IS ALCOHOL FOOD?

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 7, Issue 351, 19 February 1866, Page 1

IS ALCOHOL FOOD?

(From the Medical Times.) Dr Mtjnroe, of Hull, has published a lecture lately delivered by him at the Royal Institution of that town, " On the Physiological ■ion of Alcohol," and has adopted the uncompromising side of the anti-alcoholic question. He goes in for the teetotal system ; and we feel bound to say at the conclusion of the very long discussion, which was published in this journal on the subject some time ago, that, on the face of it, teetotallers have, from a scientific point of view, the best of the argument. It is certain, for example, that our greatest and most esteemed authorities in the matter of dietetics have come to the conclusion that alcohol is not food; that it is not assimilated ; that it does not undergo decomposition in the body; but, on the contrary, is eliminated as alcohol from the body. The body, in truth, seems to have a very decided antagonism to alcohol—regards it, we might say, as a very dangerous enemy, for, as soon as ever spirits of wine has found its way into man, his eliminating organs, every one of them, are called into operation for the very purpose of dislodging an apparently unwelcome stranger. "With the sweat, by the kidneys, with the bile, and with the breath, is the alcohol separated from the body. And we may fairly add that, notwithstanding the stones which have been thrown at the experiments of M. M. Lallemand, Perrin, &c, their conclusions still hold a solid scientific status. But yet, whether alcohol be food, physic, or poison, men of all classes, men of the highest intelligence, and men degraded to the condition of brutes, still drink of tha stimulus! Human instincts are to strong for human science. Les choses sont plus for* tes que les hommes. The very hand which pens and adopts the scientiiie conclusion yet does not hesitate to raise the sparkling and exhilarating glass to lips ! It is something refreshing, therefore, to meet with one who, like our excellent friend Dr Munroe, practises what science seems to teach. The fearful amount of crime and misery which drinking of alcohol entails upon humanity may well drive a conscientious man to reflect whether he ought not to listen, ia this case, more to science and less to his palatical instincts; and for this reason it is that those who do not adopt the practice of teetotallers must admire the creed Teetotal efforts are certainly pointed in a direction which is, to say the least of it, highly laudable. And, honestly speaking, we believe that medicine owes a very great debt to society in this matter of alcoholisruus. It would be difficult to show that the practice of modern alcoholic treatment of diseases, as mainly introduced by Dr Todd, has not produced a large amount of evil, physical as well as moral. We believe that there is rising up iu the profession a general feeling at this moment, that the indiscriminate practice of giving patients and lying in womaa large amounts of wine and spirits has been carried to a most unwarrantable extent by orthodox practitioners. There can be little doubt that many a woman has beeu taught her first lesson in tippling, through this iudiscriminate custom of stimulus-prescribing. Dr Todd's authority was the great incentive to this kind of treatment; and the time of the introduction of it was propitious to its speed, for great authorities were then assuring us that diseases of all kinds had assumed an adynamic type. It is fair, however, to Dr Todd, to remark, that he did not believe iu the theory of a lower type. He gave his alcohol on totally other grounds. And what were those grounds ? An answer to this question—a careful and critical examination of the principles or data upon which he founded his treatment —would be a very great boon to the profession. If we are not . mista.ii.ee, ail those data of his are actually* in discord with the best teachings of mouera science, He was aware that alchol was rapidly absorbed as such into the circulation. It is, he says, a hydrocarbon, and acts primariiy upon the nervous centres; ail hydrocarbons having a great afnuity for the nervous system, lis action, when propr-riy given, is ; to '• augment the geueralion of the nervous - . power;" but over-doies of it injure, and ultimately destroy the nutrition of the aei voua i matter. The tremors cf the drunkard are , solely indicative of too great wa.s:e of nerve- , naatteri Drunkards die. with shrivelled up

bruins, with wasting and degeneracy of its grey and fibrous matter. Alcohol, applied directly, may inflame the conjunction or the stomach ; but, absorbed into the blood, will not excite inflamation of lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels, or brain. It is a complete fallacy to suppose that exaltation of nerveforce, excited by alcohol, is followed by a corresponding depression. There is no evidence, he says, to show that, as a sequel of alcoholic excitement, any increased waste goes on; or that the nervous power is at a lower ebb than before the alcohol was given. Moreover, alcohol increases animal beat. “ Alcohol possesses its stimulating property, because it is a form cf aliment appropriate to the direct nourishment of the nervous system, and to its preservation ; and its special adaptation to this system gives it an immediate exciting power superior to any other kind of food,” Alcohol also upholds the calorifacient process, and is in this respect superior to oil and other hydrocarbons, which do not pass directly into the blood. Hence, then, “ as a calorifacient form of food, as a promoter of the nutrition of the nervous system, and as admitting of easy and quick absorption into, the blood, alcohol possess a combination of qualities which render it of the utmost value in the treatment of disease.”

Such were the data which guided Dr. Todd in his administration of alcohol. Need we add, that these data, in their main particulars, are, if not directly contradicted, at all events shown, by modern and the best scientific inquiriers, to be unwarrantable assumptions. What, therefore, comes of the practical treatment of Dr. Todd, which was assuredly founded upon the incorrect physiological deductions alluded to? The public, we think, are much indebted to Dr. Munroe for making popular the physiological side of this question ; and, if he be incorrect in his teetotal conclusions, he errs, at all events, on the safe side, and errs in accordance with the teachings of physiology, so far as they guide us in this case. But, man fortunately, or unfortunately, does not always accept the conclusions of bare reason. He, in some matters, puts his sentiments and instincts, his faith above his reason: and he does so in this case of alcohol. The imbibition of spirituous drinks may be, in this sense, regarded as a kind of credo. Men have a sort of belief in it which supersedes all reason. As a leading physician once said to us, “ Well, those arguments may be very sound and logical ; but I am not going to give up my wine. It does me good, and I feel the better for it.” Another gentleman, deeply engaged in engineering, said, “If the arguments of the teetotalers are absolutely true, I shall still take my wine; I can’t do .without it; and, if it comes to that, I would sooner shorten my life by a few years than give it up.” Now, we would suggest to the teetotalers that they do not sufficiently recognise this feeling of highly civilized life. Civilization is in itself—we mean the wear and tear, for example, of professional life—an unnatural state. Why then, may not alcohol be, as drugs are, in themselves poisons to the physiological body, but correctives of the unnatural—the pathological states of the civilized body of humanity ? We caunot do better than conclude these few suggestions with the calm judicial summary of the cases as given by Dr. Parks. *• It is certainly undesirable to draw any strong conclusions as to the use of alcohol in health from our present knowledge of its physiological action; but it is impossible not to feel that, so far, the progress of physiological inquiry renders the propriety of the use of alcohol in health more and more doubtful. It appears to decrease strength, and to impair nutrition, by hindering oxidation ; and, if in large quantities, the reception of food. If we look upon the body as an agent of work from which we desire to obtain as much mechanical and mental force as is compatible with health, we can consider the effect of alcohol, per se, as simply a means of preventing the development of force.”