Physiological Philanthropy.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3482, 21 February 1880, Page 1

Physiological Philanthropy.

There ia no part of thVhumw frame which is more unsatisfactory than the liver. No boy erer had any fan with his liver, and no man ever found his liver a. source of pleasure or a means of improve* ment. The Turks, it is true, beiieire that the liver is the seat of the affections, and in their poetry and lore-letters express their ardent desire to win tbetiivers of desirable persons of the opposite sex. This, however, is one of the errors of the Mohammedan faith. We know that to speak of two livers, which beat a* one is a gross anatomical error. The chief function of the Hver, according to our best medical authorities, is to test the presence of malarial poison in the air, and to protest againßt all sortß of palatable f00d.,. If there is malarial poison within half a mile of a man, his liver will promptly notify him of the fact, and if he eats any* thing except oatmealand other repulsive varieties of edible 'sawdust, his liver will at once strike work and throw his whole interior into disorder. The result of this reprehensible. conduct is that the liver is a constant source of'misery. Itis.au unfeeling tyrant, and embitters our lives, with its impertinence ; and arrogance. , Without a liver, a man could live on Harlem flats without even suspecting the existence of malaria, and could eat mincepie or sausages without punishment. Freedom and happiness cannot'exist in company with a liver, and nearly-all the, ill-temper and half of the heresies that have vexed the world are due to the malign action of this, tyrannical organ. The liver is also enormously expensive. It requires more medicine, and employs more doctors than all; the other organs of the body. Hip^ pocrates once remarked, " Let me prescribe for the livers of men, and I care not who is called in to attend to the rest of the human system." . It has been ' estimated that the annual cost of maintaining a liver in this country is eleven dollars per capita for every man I woman, and child mentioned in the census. When an organ thu* taxes us, and in return gives us nothing but suffering, it is time to make a determined - effort to be rid of it.. ,A leading physio* logical philanthropist,\ Mr Cathcart Edmonds, F.E.S., of London, has recently proposed a plan for the abolition of the liver. It is a well-known principle of the development theory that an organ or limb which is not used gradually disappears. ;Tbus, the ancestral tail of the human species disappeared after primeval man ceased to use it in climbing trees, and the horse laid aside his original five toes,when the practice.of cramping them together.with iron shoes came in fashion. If we accustom ourselves to living without giving any - employment to the Jiver, we shall soon find that organ shrinking and disappearing. This being true, it only remains, to find some method of dispensing with the use of the lirer, and we BhalPthen be able to cast off its obnoxious yoke. Anatomists inform us that we have an organ called the spleen, which is at present'purely ornamental: The Frenchman believes that the spleen causes the; average tihgiishman to use strong language every day in the year, and to commit suicide every November, but this is a mis*' take. The splern is a modest. and unassuming organ, which passes an . existence of elegant leisure, but there is. every reason to suppose that were it assigned any active duty it would perform / it faithfully and well, As Mr Edmonds ' points out, the liver is situated on the direct line of communication through which the food from the stomach passes on its way to nourish the body. The . liver seizes upon this food* and by its means keeps itself in a state of aggressive vigour. Over the name line pass the various medicines of which the liver is insatiable, and which are a source of «uoa> constant. and unsatisfactory expense.

"Were this line of communication to be .... out the liver would be isolated, and could neither receive food nor medicine. In these circumstances, it would soon 1 ose its size and strength, and, in the course of a few generations, would beco.me a merely rudimentary and entirely harnulesa organ. Mr Edmonds's plan for bringing about this v result is to place a,tourniquet betweeu 1 the liver and the stomach, and at the same time to place a powerful poultice between the stomach and the spleen, and to arouse the attention of the latter with blisters. He maintains that after a Brief period a new line of communication would be opened through the spleen, and the liver would become isolated. This is analogous to what Grant attempted to do at Vicksburg, when he tried to turn the Mississippi through a new channel, and thus leave Vicksburg without water communication. Whether the plan is feasible or not remains to be seen. Mr Edmonds bases his estimates for the work upon the principles of the development theory and the facts of anatomy, and he assures us that the thing can be done safely and with very little inconvience. At all events it is worth trying* and a society for the abolition of the liver and the improvement and utilisatien of the spleen should be organized without delay. Even if Mr Edmonds's plan does not prove feasible, some" other scheme of carrying out the same -beneficient purpose may be devised. If men will only join in an earnest effort to get rid of their livers, the means to that end will not long be wanting. Philanthropists talk of the miseries produced by alcohol, and socialists prate of the tyranny of capital. These are trifling, matters compared with the oppression and crime of which the liver is guilty. Let us rid ourselves of this tyrant, and the malarious places of the earth shall blossom with tenants, and peace and comfort shall be the possession of all men.-—New York Times.