ARE DRUNKEN FATHERS OBJECTIONABLE?

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10777, 27 May 1911, Page 4 (Supplement)

ARE DRUNKEN FATHERS OBJECTIONABLE?

There is a strong popular prejudice against drunkards as parents. Their offspring are supposed to be injured by the paternal habits. Facts to the contrary having been put forward by Professor Pearson, of the Galton Eugenics Laboratory, a violent scientific battle has been waged in England—another instance, says The Dietetic aifd Hygienic Gazette (New York, April), '"that scientific men hardly ever argue sanely an'd reasonably when alcohol is in question." The war began on the publication by Dr Pearson and Miss Elderton last- May of their conclusions that alcoholism in parents had little injurious effect on their children. Says the magazine named above: — "Of course, the publication of this paper not only startled sociologists, toxicologists, and scientific and medical men generally, but aroused a storm of dissent from all sorts and conditions of men and women. Those who knew least of the matter from its scientific aspect but were ardent teetotallers were naturally the most vehement in their denunciations of, to them, so atrocious a statement. However, the question was taken up, too, by the scientific adherents of abstinence, the chief cham- ' pions being Sir Victor Horsley, Dr Mary Sturge, and Dr C. W. Saleeby. In the correspondence columns of The British Medical Journal, during several weeks letters galore were contributed by the controversialists, the most prominent of whom were Dr Karl Pearson and Sir Victor Horsley. Scientific men who discuss Essential points in relation to the effect of parental alcoholism on offspring appear to argue almost as wildly as the ignorant. For instance, Dr Karl Pearson in his particular sphere is an acknowledged authority; yet Sir Victor Horsley, who is perhaps the most celebrated brain surgeon, of the world, states that all the statistics brought forward by Pearson are either manufactured or falsei. Further, Sir Victor Horsley discusses the evidence of Dr Mott,.one of the best known alienists of Great Britain, with the remark that he did notknow what he was talking about, and this was for the reason that Dr Mott had said that asylum evidence seemed to support the views of the Galton theorists. "Professor Pearson 'and Miss Elderton claimed to have found out from statistics collected that so far as intelligence, physique, and health of the children dealt with in their inquiry that 'the balance turns as often as not in favor of the alcoholic as of the nonalcoholic parentage.' Sir Victor Horsley criticises the date supplied by Pearson and the manner in which it has been handled. The truth woiild seem to be' that Professor Pearson had studied the matter to some extent from one side only arid formed his opinion; while Sir Victor Horsley has strong preconceived views oil the other side_. Long continued argument between two such opponents will convince neither and therefore argument is more , or less futile. On the other hand, it is well that the matter should be thoroughly ventilated and that the opinions of the most- -efhinerit authorities should be made widely known. "As Dr Joseph' Collins says in one of his letters to a neurologist published in The Medical Record some two years ago, 'there-are no real facts to show that the habitual use of alcohol in small quantities is. dangerous; to the adult consumer or pernicious' to £is descendants,' Still there is a physiological limit to the amount that may", be taken without danger, and over and above this, the personal equation must always be- considered/ • Excess of alcohol - is in every case harmful both to the consumer and his children. The children of drunkards, according'to the common belief, are always.apt to be of unstable and nervous temperariient and are. more likely to become drunkards themselves than are the children of total abstainers or of those . who drink in moderation. Krnepelin states that alcohol - in; small quantities if taken for .&• considerable length of time diminishes "all form of mental activity, but this does not prove.

that the children of persons who take alcohol in such a manner suffer from their parents' habits. In fact, the case for total abstinence is as yet nonproven, although it is absolutely certain that excess is bad for the individual and descendants. Taking everything into consideration,, it might be better for the individual and the community at large if no spirit whatsoever were consumed, but the problem is difficult of solution, and the last word on the subject has been by no means said."