Alcohol: A Dangerous and Unnecessary Medicine, How and Why

5. Its injuriousness during the stage of reaction. The reactive fever following collapse caused a great number of deaths. In this stage alcohol was absolutely poisonous. He could recall many such cases in which he had given alcohol through ignorance, and always with disaster.

“Brigade-Surgeon Pringle said that when he went out to India he thought alcohol was something to stand by, but he had soon found out his mistake; he had himself suffered from it. He could confirm what Dr. Richardson had said as to the demoralization produced by alcohol to which men resort to keep up their spirits, and men seized under these circumstances were in the greatest danger. Nature effects a cure in many cases without assistance, and often with wonderful rapidity. People apparently dead and about to be buried, he had known to get up and recover. When alcohol is given during collapse there is often no absorption until reaction occurs, and then the quantity accumulated speedily produces intoxication. It was the same with opium: he had found pills unchanged in the stomach for hours. He recommended hot drinks; he had tried every kind of medicine and had little faith in it. The nursing was very important, and it was important that the nurses should abstain.

“Dr. Morton said it was easy to see that on physiological grounds alone, alcohol, with its strong affinity for water and its tendency to lower temperature, could not be a useful drug in the treatment of cholera collapse, and with its powers of paralyzing vascular inhibition and checking elimination of effete matter, could not be otherwise than harmful in the stage of reaction. As these conclusions were corroborated by practical experience he did not think members would hesitate to banish it from their equipment against cholera.

“Dr. Ridge said it should be remembered that Doyen had made experiments on guinea-pigs and had found they were proof against cholera, unless they had previously had a dose of alcohol. This explained why drunkards and hard drinkers were so much more liable to have cholera, and have it badly as all observers declared to be the case. Another reason might be that small quantities of alcohol, such as would be found circulating in the blood, favored the growth and multiplication of bacteria, certainly those of decomposition, and probably those of cholera. Hence, other things being equal, the abstainer had a great advantage.

“Dr. Norman Kerr said that he had observed both in America and Glasgow that not only notorious drunkards but free drinkers suffered; abstainers were less liable unless they took contaminated water, and the less liquid taken the less chance of taking cholera; beer-drinkers often took more than abstainers. The alcohol-drinker uses up more water from his blood and so has less to flush out the system. Alcohol, given to a patient, disguised his condition so that he might seem better though really worse. Hence it is better and safer not to give any. The doctors and nurses ought to be abstainers. A doctor after dinner was more likely to take a roseate view of a case, looking at it through an alcoholic pair of spectacles. Alcohol was not really a stimulant, but a depressant, and this is a very depressing disease; it was important to have our vital resisting power as vigorous as possible. Hot water both relaxes and stimulates, and the whole cry of the sufferer is for water. Many persons who died in cholera did not die of the disease, but of the drugs such as alcohol and opium. Acid drinks should be given, as the bacilli could not live in acid mixtures. Cholera might come, but he believed we were better prepared to meet it and to treat it.

“Surgeon-General Francis sent a communication which was read by the Honorable Secretary. He said: ‘Having had many opportunities of treating cholera in various parts of India and amongst all classes, I have no hesitation in affirming that alcohol in any shape is one of the very worst remedies. Life is, so to speak, paralyzed, and we give a remedy which, apparently stimulating, is in reality, a paralyzer and therefore mischievous; the death-rate might be considerably reduced provided alcohol were rigidly excluded.’”

Dr. Norman Kerr in a valuable paper upon Cholera says: —

“The first thing is to get rid of the poison. How? By assisting it out; but alcohol keeps it in by blocking the doors, just as the doors were blocked in the terrible calamity at Sunderland not long ago. The alcohol makes the heart and circulation labor more. Alcohol not only retains the cholera poison, but retards the action of the heart. Brandy and opium used to be employed, but the records show that if the object had been to make cholera as fatal as possible, that object was achieved by the indiscriminate administration of brandy and opium. Better leave the victim alone, and his chances of recovery will be greater than if he have a thousand doctors, and as many nurses, administering to him brandy and opium. Alcohol is especially dangerous in the third stage, that of reactive fever, because it adds to the fever. Then, alcohol is not only unsafe in the three stages of genuine cholera, but especially unsafe in the premonitory diarrhœa stage, which gives nearly every one warning before they are attacked by genuine cholera. Brandy is taken simply because it puts away the pain. If there are only the pain and slight diarrhœa, speaking medically, it is all right, but if there is anything behind the pain, it is all wrong. After the alcohol, the mischief is going on, only the patient does not know it, and valuable time is lost. All the alcohol does is to deaden sensation. * * * * * Here I can thoroughly recommend ice and iced water. I have always treated cholera patients with these. Let them drink iced water to their hearts’ content; they can never drink too much; and this opinion is fortified by that of Professor Maclean, of Netley. There is no need of a substitute for brandy in cholera, because in ordinary circumstances in that disease the action of a stimulant is bad. Flushing of the blood is required, and water will do it. Milk will not do it, because it is too thick – nothing but pure, cold water, all the better if iced.”

