Thomas County cat. [volume] (Colby, Kan.) 1885-1891, 1885-11-12
EATING AND SICKNESS.
A Practice That Can Not Be Condemned
Too Strongly.

A Practice That Can Not Be Condemned
Too Strongly.
know of no more absurd and un.
physiological notion than that which
prevails in many, if not most commu-
mites, that one must take food when
sick, with no regard to the appetite.
the attending circumstances or the
state of the digestive powers. The
folly of this ought to be apparent, to
the more sensible class. when they
remember that the appetite is the
guide to food-taking, as this indicates
the waste of the body, this waste inn
peratlvely demanding food that may
be supplied. This should be appreci-
ated from the fact that this appetite is
increased by hard. active labor, wear
ing away the tissues, while inactivity,
mental and physical. reduces it, so that
not more than one-half of the food
needed by the active toiler can be
readily disposed of by the inactive. the
indolent.
In sickness there is but little activity,
but little waste of the tissues. conse-
quently. but little appetite. relatively.
Indeed, IN cases of acute diseases, as
fevers, inflammation and the like, as a
means of preventing harm from over
eating, the appetite is utterly destroyed.
as the first precautionary step. and, as
if to make safety dotbly certain. the
taste is taken away, that there shall be
no temptation, as matter of sensual in
diligence, to which is added, as very
decided precautionary measure, a nau
sea rem 7erng it quite certain that food
can not be relished. This, then. is q
very merciful arrangement, since TAX
ing food at such a time would tax the
digestive powers, aggravate the disease,
and, in extreme cases, might destroy
life. Indeed, the brutes either know
too much to eat when sick. or are so
controlled by their instincts that they
will not, since even the swine, very low
in the sca,e of creation, peremptorily
refuse to eat even the simple food taken
by them, naturally, when in health. In
acute diseases it is wholly unnatural to
take food, for both human beings and
brutes. since such food would not only
tax the digestive powers. but derange
the whole system. We may reasonably
infer that this arrangement is made on
the principle that, while in sickness, the
system has enough to do without a.
tending to the digestion of food.
But it is asked how one can be nour-
ished without food during the several
weeks in which the appetite is sus-
pended? That is plain. We are SO
made that. in such an emergency, the
system feeds upon its fat, ETC.. rs we
may see by the ..hollow cheek and
sunken eye" after the run of a fever"
during which it is by no means unusual
for the appetite to be suspended for five
or six weeks. Again, since the human
body is composed to a very great extent
of the three gases of air and water, and
since, in the absence of the appetite, 4
very urgent thirst is substituted, it is
plain to see how the system can be sus-
tanned, during the inactivity of fever,
by free use of water, cooling the body,
rapid breathing, when the carbon of the
body fats is added.
A still more conclusive argument
against eating in acute diseases is found
in the fact that the gastric juice is not
secreted at such a time, at least, in the
usual qualities, if at all, while it should
be plain that digestion can not proceed
without the digestive juices. Eating is
one thing: nourishment quite another.
1t may be impossible to be nourshed.
sufficiently, without eating, under or
binary circumstances, but it is possible
to eat and not be nourished, since we
are nourished by what is digested. not
by all that is eaten, for much may pass
undigested. Then, never eat without an
appetite. If this is foolishly done. nat
ure may, very wisely and merc;fully.
throw Off such food by vomiting. The
more we follow the dictates of nature
in these matters, the safer it is for Us,
and the more healthy we shall become.
DR.. Hdnnf02H. in Golden RnLe.