27 MAY 1876, Page 10

SIR HENRY THOMPSON ON ALCOHOLIC DRINKS.

SIR HENRY THOMPSON has this week been repeating to Lady Jane Ellice, as head of the Ladies' National Temper- ance Convention, an opinion which, if we mistake not, he has before publicly given out,—that to men and women in ordinary health, alcoholic drinks are not in any way useful to health, but are mere luxuries, and even,—so be intimates,—generally mis- chievous, for he declares that "mostly some loss of health, or of mental power, or of calmness of temper, or of judgment, is the price." Now, we think Sir Henry Thompson, when virtually sending a message to a Conference on points of this kind, might have made his counsel a little more precise. Is he con- vinced that a glass or two of either wine or beer in the day is usually taken at the cost of ill-health, or diminished intel- lectual force, or calmness of temper and judgment? If so, it appears to us that he should have said something more than he did, and not merely characterised the indulgence as a luxury which is no benefit to health. So much as that may be said of almost everybody's favourite drink or food,—of tea certainly,—or of eggs or cheese, or turnips or rice, and some physiologists would say even of meat, and all of them would say it of any particular kind of meat, such as beef or bacon. We never heard of anybody who- took muffins or hot rolls, or even potatoes or cheese, because that particular sort of food was essential to his health ; or who would not have admitted cheerfully that it was merely as a luxury that he secured for himself the sort of food he preferred, rather than any other equally nutritive, and perhaps cheaper kind, which he cared lees for. It is, therefore, simply telling us of alcoholic drinks what is true of every drink except pure water,—and pure water is nearly the most difficult thing for any resident in towns and many residents in the country to obtain,---and of almost all our favourite kinds of diet, to say that if we choose to drink wine or beer, we should regard it as a luxury, and not as a duty discharged towards our own bodies. But it is a very different thing indeed to say that this is a diet which is not only not need- ful for health, but injurious to it,—and if that is Sir Henry 'Thompson's belief,—without regard to the quantity taken,—we think he would have done well to lay a great deal more stress on the duty of not injuring ourselves, and a great deal less on the mere duty of not deceiving ourselves in the matter. Possibly a few men and women,—who have, however, mostly been persuaded by their doctors that beer or wine is essential to them,—do live under a delusion on the subject, though it is a delusion of medical origin ; but for the most part, we suppose, modern society is under no such delusion, and takes its beer or wine just for the same reason for which it takes its tea, or wears its favourite clothes,—because the taste is gratified by doing so, and because no reason is apparent why it is wrong so to gratify the taste. If, however, there be such a reason, the case is very different. A man or a woman who, after repeated experience, is convinced that tea, even in moderation, in- jures his nerves and keeps him awake at night, is not merely weak, but negligent of an obvious and serious duty, if he goes on taking tea, and so unfitting himself for his simplest duties. And similarly, a man or a woman who holds, on good evidence, that every glass of wine or beer taken tends to injure his health of mind and body, is not merely bound to keep clear of self-deceit as to his motive in taking it, but is also bound to keep clear of a very injurious self-indulgence in taking it at all. Sir Henry Thompson seems to us to lend a sort of sanction to injurious, though slight self-indulgence, when he half hints that the practice- is purely mischievous, and yet suggests, as a compromise be- tween the course of giving it up, and the course of pretending that it is essential to health, that we should continue to take it, but confess that we do so only because we like it, and not at all because it is beneficial. "I am quite alive," says Sir Henry Thompson, "to the exquisite perfume of a specimen of some rare old vintage ; to the agreeable exhilaration which follows a moderate dose of good champagne. The fragrance of a line cigar has charms for many persons ; its soothing effect is often still more enjoyable. It is useless, it is not wise, to ignore the existence of these things ; the best natures have felt their influence, and may, perhaps, have paid some price for its enjoyment. But that is exactly the point I want to insist on,—Don't take your daily wine under any pretext of its doing you good. Take it frankly as a luxury, one which must be paid for ; by some persons very lightly, by some at a high price, but always to be paid for,—and mostly some loss of health, or of mental power, or of calmness of temper, or of judgment, is the price." Now, it seems to us that for scientific advice that is exceedingly ambiguous in character. There is all the difference in the world between a harmless luxury and a mild poison,—between that which is agreeable, but not necessary, and that which diminishes, so far as it goes, the health of mind and body. Almost everything we do for the sake of en- joyment is a harmless luxury. It is a luxury to ride when we might walk ; to read a volume printed in large type and on good paper, instead of buying a cheap edition in double columns, or getting a few days' reading of a dirty volume (from a cir- culating library) which it is hardly pleasant to hold in one's hands. But what we go to physicians to tell us about is not so much to be honest with ourselves—though we have no ob- jection to that—as the physical effects of physical causes which act on the body, and on that we have some right to look for an explicit opinion, and perhaps even, where that opinion is a dis- puted one, for its grounds. But at all events, the opinion itself