In 1893 Dr. Ernest Hart, editor of the British Medical Journal, read an able paper upon Cholera before the American Medical Association. His argument was that the introduction of such a substance as alcohol, itself being a product of germ action, into a system already suffering from the toxic influence of a ptomaine, could not be otherwise than pernicious.

Cholera Morbus: – Dr. Kellogg says: “The stomach should be washed by means of the stomach-tube when possible. A large hot enema should be given after each evacuation of the bowels. The addition of tannin, one drachm to a quart of water, is serviceable. When the vomited matter no longer shows signs of food, efforts should be made to stop the vomiting. Give the patient bits of ice the size of a bean to swallow every few minutes. At the same time apply hot fomentations over the stomach and bowels. If the patient suffer much from cramp, put him into a warm bath. The first food taken should be farinaceous. Oatmeal gruel, well boiled and strained, is useful.”

Cholera Infantum: – “Iced water may be given in very small quantities every few minutes. Give the stomach entire rest for at least twenty-four hours. There will be no suffering for want of food as long as the stomach is in such a condition. Withhold milk until nature has had time to rid the alimentary canal of the poison-producing germs. White of egg dissolved in water is an excellent preparation in these cases. Egg enemata may also be advantageously used.

“Warm baths, the hot blanket pack when the surface is cold, and the hot enema are all useful. Keep the child wrapped warmly.

“Great care should be taken in returning to the milk diet. The milk should be thoroughly sterilized by boiling for half an hour, and should be mixed with some barley water so as to avoid the formation of large curds in the stomach. Cream, diluted with water, may be used instead of milk.”

CONSUMPTION

Dr. Koch, the celebrated German microscopist, pronounces consumption contagious, because during its progress a very minute bacterium is developed which may be transmitted from one person to another.

It is said that a person with healthy lungs might daily breathe millions of tubercle bacilli without any danger, and that the best preventive of this disease is to live much in the open air, or if this is impossible to spend ten or fifteen minutes a day in deep breathing exercises in the open air. “Fresh-air and disease-germs are antagonistic.”

Alcohol, chiefly in the form of whisky, was for many years considered of great value in the treatment of consumption of the lungs. Indeed, it was looked upon not only as a curative, but also as a prophylactic, or preventive, of great service to those predisposed to this disease by reason of narrow chest and weak lungs.

Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson was the first medical scientist who showed plainly that alcohol, instead of being a preventive of consumption, is really the sole cause of one type of this disease, the type now classed under the head of “alcoholic phthisis.” For this kind of phthisis there is no hope of cure.

French physicians some years ago came to the conclusion that alcohol was a prolific cause of tuberculosis and that the administration of alcoholic liquors in tubercular troubles was a great error, and in the International Anti-Tuberculosis Congress held in Paris in 1905, about 2000 medical scientists being present, they presented the following resolution, which was adopted: “In view of the close connection between alcoholism and tuberculosis, this Congress strongly emphasizes the importance of combining the fight against tuberculosis with the struggle against alcoholism.”

Since that time a great crusade against tuberculosis has been carried on by means of exhibits and lectures, and in connection with these, almost invariably the people are warned against intemperance. For example, a pamphlet sent out by the Boston Association for the Relief and Control of Tuberculosis says: “Do not spend money for beer or other liquors, or for quack medicines or ‘cures.’ Self-indulgence and intemperance are very bad. Vice which weakens the strong kills the weak.” The New York State Charities Aid Association, working with the State Board of Health, says in a pamphlet: “Patent medicines do not cure consumption. They are usually alcoholic drinks in disguise, and the use of alcoholic drinks is dangerous to the consumptive.” At the great exhibit in Washington in September, 1908, in connection with the International Anti-Tuberculosis Congress different warnings against alcohol were upon the walls. Among these was a large poster of white cloth on which was printed the opinions on alcohol, in brief, of some of the best-known authorities on consumption. The opinions as given on that poster are given here, with others, in order to show the great change of sentiment regarding alcohol and consumption which has come about within a few years: —

“Alcohol has never cured and never will cure tuberculosis. It will either prevent or retard recovery. It is like a two-edged weapon; on one side it poisons the system, and on the other it ruins the stomach and thus prevents this organ from properly digesting the necessary food.” – S. A. Knopf, M. D., New York, Honorary Vice-President of the British Congress on Tuberculosis.

