Part 7

“Currie employed scientific methods in observing the phenomena of disease. He was one of the first to employ the thermometer in studying disease, and his observations can be received as reliable.

“The use of water externally as a means of reducing the temperature of the body in disease has recently been coming quite prominently into notice. According to Liebermeister, a noted German medical author, Currie was the first to systematize the use of water. His work was published in 1797. Liebermeister, in his recent article on typhoid fever, accords to cold water the first place in importance as an article for reducing the temperature. The use of water for this purpose is at present attracting much attention; and it is safe to predict that it will soon occupy an important place as a remedial agent.

“Much harm has been done by the ‘rude empiricism’ of Priessnitz, and the various water cures in the country; though much good has also been accomplished by the latter institutions, and they have in a measure prepared the public mind for the general introduction of water as a remedial agent.

“After the publication of the views of Currie in 1797, his method of practice, which was chiefly hydropathic, became quite general, but it was soon nearly forgotten. Trousseau recommended water treatment in scarlatina, and the use of the remedy has continued to be recommended in the text-books; but as a measure of treatment in practice, it has become nearly obsolete. It is, however, obvious that unless we accept the absurd proposition that diseases have changed since Currie’s time, the remedy which he recommended so highly must be just as efficient now as then.

“Dr. Currie made use of the cold douche in fevers, applying it vigorously to the patient while in the height of the fever, and continuing it until the temperature became decreased, as indicated by the thermometer and the pulse. He treated seven cases of continued fever by this method at the Liverpool Infirmary. All recovered. In an epidemic of typhoid fever among a regiment of troops, he treated fifty-eight cases, using the cool tepid douche in all but two cases. The latter died. The remaining fifty-six recovered, the disease being greatly shortened in more than half the cases.

“Dr. Currie asserted that, in small-pox, the use of the bath afforded instant relief to the patient, and caused the disease to assume a benignant form.

“He found the cold bath always effectual in tetanus and convulsions, as also in hysteria.

“In temporary insanity from the use of liquor, this acute observer found that the cold plunge was the most efficient remedy for the worst cases.

“But Dr. Currie’s practice was not confined to cold water. He observed that affusion with tepid water was not only a more pleasant application, but that it was even more effectual in reducing unnatural heat than cold water, as it produced no reaction, not being at all stimulating in character.

“With regard to the efficacy of this agent, Dr. Currie stated that by its use in fevers the pulse would be reduced thirty or forty beats, with a corresponding decrease of temperature and almost immediately relief of headache.

“In his second volume, published some six years after his first volume, Dr. Currie declared that although his experience in the use of water, especially in fevers, had been very extensive, he had had only four fatal cases in which water was employed, and had never met with a single evidence of its being in the least degree objectionable or injurious. Neither had he found that it had been thought to be objectionable by those whom he had treated. He details a very interesting account of his treatment of scarlatina in the cases of his two sons, aged, respectively, three and five years. He gave the older, in thirty-two hours, fourteen affusions, varying from cold to tepid. Twelve were found to be sufficient for the younger one. Both became convalescent in three days.

“It was established by Currie that by the use of water the course of typhoid fever may be abbreviated. This is not even claimed for the modern remedies in common use.

“In referring to his own experience in the use of water, Dr. F. remarked, ‘The relation of my own experience will of necessity be stated in a few words, as my employment of the remedy has heretofore been much more limited than it will be in the future if my life is spared.’ He then related some very interesting cases in which he had employed water as the chief remedy with the most excellent success. He also took occasion to recommend, as one of the best means of applying water in fevers, the wet-sheet pack as employed in the various hydropathic institutions of the country. He had used the continued cold pack in a number of the worst cases of sun-stroke in Bellevue Hospital with marked success. This remedy is still employed there in this class of cases.

“In a case of obstinate remittent fever, which was not in the least benefited by the thorough use of quinia, he employed the cool pack thirty-five times in a week, continuing each application from ten to thirty minutes, and always with great relief to the patient, although he finally died [perhaps from the huge doses of quinine previously given]. He expressed the opinion that if he had employed the pack more thoroughly, making the applications longer and more frequent, the patient might have recovered.

“Currie announced a true theory when he said that the voice of nature should not be superseded by theories. He advocated the free use of water as a beverage in febrile diseases [fever] as an important remedial agent. Dr. F. unhesitatingly advanced the belief that the chief benefit derived from the numerous mineral waters so largely used was only that which was due to the properties of pure water. He stated as proof that it was not long since demonstrated by chemical analysis that the only thing peculiar about the water of a certain spring, famous for medicinal virtues, was its remarkable purity. He also suggested the introduction of distilled water for cooking and drinking purposes as a necessary sanitary measure.

“Dr. F. then related a remarkable case of acute inflammation of the kidneys in which the patient exhibited the characteristic symptoms of poisoning from the retention of urea. After other remedies were tried in vain, the patient’s life was saved by the simple administration of water as a beverage at short intervals. The diuretic effects of the water soon washed away the poison and gave immediate relief.”

“After the conclusion of the paper, by Dr. Flint, the venerable Dr. Richards arose and gave his experience in the use of water. His ideas of hydropathy were obtained when he has a young man, from Dr. Currie’s works. He adopted the practice of Dr. C. at that time in an epidemic of typhoid fever, and with such remarkable success as to astonish old practitioners. He stated that he had cured more than one hundred cases of obstinate constipation by simply directing the patient to drink a glass of cold water half an hour before breakfast, each morning. In one of these cases the patient had not had a natural passage from the bowels for a number of years; but he was effectually cured, by the simple remedy mentioned, in the course of a few months.

“Dr. Loyle gave an interesting resumé of ten years’ experience in the use of water, with uniform success, especially in convulsions and scarlatina. He had employed water alone in about one hundred cases of acute inflammation of the kidneys and dropsy after scarlatina, and with wonderful success in every case. He had found it equally successful in coma, restoring consciousness when life was apparently extinct. During the late war, he on one occasion renovated twenty ambulance loads of exhausted soldiers who had fallen on the march, by the judicious use of water. He recommended water most highly as an excellent diuretic and a capital regulator of the bowels, far superior to ‘after-dinner pills.’ He commended it also as an efficient remedy for sun-stroke and frozen feet.

“The sentiment of the audience—which was wholly composed of medical gentlemen—was shown by the hearty applause with which the remarks of each speaker were received.”

We might add much other medical testimony; but as we could give no higher authority than the distinguished Dr. Flint, who stands at the head of medical practice in America, being author of the standard American text-book on practical medicine, we will not weary the reader with further quotations. The German physicians, as well as German medical works, abound with tributes to the value of water. American medical journals are full of accounts of the beneficial results following its use in fevers and numerous other diseased conditions.

In surgery, the employment of water is rapidly gaining entire precedence. It has replaced nearly all other kinds of dressing for wounds, and its use has saved a valuable limb to many a poor sufferer who must otherwise have submitted to amputation.

In short, wherever it is faithfully and intelligently applied, water is working wonders. Yet it is still little used in comparison with its importance. Especially is its use neglected in chronic diseases. The only reason we have been able to discover for this neglect of a remedy, the merits of which are so well demonstrated and generally acknowledged, is that its use is more troublesome and laborious than the use of drugs. A half-dozen purgative pills are administered much more easily than an enema. The administration of a diaphoretic powder is far more convenient than a pack. A blister is easier to manage than a fomentation. But the true physician, who has at heart the real good of his patient, will not sacrifice the safety or comfort of the latter to his own personal convenience.

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 of weaker 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 taken out 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 the proper use 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.”