ERRORS IN WATER CURE.
Much of the prejudice against the use of water in treating disease has grown out of abuses of the remedy, and the putting forward of absurd claims by ignorant persons professing to understand its use. In order to vindicate the character of this powerful curative agent, it is necessary to expose the errors and ignorance of those who have abused it.
“Cold Water Doctors.”—In the early days of the modern water cure practice, which was very largely introduced by Priessnitz, cold water was the universal remedy. No matter what the nature of the disease, or the condition or temperament of the patient, the remedy was the same. At the establishment of the Græfenberg doctor, ice-cold douches, precipitated from a height of sixteen to eighteen feet, the plunge, directly supplied by the cold mountain springs, and the shower bath of the same temperature, were all administered to patients with little discrimination of modifying circumstances, in rooms unwarmed by artificial heat, even in the depths of the coldest mountain winters. As Græfenberg was the source whence most water doctors of that time drew their knowledge, the same practice was pursued elsewhere.The unreasonableness of such a course was perceived by the more judicious, and thus its influence was prejudicial.
Heroic Treatment.—Such treatment as that described in the preceding paragraph could not result otherwise than disastrously in numerous cases. The evil effects were sometimes seen at once, but more frequently they appeared after periods more or less remote. In some cases, patients were led to drink twenty or thirty glasses of cold water before breakfast, under the absurd doctrine that the evils of a small excess would be cured by greater indulgence. Hundreds of persons adopted the practice of daily bathing in cold water in a cold room, even in the coldest weather. A few even went so far as to spring from their warm beds on the coldest mornings, run to a neighboring brook in a state of nudity, and plunge into its frigid waters through a hole in the ice. So infatuated were these enthusiasts, they really thought they enjoyed this refrigerating process; but, generally, a few years’ continuance of it was sufficient to produce such a “sedative” effect upon their systems that some became the victims of consumption and other constitutional diseases, while others were compelled to discontinue the practice from absolute inability to continue it. A few of the more vigorous were enabled to survive this violent treatment without apparent injury for a long time; but those ofweaker vital powers soon showed the results of its evil effects.
By such processes, together with the cold sitz bath, the dry pack, and other harsh measures, the patient was sometimes brought to the very verge of the grave.
Strange as it may appear, those who have been the strongest opponents of the use of water, themselves afford the best instances of its excessive use. For instance, in a case of low typhus fever, a “regular” physician ordered the patient, a young woman, to be immersed in cold water for half an hour. The attendants attempted to carry out the prescription, but in a few moments her symptoms became so alarming that the patient was removed from the bath. It will not be considered remarkable that she died. A prominent New York physician, a professor of practice in one of the largest medical colleges in America, in a report of a case of remittent fever which he had treated with water, said that he administered thirty-five cold packs in a week. The patient died; but the doctor thought that if he had been more thorough in his treatment, giving more packs and longer ones, he would have lived. Another professor, of a rival college in the same city, cited, in a public lecture, a case of pneumonia which was treated hydropathically by a regular physician of note. The patient, while very feeble, was placed in a cold bath. He was takenout shivering, and died an hour afterward. His conclusion was that water was a very hazardous remedy. We would certainly agree with the professor’s conclusion if the case cited were an example of theproperuse of water. In the preceding case, we will not say that the packs were not beneficial; but if they had been thus used by a professed hydropathist, the treatment would have been pronounced decidedly heroic by “regulars.”
Crisis.—By the violent processes which have been mentioned, the patient was frequently brought into a condition similar to that produced by the old process of depletion by bleeding, antimony, mercury, and purgatives. Painful skin eruptions, boils, and carbuncles, often covered the whole body. Acute pains racked the body of the patient from head to foot. If he survived this “crisis,” he usually got well, which was regarded as an evidence of the salutary effect of the crisis, and so it became an important object to be attained; and the worse a patient felt, the more certain and speedy, he was encouraged to believe, would be his recovery. No account was taken of the immense waste of vital energy during these painful morbid processes.