Dr. Knopf in his prize essay on “Tuberculosis and How to Combat It,” says in several places: “Avoid all alcoholic beverages.” He says also, “Alcohol should never be given to children even in the smallest quantities.”

“It is a recognized fact in the medical profession that the habitual use of alcoholic drinks predisposes to tubercular infection. It is also recognized, I think, by most physicians that alcohol as a medicine is harmful to the tubercular invalid.” – Frank Billings, M. D., Chicago, Ill., Former President American Medical Association.

“Alcoholic liquors are of damage to consumptives because they tend to impair nutrition, disturb the action of the stomach, and give a false strength to the invalid on which he is sure to presume. Besides, we know that in countries where drinking prevails most, the ravages of tuberculosis are most marked.” – Edward L. Trudeau, M. D., Adirondacks Sanitarium for Consumptives, Saranac Lake, N. Y.

“In my judgment whisky should not be used by people who have consumption, and in my practice I prohibit its use absolutely. At the White Haven Sanitarium and Henry Phipps Institute we do not use alcohol in any form in the treatment of our patients.” – Lawrence F. Flick, M. D., Vice-President of the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, Philadelphia, Pa.

“I do not feel that I can emphasize strongly enough the harm that can be done by the use of alcohol in tuberculosis, and the indiscriminate use of it certainly borders on the criminal. I do not believe that any legitimate reason can be given for the routine employment of alcohol in the treatment of tuberculosis. I furthermore know of no emergency in which it is indispensable. My experience with patients who have been accustomed to the use of alcohol, especially moderately, is very unsatisfactory. They seem to show an abnormally low resisting power to the tubercle bacillus. The fact has been established that alcoholism is a very potent factor in the causation of tuberculosis. I find it not only unnecessary in treatment but believe it to be contraindicated.” – F. M. Pottenger, M. D., Superintendent the Pottenger Sanitarium for Diseases of the Lungs and Throat, Monrovia, California.

“I have met with a small class of consumptive patients who could take alcoholic liquors freely for a length of time, without deranging either the stomach or the brain, and with a decided amelioration of the pulmonary symptoms, and an arrest of the emaciation. Some of these have actually increased in embonpoint, and for three to six months were highly elated with the hope that they were recovering. But truth compels me to say that I have never seen a case in which this apparent improvement under the influence of alcoholic drink was permanent. On the contrary, even in those cases in which the emaciation seems at first arrested, and the general symptoms ameliorated, the physical signs do not undergo a corresponding improvement; and after a few months the digestive function becomes impaired; the emaciation begins to increase rapidly; and in a short time the patient is fatally prostrated.” – Dr. Nathan S. Davis, Sr., of Chicago.

“The use of whisky in this disease positively interferes with digestion which must under all circumstances be kept as perfect as possible in order that the patient may assimilate the food which is so necessary to the upbuilding of the system and to gain strength to fight the onslaught of the disease.

“Its constant use would not only interfere with digestion but would have a tendency to create disease in other organs of the body so that we therefore consider the use of whisky in tuberculosis positively contraindicated.

“Wishing you success in your laudable campaign.” – Dr. M. Collins, Superintendent National Jewish Hospital for Consumptives, Denver, Colorado.

“It is difficult for many people to adapt themselves to a methodical plan of life long enough to establish a permanent cure in consumption. I have known many a young fellow with only a slight trouble in his lungs to die in the Adirondacks more from the effects of whisky than from the disease itself.” – Dr. Henry P. Loomis, of New York City, in a Lecture on Consumption. (See page 232, of Handbook, on the Prevention of Tuberculosis.)

“The majority of our patients receive no medication whatsoever. The stomach is rarely in condition to bear excessive medication, and the promiscuous use of creosote and similar preparations is to be condemned. Milk and raw eggs are the best articles of diet in addition to a regular diet of simple food.” – James Alexander Miller, M. D., of the Vanderbilt Clinic, New York. (From Medical Record.)

“In my specialty, the treatment of pulmonary diseases, I rarely prescribe alcohol in any form, and in the sanitaria with which I have been connected it is the exception where alcohol in any form is prescribed. I have advised against its use where such has been the custom, believing that as a rule alcoholic liquors do more harm than good in the treatment of this disease.” – Prof. Vincent Y. Bowditch, M. D., Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“From personal experience in handling pulmonary tuberculosis, not only at the Nordrach Ranch Sanitorium, for the past five years, but in an active practice of thirteen years, I am more than convinced that whisky and liquor, in any form, are absolutely poisonous to the consumptive.