should be explicit. What should we say to a moral adviser who told U13 to be perfectly candid with ourselves in admitting that when we talk scandal we do it as a luxury, and not from any virtuous desire to resist evil, but that it is no use denying the charm and fascination of censorious gossip, and that all he would insist on is the duty of eschewing any hypocritical assumption that it is a virtuous exercise ? We should clearly call him a very modest moral adviser indeed, and think that he might at least have added that, though censoriousness under the disguise of sanctimoniousness is fatal to the soul's health, censoriousness, even sincerely acknow- ledged as a bad sort of self-indulgence, is evil enough. Techni- cal advisers should give their opinion precisely on the point under discussion. And if Sir Henry Thompson really supposes that every drop of alcohol, not taken for specific medical reasons, diminishes the energy of the body and injures the equipoise of the nervous system, he would do well to say so in much more express terms. As it is, he hints it in a way not at all likely to raise the sort of scientific discussion which a definite opinion on such a subject weighted with the great authority of his name, would pro- voke ; and worse still, he almost implies that it is a perfectly justi- fiable thing to injure the body slightly but habitually, not for the sake of any higher end to be obtained, but simply for the pleasure of the self-indulgence.

The thing that is most needed to raise the prestige of medical science is more definiteness and less hap-hazard about medical opinions. When we go to an analytic chemist and ask him the effect of a particular constituent—say, in a soap—on the linen or other textures to which it is likely to be applied, we expect a very definite answer, such as, that it will or will not injure those textures, or that it will or will not cleanse and improve their surface. We don't expect such an answer as this, that, if we choose to include it for its fragrance, we may, but that we must not imagine it adds any virtue to the soap, even if it does not in- troduce a slightly corrosive element. We want to know, "Is there such a corrosive element,—yes or no,—in the ingredient?" and to such a question we should generally get a perfectly specific reply. But medical men generally won't give us such a reply, and won't even confess frankly their inability to give it. They are specific enough so far as they are confident, but beyond this point they grow oracular, and suggest considerations on both sides the upshot of which they do not plainly state ; just as Sir Henry Thompson says plainly enough that wine is of no use to the healthy, but then adds that it is very nice, and if we only admit to ourselves that it is a luxury, and don't conceal from ourselves that perhaps we may be paying this or that price for drinking it, why, then, we may drink it, but not otherwise. No physiologist who was really confident that any drop of needless alcohol taken, like any drop of needless opium taken, is so much disturbing influence to the health of the system, would speak in this vague way. He would say at once, 'Take it, if you please, but if you do please, you please to diminish pro tanto the efficiency of your body and your brain.' In all probability, Sir Henry Thomp- son has no very fixed opinion on the matter, beyond that which he so definitely expressed, that alcohol is not needful for the healthy action of any sound body. Beyond this he hesitates, he conjectures, he has a sort of scientific guess, which he sets off against his assur- ance that alcoholic drinks, taken in moderation, are very pleasant and fascinating,—the net result being an ambiguous hint, half- medical, half-moral, and not at all luminous. Surely it would have been much better to say that he had his doubts whether even small quantities of alcohol were not in a small degree injurious, but that the doubts were such very conjectural doubts that he did not venture even to think, much less to say, that such a diet, taken in moderation, is wrong. But the opinion he has given is mystifying, both physiologically and morally. Its tendency is to suggest that even if you know a particular diet to be injurious, you may still in- dulge in it, so long as you admit your weakness openlyto yourself, —which is not what we go to an eminent physiologist to ask, and an opinion hardly appropriate from such a quarter. If a great mechanician were to say, 'You may, perhaps, diminish the effici- ency of your engine by using fuel of this kind for it ; but diminish the efficiency of your engine, if you like, so long as you don't pre- tend that you are using that particular sort of fuel in order to in- crease it,'—people would stare at so very unprofessional a kind of opinion, and yet we don't see how it would differ from Sir Henry Thompson's. What we want of great Medical authorities is to tell us exactly how much they know of the character of the agencies acting on the body, and where their knowledge stops ; —not to give us a mixture of conjectures and moral judgments which mystifies the persons advised as to the precise meaning of either.