Page images
PDF
EPUB

These things are cited by him on the supposition that they will afford a guidance for other people who happen to encounter vicious dogs.

It seems to me that such advice is very misleading, and is liable to get some one into trouble. I was brought up in the country, and lived in the country, mainly, until thirty years of age. For a long time I was a practicing physician in the country, and in many ways have had to come in contact with strange dogs.

The best thing to do with a dog who comes toward you barking furiously, is to give him no heed whatever. Walk right on as if nothing had happened. If you appear to be perfectly self-possessed, and as if you had a perfect right to be where you are, unless the dog is very vicious indeed he will recognize your authority. Even when dogs have come so close to me as to snap at my coat skirts, I still have apparently given them no heed, walking briskly forward as if nothing had happened. To be sure, I had one eye on the dog, and in case he had actually attacked me, I should not have been taken unawares.

But to stop and try to make friends with a dog would be a dangerous experiment. If the dog was disposed to be hostile, this would only excite his mistrust and make him ten times as apt to bite. To run away is suicidal. If the dog has a particle of spirit in him he will set chase, and even a mild dog will bite. under such circumstances.

Again, to throw at a dog something you have in your hand. If the dog has ordinary grit he will resent such a procedure. Besides, you have thrown away the only weapon you have in your possession, and if the dog should return. to the attack you will have to fight him single handed.

Never but once was I obliged to really fight a dog. I had interfered in a dog fight to protect a smaller dog from at furious dog who was tearing him to pieces, and the large dog immediately attacked me. He bit my hands in different places, but finally I succeeded in getting him by the loose skin on either side of his head. It was near a water

ing trough, and I was able to lift the dog over the watering trough and put his head in the water until I got him thoroughly under my control. Had it not been for the watering trough I do not know how the fight would have ended. But my policy was to get a firm hold on each side of the dog's head and hold it, and if necessary to choke him by putting my knee on his throat.

But I did not set out to outline the best way to fight a dog. The best way to prevent a fight is to pay no attention to the dog.

I have certainly met some very fiendish dogs in my life, when entering I have strange houses.

encountered them even in the night, when there was no one at home. Many times I certainly thought I should be attacked. stuck to my policy of paying no attention, walking toward the house, knocking on the door, and acting exactly as if I were the owner of the place.

I try, however, to keep such a relation to the dog that I can see him all the time. If he sneaks in behind me I alter my course enough so that I can see what he is doing. Once I had a dog snap at my heels, but he did no injury. Ever since that time I try to keep the dog in sight.

It is a good thing to carry a stick whenever such an exposure is necessary. I always carry a heavy cane. I do not threaten the dog with it in any manner, but I swing it in a perfectly careless way, and always between myself and the dog. If the dog does get behind me, I merely drop my hand behind me, swinging the cane backwards and forwards, but never looking at the dog, apparently paying no attention to him whatever.

I am sure this has saved me from a great many encounters with dogs. I was brought up in a community where cross dogs were the rule. It was an obscure farming community, an Irish settlement. Most of these people built their houses back from the road ten to fifty rods. The dog was supposed to be the guardian of the house. Each man tried to have a dog a little more savage than his neigh

Is Fear Stronger than Reason?

bor. The farmer was proud of a dog that could whip any other dog in the neighborhood, and he seemed to be pleased if the dog made it dangerous for the neighbor to approach the house. Running errands for my parents frequently took me to such houses, and later other business. I never had a dog bite me but the once above referred to, although it was very common for people to get bitten by dogs.

To stop and parley with a dog, either in a friendly way or a threatening way, is a great mistake. It is simply the best way to invite an encounter. An ordinary dog resents the friendly overtures of a stranger. Even a pet dog on its mistress' lap will often reject proffered friendship on the part of strangers. Any hesitation or unusual conduct only adds to the dog's distrust and hostility. Go right on as if you were the dog's master and had a right to be where you are, and the dog will soon recognize your assumption as valid and give you. no further heed.

I think this is a very important subject. The dangerous effect of dog bites has become so grossly exaggerated in these days by the hydrophobia scares in

493

vented by health boards, that a dog bite has become a serious affair.

Of course there is actually a little risk in being bitten by a dog. It is an ugly wound, heals very slowly, and is apt to become a poison wound. There is a remote possibility of hydrophobia, about one chance in a million. But the fear of hydrophobia is so great that a dog bite should be avoided if possible.

Whenever a person gets bitten by a watch dog it is frequently, if not always, directly due to the manner of the one bitten. The slightest indication of fear or want of self-control, or any exhibition of anger or resentment, is almost certain to precipitate an encounter.

Kindness to dogs whenever opportunity offers is to be commended, of course. Kindness to all living creatures insures a certain amount of safety. But to attempt an exhibition of kindness under the stress of an unexpected or sudden encounter with a dog, is certainly futile and perhaps may prove fatal. It would be a very chicken-hearted and mildmannered dog indeed that could be instantly placated in such a manner.

A dog will recognize you as his master if you act as if you were his master.

J

Shall We Control by Fear?

