HEALTH COLUMN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2661, 15 March 1905, Page 72

HEALTH COLUMN.

Should We Dispense Tuth Doctors? Mrs Earle, the author of "Pot Pourri," has views concerning doctors which have been misunderstood. She therefore endeavours in the National Review for February to put herself right with the great fraternity of medicos. They will no doubt be imniensely relieved to have her assurance that they are not all either charlatans or fools ; that there is hope for thciii if only they will learn from the commonsense and experience of foo-d reformers, like herself, and -That really she admires very much indeed tho way in which doctors devote their lives to what they believe to be the good of humanity. It "will also_ conceivably be comfciting to a fallible and crowded profession to know that she thinks doctors need not indulge in panic lest their services may not be -n anted in the near future owing to the improved health of the- community, though she is "sanguine enough to ho|3e that in timo our hospitals may be relieved of 70 per cent, of their patients, now brought there as the result of drink and bad food." Most of the ills to whicn" weak human flesh is heir, Mrs Earl© traces to food. She urges that something should be done for tho scientific- study of dietetics, and advocates the creation of a public department of health with full powers. "I gave up doctors myself," she say* "as I found that neither medicines nor waters did any permanent good, and such doctors as I knew hid condemne \ mo to a rheumatic old age. I had entered the path of trying to cure myself several years before I had heard of Dr Haig. I did not go to him as a doctor bocaus© I was ill. I wrote to him becau-o it came to my knowledge that he was a man who, after years of scientifio study and investigation of the effect of food on the blood, had more or less cured himself (though a -\ery delicate man), and who deliberately practised' what he preached. For thft benefit of tho-so who have not heard of Ins theory, I would briefly explain his main r.isco-verks as follows: (1) That the poison of urio acid and of another substance- called xanthin contained in food arc tb° cause of many diseases besides gout, and rheumatism, and when chill is added, of every small ailment. His other, and to my mind even greater, discov^-y is that all remedies which afford so much relief by dealing tho blood for a time of urio acid d:> not cause the excess of this poison to pass out of the body, btit deposit it in tho soft tissues, sending- it to the least healthy part in each individual, as blight will settle on the weaker shoots of a plant, and =o are produced many varieties of complaints. Based on these two important disco "\crie-s, his theory of practical dietetics is, that v/o should avoid ©11 uric acicl andi

' xanthin-containing foods, which he considers harmful, such as meat, fowl, fish, tea, coffee, cocoa, putees, asparagus, and somo other vegetables, and refrain from all alterative and purgative drugs. These theories of Dr Haig's are, of course, hotly disputed by many doctor?, but I myself have not been able to read or hear of any j scientific refutation of them which seema to me satisfactory and oonclushe, and li have reason for saying that the knowledge* of his theories is gaining ground both in, England and Germany. With all gratitude to Dr Haig and his rose;; re lT.es, I wish to note that this subject of diet, as explained I by him, is one that comes within the ranga 1 of every person of intelligence, at any rate j with regard to their own particular case, it ' they are willing to give up the food ami I the drink they have been used to and I always considered harmless " Mrs Eavle is impresed by the fact that doctors disagree. Is she quite sure that there is perfect unanimity among the food reformers.' If her view of doctors is taken, there is nothing for it but to call in a second medical man on every occasion "Those who are responsible for the health of others must never forget that doctors differ in their views as much as politicians, j and that one doctor's verdict on a case may jbe entirely reversed by that of another. I know a young man who was told at 18 that it was useless for him to go up for tho army — that his heart was so bad ho j would never pass the medical examination. His father resented this, and disbelieved it. He took his son to another doctor, who agreed in considering this opinion nonsei se. The. young man has now been many j year* in the army ; he went through both i tho Egyptian and the fc'buth African campaigns, was wounded in South Africa, and) is now as fine a man as you would wish to see. Had the first doctor been implicitly believed, how different would have been the young man's fate. The question of what should be our mental attitude towards doctors is a very old one. It seems to ha\e interested and perhaps puzzled one of th© greatest of French monarchs. In a short life of Moliere this anecdote is told of him and Louis XIV. When visiting- Moliere, who was ill, the King asked, 'You have- adoctor — what does he do for you?' ' Sir,* answered Molier3, 'we talk together; he gives me remedies which I do not take, andi I get well.' A somewhat similar story has come within my own personal knowledge. I have a friend who, alas ! has been for four years confined to two small London rooms. She was telling me the other day how every doctor she had ever se-cn alwajs pressed upon her tonics, sleeping-draughts, and pain-alleviating drugs. This year, her usual doctor having died, she had a new one. The same prescriptions were proposed, ana, as before, firmly refused. At the erd of a month this same man said to her : 'I believe your great chance of ultimate recovery is from the way you have always resisted taking medicines for all these years.' If doctors really believe this, surely it is not fair for them to throw on suffering invalids <as I believe many of them, do) the onu.> of refusing momentary alleviation which they themselves have put into thy. patient's hands, though this is one more proof of my chief argument, how doctors are guided by the reasonable wishes and resolutions of their patients. We are confronted by the problem of our attitude towards doctors at the very outset of life. We have a doctor to hi>!p u-s bring a chilfl into the world, and again, we are obliged by law to send for him to have the ehildi vaccinated. If the child is healthy, he never atiempts to order it any medicines, bxvt he rarely asks whether th-e .nother and nurse are equally sensible. Unfortunately the hospital training which so many children's nurses n^w receive constantly induces them to ruin a baby's digestion by what are considered ha'iilo-as dru<?£ — fluid magnesia, dill water, caste- oil, and many others. The injury to the delicate functional machinery of the child is often very considerable. Surely it is withi-i tho doctor's power to stop many of these old-fashioi.ed customs. At the same time I would say to the public — never givs to children (except by a doctor's orders) remedies stronger than hot or cold water or a little fruit juice. If it is doubtful whether we shouid always tak<s th » remedies recommended by a doctor who is attending us, there is no doubt whatever as to the dange* of continuing his prescriptions after his departure, and it is not fair to him. But worst and most dangprous of all is th© present fashion, most prevalent in all classes, of taking numberless patent medicines in absolute ignorance of wl at they contain or of tho danger of immediate relief."