Genuine consumption does not originate in a cold, an inflammation, or a
hemorrhage, but in tubercles. And these tubercles are only secondary
causes. The primary cause is a certain morbid condition of the organism,
known as the tubercular or scrofulous diathesis. This morbid condition
of the general system is sometimes hereditary, but much more frequently
the result of unphysiological habits. Those cases to which our own
errors give rise may be prevented, and a large proportion of those who
have inherited consumptive taint may by wise hygiene be saved.
_Consumption is not a Local Disease._--It is thought to be a malady of
the lungs. This notion has led to most of the mistakes in its treatment.
Salt rheum appears on the hand. Some ignorant physician says, "It is a
disease of the skin." An ointment is applied; the eruption disappears.
Soon, perchance, the same scrofulous taint appears in the lungs in the
form of tubercles. The doctor cannot get at it there with his ointment,
and resorts to inhalation. He is still determined to apply his drug to
the local manifestation.
Salt rheum is not a disease of the skin. It is a disease of the system,
showing itself at the skin. Consumption is not a disease of the lungs.
It is a disease of the system, showing itself in the lungs.
A ship's crew is seized with some fearful malady. They hang out a flag
of distress. Another ship passes near the infected vessel. Its captain
discovers the flag of distress. A boat's crew is sent to cut it down.
The captain turns to his passengers with the triumphant exclamation, "We
have saved them! All signs of distress have disappeared!"
A human body is diseased in every part. A flag of distress is hung out
in the form of some malady at the surface. Some physician whose thinking
is on the surface of things applies an ointment, which compels the
malady to go back within the body again. Then he cries, "I have cured
him; see, it is all gone!"
It may be said, that, when the disease attacks the lungs, it must be
driven from that vital organ at any sacrifice. I reply, if the drug
vapors which are inhaled could disperse the tuberculous deposit,--which
is impossible,--the tubercle could not be transferred to any other
internal organ where it would do less harm. No other internal organ can
bear tuberculous deposit or ulceration with less danger to life.
In 1847, two brothers, bank-officers, afflicted with chronic
inflammation of the eyes, came under my care. I repeatedly prescribed
for them, but their eyes got no better. Indeed, they had little hope of
relief; for, during their years of suffering, many physicians had
treated them without avail. At length I told them there was no hope but
in absence from their business, and such recreation as would elevate the
general tone. A few months of hunting, fishing, and enjoyment in the
country sufficed to remove the redness and weakness from their eyes. As
I have argued, the disease was not one of the eyes, but of the entire
system, which had assumed a local expression.
This dependence of particular upon general disease is a common idea with
the people. A young man begins business with a large capital. He falls
into dissipation. In ten years it exhausts his fortune. When at last we
see him begging for bread, we do not say this exhibition of his poverty
is his financial disease. His financial _constitution_ has been ruined.
The begging is only an unpleasant exhibition of that ruin. During this
course of dissipation, the young man, in addition to the exhaustion of
his fortune, ruins his health. His lungs fall into consumption. Some
doctor may tell you it is disease of the lungs. But it is no more
disease of the lungs than was begging the man's financial malady. In
either case, the apparent disease is only an exhibition of the
constitutional malady.
In brief, a local disease is an impossibility. Every disease must be
systemic before it can assume any local expression. Or, in other words,
every local pathological manifestation is an expression of systemic
pathological conditions.
Now what is the practical value of this argument? I reply: So long as
people believe bronchitis to be a disease of the throat, or consumption
a disease of the lungs, so long will they labor under the hallucination
that a cure is to be found in applications to these parts. But when they
are convinced that these diseases are local expressions of morbid
conditions pervading the whole organism, then whatever will invigorate
their general health, as Nature's hygienic agents, will receive their
constant and earnest attention.