OUR BABIES.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 554, 29 March 1913, Page 2

OUR BABIES.

(By Hygeia). Published under the auspices of the Society for the Health of Women and Children. " It is wiser to put up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom."

CASTOR OIL.

The following letter recently appeared in an Oamaru paper, and is an interesting illustration of the way in people will rush into print, simply because they have themselves misread or misapplied some perfectly clear and correct advice or instruction.

In the present case the Plunket nurse made no mistake when she ordered a small dose of castor oil for a baby suffering from diarrhoea, and "Our Babies" column was equally right in warning mothers that a dose of castor oil may kill a child who has been suddenly seized with acute abdominal pain owing to appendicitis; further, it was only fair to tell the public that the common practice of dosing children with castor oil for constipation is a most injurious proceeding. We merely warned mothers against the indiscriminate giving of oil to any other drug—not against their proper uses.

THE LETTER. Sir, —I have been extremely inter epted in the work of the Society for the Promotion of Health of Women and Children for a number of years, and latterly in the articles appearing in your columns under the heading of "Our Babies." But I must confess that my faith received a rude shock by perusing the article on Saturday last dealing with castor oil, contributed by "Hygeia." Therein was contained general condemnation of castor oil for use in babies' troubles, and it has been hard for me to reconcile ''his fact with my case when occasion rose to call in the Plunket nurse for baby. About four and a-half years ago in Wellington I attended the lectures of the society's accredited nurae, and a little while after had to seek her aid in the case of baby's troublesome diarrhoea. The first thing she asked me was whether I had castor oi! in the house, and as I had not she told me to get a bottle, from which she administered a dose to the child, and she told me if the child was ever bad again just to give it a dose, and all would be well. This was the first occasion I used castor oil for baby —on the recommendation of a Plunket nurse—and have kept it in the house ever since in case of an emergency.

If "Hygeia" can reconcile my experience with her (perhaps his) decrying the use of the article all will be well, for I feel quite Bure that many another mother must have been misled by Wellington's nurse the same as I was, and looked upon castor oil "as a friend in time of need," whereas "Hygeia" looks upon it as a spurious concoction for babies' troubes. —I am, etc., NOT UNDERSTOOD. COMMENT. The Wellington nurse not only did what the mother might have found recommended in the various publica. tions of the society, but in, practically speaking, all authoritative books on babies written in any language. It may be interesting our readers io know that some year ago the question was raised in Dunedin as to whether a Plunket nurse might under any circumstances orde"" medicine for a baby. A conference, attended by the leading members of the society and the leading members of the medical profession, to deal with the sphere cf work of the Plunket nurses, decided that in the case of diarrhoea it was right and proper for the nurse to give a small dose of castor oil; and that in the same way it would be right for her to recommend a pinch of baking soda for a baby doubled up with colic these things being the only two cases in which medical opinion favoured the entrusting of the Plunket nurses with the recommending of drugs namely, the two household remedies found in most home?, and both generally recognised as suitable for the particular circumstances. As for the "general condemnation of castor oil," which the Oamaru mother assumes to have been contained in my article,! have merely to say again that what I was inveighing against was the unwise and indiscriminate use not only of castor oil, but all drugs. Let me quote my own words: "It is a safe rule never to give a child medicine of any kind without a very definite and' clear reason, and never to give a second dose except under a doctor's order. The less drugging a child gets the Detter.

Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes proclaimed with profound wisdom half a century ago: "A medicine —that is, a noxious agent such as blister, an emetic, or a puragtive —should always be presumed to be hurtful. It may sometimes be directly beneficial." Let me quote further from the same article by Wen Jell Holmes: "The presumption always is that every noxious agent, including medicines proper, which hurts a well man hurts a §ick one."

Let me illustrate this proposition before you decide upon it. If it were known that a prize-fighter were to have a drastic puragtive administered two or three days before a contest, or a large blister applied to his back, no one will question that it would affect the betting of his aide unfavourably: we will say to th«=i amount of 5 per cent. Now the drain upon there' sources of the system produced in such a case must be at its minimum, for the subject ia a powerful man, in the pjrime of life and in admirable condition. If the drug or the blister takes 5 per cent, from his force of resistance, it will take at least as large a fraction from*any invalid. But this invalid had to fight a champion who strikes hard but cannot be hit in raturn, who will press him sharply for breath but will never pant himself while the wind can whistle through his fleshless ribs. The suffering compatant ia liable to want all his stamina, the 5 per cent, may lose him the battla.