Alcohol: A Dangerous and Unnecessary Medicine, How and Why by Martha Meir Allen (warren buffett book recommendations txt) 📕

“Dr. Richardson opened a discussion on Cholera in relation to Alcohol. He said he would bring forward five points on the subject.

1. The negligence among the people at large produced by alcohol in the presence of a cholera epidemic. There was no doubt on the part of any who had seen an epidemic of cholera as to the mischief done by alcohol, apart from its action as a remedy. People rush to the public houses and take it to ward off the danger, or to relieve them when they begin to feel ill, and the result is very bad morally. He had seen this in different epidemics. Or people got in spirits to face the danger, and many became intoxicated and less able to resist.

2. Its misuse by those affected. It was often given to cheer them up and remove their fear and nervousness. In his opinion it invariably produced mischief.

3. He was unable to find any physiological reason for giving it. There was a constant drain of fluid, causing spasms and cramp, both of the muscles and blood-vessels, and difficult circulation through the lungs. Spasm may be relaxed by alcohol, but, on the other hand, alcohol is exceedingly greedy of water, and so increases the flux. But it also reduces animal temperature, which is a strong feature of cholera, so much so that he could almost diagnose cholera blindfold in the stage of collapse, by the icy coldness.

4. Its uselessness as a remedy during the acute stage. He had seen a great deal of cholera and never saw alcohol do any good whatever. There was a temporary glow which passed away in a few minutes, and then the evil it does in other ways was brought out. Water was far better, even if cold. The College of Physicians had given some instructions and ordered great care in the administration of alcohol; this was not far enough, but good as far as it went. The recoveries were best where the treatment was simplest, such as external warmth with plenty of diluents. He had given creasote largely.

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