reprint regarding blood transfusion in the U.S.A.
and in Europe, and we believe the principle we employ in our apparatus and which we first showed at the Clinical Congress
in Boston 1922, is the best so far.
We feel indeed very sorry that we cannot send you any more encouraging news -- but please take our advice and don't spend
a penny on any patent papers.
We thank you very much for the opportunity of examining your invention and if we can be of any further service to you, we
shall be very happy.