By FLORINDA TWICHELL, 1510 Wood St., Wheeling, W. Va.

UST how far the fear of punishment, or of the consequences of wrong doing, ought to enter into plans for the betterment of individuals or society, I cannot tell. It is certain that in the development of the highest type of character, these factors have been largely eliminated.

The ideal way, of course, is to make the individual so thoroughly good that he will have no affinity for evil. This would be as true of the moral nature as are the great chemical principles in physics. Could this plan of character building be fully carried out, reformers and rescue workers would find nothing to do. It is probably a fact that were the physical nature built up by observance of true

hygienic principles, it would have little affinity for disease; in fact, it would be able, to a great extent, to resist it, and doctors would find little to do.

But vice has fastened itself on a large part of the human family in some degree, and the world is full of sick people, chronic invalids, and, in fact, the majority of people are more or less sick. We have present conditions to deal with. So comes the question of prohibition of certain things, of cutting off the influences of physical and moral evil, till there is a chance to build on a right foundation. I hear in the thunderings of Sinai a "Thou shalt not," that has not fully ceased to be needed. We will take up the subject of the so-called social evil.

There is no question but that this vice has been stamped out of individual lives by the cultivation of pure and noble thoughts and high ideals. Yet, how far the fear of the consequences of wrong doing holds and restrains people is a question worthy of consideration.

It is a trite saying, "Women are better than men and we must expect them to live more virtuous lives." I believe men are no worse than women, only as generations of false teaching and the attitude of society toward them have made them so. It is true the consequences of sexual license fall more upon women than men, fall in such a way that they bring social disgrace and ruin. The fear of this has undoubtedly a restraining influence on a young woman's conduct and throws around her a safeguard. On the other hand, the absence of all fear of consequences has had a licentious influence upon men.

Fear is not the highest motive, yet in the absence of a higher, it serves a good purpose. In fact there is a close relation between sexual vices and their relative consequences. These vices are not sins from fundamentally wicked motives, but from the results that must of necessity follow promiscuous and illicit relations.

Most mothers nowadays have had some teaching and advice in regard to telling their children at an early age the sacred

T

truths of their being, and fortifying them against the knowledge that might come from impure sources. This is right, but I believe the important fact of the possibility of their becoming fathers and mothers out of wedlock should be plainly taught. In the absence of a better controlling influence it will do much to restrain and protect young people.

Scores of little girls between the ages of twelve and fifteen, come to our Florence Crittenton Rescue Homes to become mothers. In many cases these little girls knew nothing of what might result from the act into which they had been led, often against their will. It has often been proven to have been the result of intercourse between boys and girls of the same family. The truth put very strongly might have saved most of these boys and girls, through fear.

I would teach them the great wrong of illegitimate father and motherhood, but I would try also to instill a great, great fear of it, or of incurring venereal disease. I would teach it as I would teach children to shun poisonous plants. In the latter case I would not want to build up an appetite for wholesome fruits. I would teach that poison kills.

The delicious blackberry and the deadly night-shade grow side by side, looking equally tempting. We do not wait until the child can reason, we simply bring the old law "Thou Shalt Not."

The Hindu Medical Profession and Practice.

By PRAMATHA NATH DEY, Calcutta, India, 981 Oak
Street, Columbus, Ohio.

HE HEALING art is the noblest art that man has ever invented for man. But it is doubtful whether it has received its due share of meed in the west, for is it not the "killing" general more applauded than the "saving" physician-the man who has made short work of a thousand lives than the man who has saved as many? But in India there is a different story. The healing science is regarded as divine and forms part of the sacred books. Nor is the minister of this angelic art cast away into the depth of

oblivion-his loving memory is treasured in the minds of the people, and his healing exploits form legends and are handed down from generation to generation. Who does not remember in Bengal with love and reverence the name of Ganga Prasad Sen, who flourished in Calcutta in the early part of the nineteenth century and gallantly held his own against the inroad of a formidable rival from the west?

This faith and reverence of the people is not, in the least, misplaced. The medical profession in India is not me

The Hindu as a Physician

chanical nor mercenary. Its blessings are within the easy reach of all, rich and poor. The hoary aristocracy into which the profession of medicine has grown has for its motto: Noblesse Oblige, and no other nobility in India is more willing to discharge its noble obligations than the nobility of the physician. His hospitable door is open to the sick and needy, not only for free advice, but for free medicine. He is not helped by the state, but has to help himself against the state-aided institutions of outlandish medicine. His benevolent services are, on the other hand, amply rewarded by his rich patients. The medical aristocracy is, however, one of the wealthiest classes in India.

It

The aristocracy of medical profession is doing splendid service to India. It is from them that we have got our best physicians. That thorough insight, that masterly power of diagnosis and prescription, cannot be acquired in a four or five years' course in the college, but comes natural to a child whose forefathers are physicians for generations together. Besides, those humanitarian virtues which are necessary, not mere, accidental, embellishments to the medical profession, are to be found in more abundance in the son of the aristocracy than the otherwise trained physician. Yet every son of the aristocracy is not necessarily the ideal physician, while there are good. efficient physicians outside the aristocracy, and their number is legion. The aristocracy is an ennobling influence in the land, infusing the whole profession with its classic idea of medical ethics.