The use of the abdominal bandage, continued for a long time until an eruption is produced, is another means by which some have sought to effect a cure of their patients. This course is pursuedunder the belief that the discharge occurring from the surface which thus becomes diseased is a vicarious means of removing impurities from the system—an absurd notion which no one acquainted with the first principles of physiology and surgical pathology could entertain for a moment.
Hydropathic Quacks.—Unfortunately for the reputation of water as a remedy, its use has been largely in the hands of empirics who have used it in a routine manner, and have supposed it to be a cure-all, and the only remedy of any value. At least, such have been the claims made for it. This has served to bring it into disrepute, the disgrace which ought to attach to individuals being applied by an undiscriminating public to the innocent victim of abuse.
Ignorance.—The greatest bane of all has been the ignorance of those who have professed to be qualified to administer water as a remedy understandingly. Priessnitz himself was an ignorant peasant. He was innocent of either anatomical or surgical knowledge. His slight acquaintance with physiology was gathered by cursory observations of patients. Of the effects of water he knew more, studying them with a good degree of acuteness. His lamentable want of knowledge allowed him to fall into many errors. It is related of him that he treated hopeless cases of solid anchylosis of joints just asthough they were mere cases of stiffness from rheumatism. Cases of hopeless organic disease, he pronounced curable and submitted to long but unavailing treatment, not knowing the real nature of the disease. A young lady died of what he supposed an internal abscess. No abscess was found, upon which he remarked that “she had too short a neck for long life.”
It could be no wonder, then, that the disciples of such a master should be sadly lacking in many of those qualifications essential for a successful physician, no matter what the remedies employed. The most lamentable feature of the matter is that the same ignorance has continued to be, with few exceptions, characteristic of those who have employed water as a remedy; this has been especially disastrous because a man with the native shrewdness and acuteness of perception of Priessnitz has rarely appeared in the ranks of hydropathists.
A Popular Error.—It is a grievous popular error that any one can apply water as skillfully as the most experienced physician, and that its successful use requires no knowledge of the structure and functions of the human body. No doubt this has grown out of another error, perhaps quite as common; viz., that water is so simple a remedy that it will do no harm if it does no good. Such notions have frequently led to most disastrous results. Water, as already shown, is oneof the most powerful remedies. And while it is, undoubtedly, far safer in the hands of the uneducated than blisters, purgatives, diuretics, and such agents as opium, chloral, alcohol, and most other drugs, yet it certainly requires careful usage, and the more scientific knowledge the user possesses, the more skillfully will he be able to apply it. It is, furthermore, true that a great majority of ordinary diseases are commonly so void of danger under careful nursing and hygienic management that the application of water is a simple matter which any intelligent mother can perform successfully. A case is related by good authority of a person who fell in apoplexy an hour after taking an excessively hot bath. Another patient became a paralytic from the same cause. Water is a remedy which cannot be safely used by one who has not informed himself of its effects, and of the proper modes of application.
Absurd Claims.—Sensible people have been rightfully disgusted with the claims which have been made by certain pretentious ones for the use of water. One declares that the bath will dissolve out of the body mineral substances which have been taken into it. Another claims to have been able, by the application of fomentations to a rheumatic knee, to extract in regular order the ointments which had previously been successively applied. Numerous other claims equally preposterous might be related, if it were necessary.They have all tended to excite a feeling of contempt for a means of treating disease which is really worthy of the highest estimation.
Neglect of Other Remedies.—As has been previously remarked, many seem to have forgotten that water is not the only remedy for disease, and not only attempt to cure every disease by its application, but use it to the exclusion of all other remedies. In nearly all cases, sunlight, pure air, rest, exercise, proper food, and other hygienic agencies are quite as important as water. Electricity, too, is a remedy which should not be ignored; and skillful surgery is absolutely indispensable in not a small number of cases. Even drugs are sometimes useful auxiliaries, though, doubtless, infinitely more harm has resulted from the employment of drugs in conjunction with water treatment than from their omission.
Rational Hydropathyleaves room for every other remedy of value. It does not regard water as a specific nor as a panacea, but only as one of the most valuable of numerous excellent remedies. It discards the erroneous and harmful practices of empirics and ignorant charlatans, whether they concern water or other agents, and gives to the aqueous element only its due share of importance.