William Thomas Green Morton, an American dentist, is celebrated for his public demonstration of ether as a surgical anesthetic in 1846. While his contribution undeniably revolutionized medicine by making surgery painless, his journey was marked by significant controversy, particularly concerning his attempts to patent and profit from his discovery. This pursuit of financial gain and exclusive credit led to disputes with the medical community and competing
claims from other individuals, casting a complex shadow over his otherwise groundbreaking achievement.
The "Letheon" Patent and Medical Opposition
After his successful public demonstration of ether anesthesia at the Massachusetts General Hospital on October 16, 1846, Morton tried to obscure the identity of the substance used, referring to it as "Letheon." However, it was quickly identified as ether. A month later, a patent was issued for "letheon." This move was met with strong disapproval from the medical community, which largely condemned the patent as unjust and illiberal, arguing that such a discovery should not be privatized within a humane and scientific profession.
Morton attempted to justify his actions by stating that his intention was not to restrict the use of ether in hospitals and charitable institutions. He claimed his motives were to ensure the competent administration of ether, prevent its misuse or abuse, and recover the substantial expenditures he had made during its development. However, his secretive and sometimes deceptive tactics employed during the development of ether, coupled with his efforts to obtain patents overseas, undermined his assertions of philanthropic intent. Consequently, the patent was never effectively enforced, and ether rapidly became a widely used anesthetic.
Competing Claims and Congressional Appeals
Morton's quest for credit and profit was further complicated by the competing claims of other doctors, most notably his former business partner, Horace Wells, and Dr. Charles Jackson. Wells, who had briefly partnered with Morton, felt Morton was intolerable and ended their partnership after only three weeks. Wells later outlined his own experiments and experiences with anesthesia in a letter to the editor of the Hartford Daily Courant, asserting that both Morton and Jackson had admitted his methods were entirely new to them. Wells also stated his preference for nitrous oxide over sulfuric ether, believing it to be a potentially less harmful substance.
In December 1846, Morton applied to Congress for a "national recompense" of $100,000 for his discovery. However, the competing claims from Jackson and Wells as discoverers of ether significantly complicated his application, rendering it fruitless. Undeterred, Morton made additional applications in 1849, 1851, and 1853, all of which failed. He even pursued a futile attempt to sue the United States government for remuneration, represented by lawyer Richard Henry Dana Jr.
Public Scrutiny and Later Recognition Efforts
Morton's public profile and the controversies surrounding him only intensified when he became a key witness in one of the 19th century's most notable trials: that of John White Webster, accused of murdering George Parkman. In a dramatic turn, Morton's rival, Dr. Jackson, testified for the prosecution, creating a spectacle that captivated Boston residents eager to witness these nemeses in courtroom combat. Morton initially denied the claim of his former tutor, Dr. Nathan Cooley Keep, who identified the victim's body through artificial teeth, but later agreed with Keep's observation.
Despite the ongoing disputes and legal battles, Morton did receive some recognition for his contributions. In 1852, he was awarded an honorary degree from the Washington University of Medicine in Baltimore. Later, in the spring of 1857, a group of influential Bostonians, including wealthy citizen Amos A. Lawrence and various medical professionals, initiated a plan to raise $100,000 as a national testimonial to Morton. This effort sought to acknowledge his achievement through public and private contributions, highlighting a persistent, albeit complicated, desire to honor his role in the advancement of medicine, even amidst the controversies that defined much of his career.