There are many systems of medicine in India, great and small. The "Ayur veda”—life-knowledge is the predominant system, supported by a rich aristocracy. There is no jealousy between system and system, one respecting the other, unlike that among Allopathy and Homeopathy and other "pathies." India is the land of toleration. The fire of inquisition was never kindled there and even the splendid systems of theism and atheism were allowed to "grow in beauty side by side." No wonder that different systems of medicine, humanitarian as

495

they are in their mission, should find in India a welcome home full of harmony and peace, each fulfilling its function in the economy of Nature.

The Hindu system does not deal in deadly drugs or deadly weapons. The Hindu physician culls his medicine mostly from Nature's garden. His preparations are as a rule not poisonous. The superstructure of medical philosophy in India is mainly based upon the fact that so-called disease is the outward manifestation of the healing process Nature is carrying on within to cure the injured part, and that the function of medicine is to help on that natural process, and nothing more.

Similia similibus curantur and contraria contraribus curantur are not unknown to the Hindu medical science, but seem to be made use of only in a very few instances. The sanscrit aphorism same samat, bi-same bi-samat, means the same things-like cures like, unlike cures unlike. Bisha-prayoga-the application of poison-is very rare, and made by most experienced and expert physicians only in critical cases where the hope of life is almost given up.

The Hindus are not believers in the horrors of surgery. Sushruta, one of the highest classical authorities, is said to have treated of surgery in some of his works, but nobody cares to utilize them. Anyhow surgery, native or foreign, is not welcome to the genius of the nation.

The Hindu medicine may be slow in operation, but works a radical cure and leaves no after-effect like quinine. Surely, the method of curing a disease by creating a contrary disease, makes the bodily system all the more weak, a double weakness which exposes the convalescent patient to the attack of new disease, and which must be left in the hands of Nature to heal up in her gentle process. aim of Hindu medicine is, as stated before, to help Nature in her benevolent work. The Hindu medicine is the panacea for all the ills that originate in blood corruption-such as syphilis and gonorrhea, which are thought by western physicians as incurable. Of course, the Hindu medical science has not yet

The

been able to find out sovereign remedies for those ailments of foreign origincholera and plague-which British rule has brought in its train.

The medical practice in India received a rude shock at the hands of western civilization. The system of education, which the Englishmen have introduced into the country, in place of the good old system, is the most effectual, scientific method of English vandalism in India. In the early days of British rule, young

men, intoxicated with the tincture of English education, only learned to hate all things Hindu, and imitate all the vices of the English-intemperance and excess. Among other things, the socalled educated class fell an easy victim to the imported, cheap, slow poison which passed for new medicine. They were the worst sufferers, as their systems were not used to that poison. As a matter of course the Hindu medicine lost not a little. An impending catastrophe seemed to be hanging over her head. Luckily a tide of healthy reaction has already set in for the last quarter of a century and the old system of medicine,

I

like her sister institutions, is gaining her predominance, though she may not be able to drive out of the land the western rival which means to stay. Many a Hindu physician, graduated in western medical science, is now practicing indigenous medicine, instead of exotic medicine.

Man, tired of the world of artificiality, with which he surrounded himself, is

coming back to Nature. In his sickness he will seek those who profess to help Nature in her healing process, and the Hindu science of medicine, perfected by Saints and Seers, will be universally regarded as the noblest friend of Nature. The horrors of surgery will be over and modeled and reconstructed on the prinall poisonous systems of medicine reciples espoused by this eldest sister of all healing sciences.

Oriental scholarship is busy in exploring the hidden treasure of medical lore in India. The splendid results of recent researches are most reassuring. What a heavenly destiny awaits this simple child of Nature!

KILLING CATTLE.

IN THE Chicago Examiner, of June 2, the Medical Milk Commissioners held a meeting in that city in connection with the meeting of the American Medical Association. The meeting was held June 2, at Chicago Beach Hotel, and was principally occupied in outlining plans for future legislation. Dr. E. C. Schroeder, of Washington, said:

"There is enough tuberculosis in the cattle of this country to infect the whole world, and it is probable that the passage of drastic laws will be agitated at the next session of Congress."

That is to say, these doctors are proposing to kill more and more herds of cattle, which furnish the meat and milk supply of this country.

Of course, no sane person can object to stringent laws that were intended to prevent the use of diseased cattle for

food. On general principles, such meat ought not to be used. Not that there would be any danger of acquiring the disease which the slaughtered animal might happen to have, but because diseased meat is repugnant to the senses, and doubtless unwholesome in many

ways.

But the legislation which is proposed by the above remarks of Dr. Schroeder, has little or nothing to do with preventing the use of diseased meat for public consumption. This is not what they are busy about, at all.

A farmer might kill a sick cow and sell it for meat under the very noses of these doctors without any fear of interference, if only so the sickness which the cow had was not due to what they call tuberculosis.

If a medical inspection of herds of cattle was made for the purpose of weed

« PreviousContinue »