The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-04-16
LIFE RULES.
A Great Deal OF Impractical Non
sence Written but tn Q Laws
or Health

sence Written b Dut tn g Laws
Cf Health.
Scientific American
A thoughtful writer obserI es! ait
realley seems sometimes as if HYGIENE
science were all wrong, and as if late
hours, much hard work done under
the gaslight and the smallest amount
of fresh air were the way to be healthy
II not wealthy and wise. Who lives
under more unhealthy conditions than
our legislators or the leading counsel
learned in the law2 But our states
men are in green old age at seventy
i've and lawyers are quite boylSh at
sixty; so, too are actors and actresses"
Our contemporary then goes on to
say: Sanitary guides should tell the
meaning of these things"
80 far we may presume to respond
to this appeal" replies q physician
IN the same journal. "We must bee
| allowed to point out, first, that their
is a fallacy in the inference that
| because members Of Congress, busy
counsel. and, perhaps, actors actresses,
live on in spite of the adverse influ-
ences of surroundings which are held
to be injurious to helth, therefore the
surroundings of their lives can not be
as injurious as they are suppose to
be. One of the earlist exploits in
| the applied science of statistics as
| brought to bear upon sanitary ques-
lions was the drawing of an inference
that, because the London night men,
who slept as they might by day, and
| spent the hours of darkness in emp
! tying cess-pools. were able, as class,
to claim a very low rate of mortality,
their mode of life and the work in
which they were engaged could not
be unhealthy. A good deal of excite
ment, we remember, was produced by
the delivery some forty years ago.
1t was forgotten that another point
of view was possible, and that, in truth.
none but the murder could live under
such conditions! So it is with mem
bers OF Congress, busy counsel, and &C
tors and actresses, The weakly
sensitive retire or die, or have the wit
not to enter into way of life which
must obviously prove unsuitable. All
the same time, we are quite prepared
TO meet our contemporary halt way
in his argument, though the Inference
with which he opens the debate is
obviously faulty. We think a great
deal Of impractical nonsense is talked
and written on the condition of helth
and we are quite sensible of the fact
that regimen and dieting may be-
carried too far. Practitioners and
those who set themselves up as apps
ties on sanitary science are too prone
measure other peoples corn by theii
; own bushel. For example, a phys
stefan OF surgeon may himself have
been too free liver-it is easier tC
preach than to practice-ard he mag
have become vegetarian just in tht
nick of time or with great advantage
to his health; but this is certainly DC
reason why he should spend the re-
sander of his daysin trying TO per
said others that yegetarianisln is
good or necessary for them also
Again, a medical man may have
miserably weak digestive faculty
and need to avoid certain dishes which
other folks can take, not only witt
impunity, but with benefit; but tina
is no reason why he should go abou
abusing and interdicting the thing
that disagree with him, while the!
agree perfectly well with the majority
OF mankind. By pushing dieting tt
the verge OF starvation, we are simpl,
pretending'to cure, not curing; WI
impose on ourselves and on those Wht
cOnflde in 0gr practice"