VOL. III. PHILADELPHIA, SEPTEMBER 28, 1831.

No. 2.

BENEVOLENCE, if not guided by knowledge, is often the source of deplorable errors; and hence, the obvious duty of every man, whether in his individual capacity, as a member of society, or in his situation of legislator or ruler, is, to study all the bearings of the opinions which he inculcates, or of the law he is instrumental in framing. Purity of intention may prevent us regarding, or treating with asperity a person whose conduct brings his fellow creatures to ruin; but this excuse is of little avail to the sufferers, whether their minds have been tainted by seductive immorality, or their bodies destroyed by the material agents of disease.

It argues an excessively limited intellect, not to refuse, or a depraved state of feeling, knowing the general effects, and yet to grant a request, or to adopt a line of conduct, gratifying to the individual desiring it, or pleasing to the interested few, in a particular emergency, but adverse to the honest efforts, and permanent rights of the many; in fact, opposed to the true interests of the community. It is a conduct unsound in morals, unphilosophical in logic, unjust in law, and opposed to true republicanism in government, that the present contingent convenience of a few, is to justify measures which a more enlarged view of the subject would show to be productive of great, if not permanent, evil to the many. As amenable to this censure, we may instance physicians, who consent to foster the pretensions of quacks, and lend themselves to the sale of quack medicines; also physicians, writers, and others, who, to humour the false appetites and illiberal VOL. III.-3

19

prejudices of a limited circle in which they move, are opposed to any plans of reform in dietetics or medical police, which has for its object, and on good evidence will unquestionably have the effect, to preserve the health of the community, and prevent numerous diseases and moral ills.

We are afraid that they are amenable, also, to this censure, though their intentions be pure, who cry out contagion, urge rigid quarantine regulations on the appearance of an epidemic disease, without having duly possessed themselves of all the circumstances attending its origin and mode of transmission. It is not a sufficient justification of their advice and precautions to allege, that if they err, it is on the safe side; and thus should the disease be contagious, the preventive measures suggested by their fears, will have a salutary effect. This we can show to be a limited and hasty view of the subject. We will suppose a person to be labouring under a violent disease, marked by symptoms of extreme complexity and danger. The timidly cautious may think it proper to intimate to the friends and others in the house, that the disease is contagious, and that they had better expose themselves as little as possible to it. Now we would ask, whether this person will have the same attention paid to his wants, the same soothing kindnesses displayed to him, as before this caution?-assuredly he will not. Many of his friends will suddenly absent themselves; others will approach with a look of evident alarm, and hurry away soon as they possibly can, compatibly with appearances. The hired attendants will do their duty imperfectly and reluctantly; drinks and medicines will be often withheld rather than their administration should oblige one to approach close to the bed-side of the patient. And what will be the effects of this conduct on the mind of the latter? None other can be expected but irritation at first, and despondency afterwards; and of course, diminished chances of recovery.

On the friends in the house, the influence of the fear of contagion, will also be very great. Fear is one of the strongest depressing powers, and predisposes more than any other cause whatever, to an attack of epidemical disease. If to this cause, constantly in operation, be added loss of rest, the chances are multiplied tenfold in favour of some one or more of the friends of the patient becoming sick, themselves. The first opinion of contagion will now seem to be corroborated by this last case. The fears of the other members of the family or persons in the house, will be aggravated beyond measure-their precautions will increase, and of course the sick will have to encounter more and more neglect.

We have but to apply what is here supposed of a single family, to a part of a city, or to a city entire, or a particular district of country, and we can imagine what must be the sufferings, not only of the sick, neglected at home, and not approached from

abroad, but also of the people generally, of the suspected district; they are shunned if they go out for a requisite supply of provisions, meat, vegetables, and fruit; and no person will run the risk of catching the disease, by bringing these necessary articles to their houses. All that is required to complete the scene of misery, is for government to formally sanction and enact, under heavy penalties, the entire separation of the sickly city from the surrounding country, and give the support of law to the already cruel operation of ignorant fear. Pestilence will now stalk abroad, and death carry off his victims at every hour; no change of air is allowed to the sick, no change of scene, or recreation, or of diet, to their friends and fellow citizens generally; and thus the precautions taken to guard against the spread of disease, insure the continuation of its destructive ravages; and the hundreds and thousands of those who descend to the grave-but no, they cannot even obtain burial-these hundreds and thousands, we say, who perish during the season of epidemic disease, are considered proof positive of its malignity and pestilential character. The deaths caused by cruel ignorance, are, by a still more cruel mockery, cited as evidences of forethought, and of the wisdom of prophecy. But after all, was the disease really contagious? Often times it has been proved not to be so, after all the horrors above described have been enacted, under the supposition that it was. Will it be adequate justification for those who enforced the cruel preventive measures, as they thought them, to say that they meant it for the best-that they kept on the safe side?

THE RUSSIAN CHOLERA.

