From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and Missionaries
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:46:42 GMT

young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:

>>>Rich Young writes:
>>>
>  Please note that the above question about a diabetics' sweet tooth is
>  quoted completely out of context.  Having said that, the following is
>  quoted from __The Merck Manual__, Fifteenth Edition, 1987, without
>  permission:
[lengthy passage from the Merck Manual here ommitted]

    Well, we know how very conservative this Merck manual
can be.  After all, it is published by Merck Sharp & Dohme
Research Laboratories and the chief and assistant editors
are employees of the same company.  I wouldn't expect a
major drug company to be overly enthusiastic about dietary
reforms.
 
     Of course, if such treatments were a matter of course
for physicians, then presumably such treatments for diabetes
would be listed.  Let us remember, however, that the Merck
manual is published for the general practitioner to provide
a quick reference of the established, conventional practice,
certainly, not the cutting edge stuff, nor, is it meant as
an exhaustive compendium of all possible treatments.  A
different view of how to treat certain medical problems
might well be found in a more advance nutritional or
specialized text on diabetes.  You've already received some
primary sources to that effect.  Here in Vancouver, a recent
newsletter from our local and conservative diabetes
association did in fact make a recommendation for a
reduction in meat consumption.
 
     Anyway, the Merck Manual is certainly a cut above
Science News in at least being a good secondary source (as
opposed to being a tertiary source), but it is far from
being representative of what is happening at the leading
edge or specialized texts of medical opinion, which is where
we expect will come change to todays established and
conventional practices.  In some ways, the dietary reforms
forwarded by vegetarianism is a cutting edge perspective, if
only by virtue of being advanced in a predominantly meat-
eating society that would simply discount this alternative
preventative health measure as "impractical".  Well, it is
only impractical if you refuse to give up this cultural
habit and adventitious conditioning of one's taste buds for
the greasy taste of meat.
 
     Now, it so happens that I too have a personal copy of
the 15th edition of the Merck manual, but I certainly don't
go citing passages religiously from this "pocket reference"
as if such citations are going to so simply resolve a
complex issue or nutritional debate.
 
     Lest you think that I am always being critical, permit
me to also state my appreciation about your info concerning
protein.  It is this kind of information that helps us
along, and I hope you would continue with more of those
positive contributions.  Assertions, however, about "plant
pain", or vegetarianism being like a religious cult, or this
is what the conventional Merck quick guide for the medical
practitioner says about diet, etc., are not at all very
helpful or informative for our forward movement on this
theme concerning vegetarianism.  Frankly, we vegetarians
have heard it all before, especially from people who would
simply and rudely dismiss our dietary choice ("you kill
plants, don't you!", "you're just fanatical food faddists!",
"my doctor says that you are wrong!", etc.).  Now, instead
of defending your own preference for still consuming meat,
if that is what partly motivates your quibbling with us
vegetarians, how about continuing to more often help us
along, in spite of your own dietary practices.  That would
indeed be magnanimity.
                                     ted