US President William McKinley died from infections from a bullet wound, in much the same way as President Garfield two decades earlier (but wherease McKinley lasted only a week or so, Garfield lasted about a month before infections overtook him).
Now, in Garfield’s case, he might well had survived if the doctors had done. . . nothing! An autopsy showed that the bullet had done basically no life-threatening internal damage, and had come to rest in some muscles in the back.
However, in McKinley’s case the damage was more severe. His stomach had been perforated and his pancreas severely damaged (and there might have been more stuff hit, but that’s all I can remember).
Now the question: Given medical technology at the time–and no opportunistic infections–what might have been the prognosis, specifically in regard to the damaged pancreas? Might he have suffered from some diabetic-type of situation or could he have gone on for years with a damaged pancreas.
(BTW, I posted this question a few years ago, but that thread was apparently lost in one of the board meltdowns–and believe me, I’ve tried every keyword and found zip. I don’t recall what the answers were–or even whether anyone with some medical knowledge might have responded.)