In the account of the East India cholera contained in our last number, we traced the progress of the epidemic from its origin, in 1817 at Jessore, until its entrance into Astracan, in September 1823; at which latter place its progress appears to have been arrested by the approach of winter, in the month of November.. Subsequently to the year 1823, the disease pursued its destructive career through China and various parts of India, and towards the close of 1826, after desolating several cities in Mongolia, it reached the frontiers of Siberia; its future progress was, however, checked for a time, by the prevalence of a strong north wind, during the month of February ensuing. In Persia the disease re-appeared several times; visiting, in October 1829, the city of Teheran, which is the residence of the royal family; but with the setting in of cold weather, as had previously been the case, its ravages were here also suspended.

Towards the middle of June 1830, the cholera again broke out in the provinces of Mazanderan and Shirvan, upon the southern

prejudices of a limited circle in which they move, are opposed to any plans of reform in dietetics or medical police, which has for its object, and on good evidence will unquestionably have the effect, to preserve the health of the community, and prevent numerous diseases and moral ills.

We are afraid that they are amenable, also, to this censure, though their intentions be pure, who cry out contagion, urge rigid quarantine regulations on the appearance of an epidemic disease, without having duly possessed themselves of all the circumstances attending its origin and mode of transmission. It is not a sufficient justification of their advice and precautions to allege, that if they err, it is on the safe side; and thus should the disease be contagious, the preventive measures suggested by their fears, will have a salutary effect. This we can show to be a limited and hasty view of the subject. We will suppose a person to be labouring under a violent disease, marked by symptoms of extreme complexity and danger. The timidly cautious may think it proper to intimate to the friends and others in the house, that the disease is contagious, and that they had better, expose themselves as little as possible to it. Now we would ask, whether this person will have the same attention paid to his wants, the same soothing kindnesses displayed to him, as before this caution?-assuredly he will not. Many of his friends will suddenly absent themselves; others will approach with a look of evident alarm, and hurry away soon as they possibly can, compatibly with appearances. The hired attendants will do their duty imperfectly and reluctantly; drinks and medicines will be often withheld rather than their administration should oblige one to approach close to the bed-side of the patient. And what will be the effects of this conduct on the mind of the latter? None other can be expected but irritation at first, and despondency afterwards; and of course, diminished chances of recovery.

On the friends in the house, the influence of the fear of contagion, will also be very great. Fear is one of the strongest depressing powers, and predisposes more than any other cause whatever, to an attack of epidemical disease. If to this cause, constantly in operation, be added loss of rest, the chances are multiplied tenfold in favour of some one or more of the friends of the patient becoming sick, themselves. The first opinion of contagion will now seem to be corroborated by this last case. The fears of the other members of the family or persons in the house, will be aggravated beyond measure-their precautions will increase, and of course the sick will have to encounter more and more neglect.

We have but to apply what is here supposed of a single family, to a part of a city, or to a city entire, or a particular district of country, and we can imagine what must be the sufferings, not only of the sick, neglected at home, and not approached from

abroad, but also of the people generally, of the suspected district; they are shunned if they go out for a requisite supply of provisions, meat, vegetables, and fruit; and no person will run the risk of catching the disease, by bringing these necessary articles to their houses. All that is required to complete the scene of misery, is for government to formally sanction and enact, under heavy penalties, the entire separation of the sickly city from the surrounding country, and give the support of law to the already cruel operation of ignorant fear. Pestilence will now stalk abroad, and death carry off his victims at every hour; no change of air is allowed to the sick, no change of scene, or recreation, or of diet, to their friends and fellow citizens generally; and thus the precautions taken to guard against the spread of disease, insure the continuation of its destructive ravages; and the hundreds and thousands of those who descend to the grave-but no, they cannot even obtain burial-these hundreds and thousands, we say, who perish during the season of epidemic disease, are considered proof positive of its malignity and pestilential character. The deaths caused by cruel ignorance, are, by a still more cruel mockery, cited as evidences of forethought, and of the wisdom of prophecy. But after all, was the disease really contagious? Often times it has been proved not to be so, after all the horrors above described have been enacted, under the supposition that it was. Will it be adequate justification for those who enforced the cruel preventive measures, as they thought them, to say that they meant it for the best-that they kept on the safe side?

THE RUSSIAN CHOLERA.

In the account of the East India cholera contained in our last number, we traced the progress of the epidemic from its origin, in 1817 at Jessore, until its entrance into Astracan, in September 1823; at which latter place its progress appears to have been arrested by the approach of winter, in the month of November.. Subsequently to the year 1823, the disease pursued its destructive career through China and various parts of India, and towards the close of 1826, after desolating several cities in Mongolia, it reached the frontiers of Siberia; its future progress was, however, checked for a time, by the prevalence of a strong north wind, during the month of February ensuing. In Persia the disease re-appeared several times; visiting, in October 1829, the city of Teheran, which is the residence of the royal family; but with the setting in of cold weather, as had previously been the case, its ravages were here also suspended.

Towards the middle of June 1830, the cholera again broke out in the provinces of Mazanderan and Shirvan, upon the southern