“Whenever we admit a patient to the Nordrach Ranch Sanitorium, we ascertain whether the individual is an alcoholic or not; and we invariably find that such an individual is lacking in vitality enough to combat the disease. They may look fat and strong, pulmonary tuberculosis usually makes quick work of them.

“It is also a noticeable fact, proven by various statistics, that a very large percentage of alcoholics become tubercular; and if we ever stamp out tuberculosis, we will also have to stamp out intemperance.

“Trying to cure consumption with whisky is like trying to put out a fire with kerosene. This is very easy to understand when we stop to consider the nature of this disease. In the first place, we have a very rapid heart’s action, dating from the very earliest manifestations of the disease. The pulse is often in excess of 100, even in incipient cases, and if the stimulation of alcohol is added, we have what might be called a ‘runaway heart’; and if there is one thing needed in the long combat against tuberculosis, it is a good heart.” – John E. White, M. D., Medical Director Nordrach Ranch Sanitorium, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

“You ask me my opinion as to the use of whisky in the treatment of consumption. In reply permit me to say that I regard its use in this disease as most universally pernicious.” – Prof. Charles G. Stockton, M. D., Buffalo Medical College, Buffalo, N. Y.

“It was formerly thought that alcohol was in some way antagonistic to tuberculous disease, but the observations of late years indicate clearly that the reverse is the case, and that chronic drinkers are more liable to both acute and pulmonary tuberculosis. It is probably altogether a question of altered tissue soil, the alcohol lowering the vitality and enabling the bacilli more readily to develop and grow.” – Dr. Osler, formerly Professor of Medicine in Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., now of Oxford University, England.

“Upon investigation I found 38 per cent. of our male tubercular patients were excessive users of alcohol, 56 per cent. moderate users. From my study of the cases I am led to believe that in a vast majority of these cases drink has been a large factor in producing the disease, by exposure, lowering of vitality, etc. I believe that alcohol has no place in the treatment of tuberculosis. Many patients are deceived by the false strength it gives them.” – O. C. Willhite, M. D., Superintendent of Cook County Hospital for Consumptives, Dunning, Ill.

“In tuberculosis there is a state of over-stimulation of the circulatory system due to the toxins. The use of alcoholics simply makes the condition worse. It reduces resistance and makes the person more susceptible to the disease.” – H. J. Blankmeyer, M. D., Sanatorium Gabriels, in the Adirondacks, N. Y.

“The practice of taking alcoholics of any sort, and in any quantity, over a considerable length of time, is certain to produce more or less injury to a tubercular patient, and their use by tubercular people cannot be too strongly condemned.” – H. S. Goodall, M. D., Lake Kushaqua, N. Y.

Most of these opinions were written for the author of this book in response to letters of inquiry. Are they not indicative of a day when the medical profession will lay aside alcoholic liquors in the treatment of all diseases? It is acknowledged that the past usage of giving whisky and cod-liver oil to consumptives was an error; some day, it may be not far distant, a larger acknowledgment may be made, and the medical use of alcoholic liquors will be entirely a thing of the past.

Rev. J. M. Buckley, D.D., editor of The Christian Advocate, was in early manhood considered an incurable consumptive. Being a man of great will power and indomitable perseverance, he resolved to try the open-air cure, together with the use of an inspirator. The result was perfect restoration to health, so that, as is well known, he can be easily heard by audiences of thousands at Chautauqua and other places where he is greatly in request for lectures. He has written a pamphlet giving a full history of his case. It can be obtained from Eaton & Mains, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, for fifty cents, and should be read by all consumptives who have any “grit” in their composition.

Dr. Forrest, a hygienic physician, says: —

“What is to be done if the germs have already obtained lodgement in the lungs? Increase the general nutrition of the body in every way, and then the lungs can resist the inroads of the disease. The first thing necessary to improve the nutrition of the body is to stimulate the digestive and absorbent functions of the stomach and intestines. Naturally then, you must throw the so-called cough medicines out of the window. The drugs used to stop a cough are sedatives. Now, no sedative or nauseant is known that does not lock up the natural secretions and thus lessen the digestive powers. The cough is nature’s method of expelling offending matter from the lungs and bronchial tubes. It is infinitely better to have this stuff thrown out of the lungs than retained there.”

Keep the bowels clean is this physician’s next recommendation.

Sweet cream is preferable to cod-liver oil as it is not so likely to derange the stomach. Easily digested food is necessary, as the organs of digestion are in weakened condition.

Again Dr. Forrest says: —

“The consumptive should live as much as possible in the open air.