Intestinal ills : $b Chronic constipation, indigestion, autogenetic poisons, diarrhea, piles, etc. Also auto-infection, auto-intoxication, anemia, emaciation, etc. due to proctitis and colitisJamison, Alcinous B. (Alcinous Burton)
Science
Intestinal ills : $b Chronic constipation, indigestion, autogenetic poisons, diarrhea, piles, etc. Also auto-infection, auto-intoxication, anemia, emaciation, etc. due to proctitis and colitis
The _sixth_ objection is that the use of the enema will weaken the
bowels, which are already too "weak" to expel their contents. "Atony,
paralysis, fatty degeneration of the gut, are bad enough," say these
objectors, "without having an enema increase their uselessness."
Diagnosis wrong and objection groundless.
Distend and contract an organ for a short time two or three times a
day, and it will gain in strength from the exercise. Every one knows
that this is the case. What more gentle means of exercising the large
intestines than by the enema?
But the truth of the matter is that in all cases of proctitis and
constipation the diseased portion of the gut is too active in its
muscular movements, contracting spasmodically, as it does, at even the
suggestion or suspicion of feces near it. Every impulse of the bowels
above the constricted section to force the feces down through the
closed bore only intensifies the spasmodic action and increases the
muscular obstruction, compelling the victim to resort to some one of
the many drastic means of relief.
The enema does no more than kindly to dilate the constricted region,
which, when dilated, evokes a harmonious concerted action of all the
nerves and muscles to pass along and down the burden of feces, which,
without the aid of a flood of water, they had been incapable of moving,
and would have had to leave to poison the system.
The _seventh_ objection is quite naive: "Inasmuch as the Indians of
this country had no use for the enema, why should we resort to it?"
The all-sufficient answer to this objection is that the Indians lived a
natural life, while ours is artificial. Much can be said on this point,
but the reader is surely rational enough to follow out the distinction
suggested. Our lives are much more important than were the lives of the
aborigines of this country, and our "demands of Nature" are more
exigent. If your life is of no greater value than theirs, for leisure's
sake don't use the enema! You will be taking too much trouble. It
really should seem that the cleanliness of the skin and mucous
membrane, the care we take of our bodies, is an indication and measure
of our sense of refinement. An ancient Scripture hath it: "Let those
that are filthy, be filthy still." It all depends upon how you wish to
be classed--with the filthy or the cleanly.
The _eighth_ objection to be noted is the fear of "poking things"
(points of instruments) "into the rectum."
This looks like a real objection. No healthy nor even unhealthy organ,
for that matter, should be "abused." And what seems more likely to
cause it trouble than to poke a hard or soft rubber point or tube
through its vent in opposition to its bent or inclination? Still, the
muscles of the vent are strong, and they soon accommodate themselves to
the practice. Their slight disinclination is not to be considered
alongside of the relief and cure you effect by the use of the enema.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account