Transcriber’s notes: The text of this eBook has been preserved as in the original. Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by *asterisks*. New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain. WHY DO WE DIE? THE ROAD TO A HEALTHY OLD AGE BY T. BODLEY SCOTT, M.R.C.S. (Eng.). _Author of “The Religion of a Doctor.”_ SECOND EDITION. Crown 8vo, cloth, *5/-* net. Third Impression. “In this book an attempt is made to demonstrate both to the medical profession and the laity that premature decay, physical and mental, may within limits be prevented.... We have perused the book with pleasure, and cordially recommend it to our readers.”--_Medical Times._ “We can cordially commend this work to readers of advancing years, whether medical or lay. To the former it presents an old subject in a new way, and to the latter will convey some very wholesome material for thought.”--_Lancet._ T. Fisher Unwin Ltd. London. WHY DO WE DIE? BY T. BODLEY SCOTT M.R.C.S. Eng., L.R.C.P. Ed. T. FISHER UNWIN LTD. LONDON: ADELPHI TERRACE _First published in 1921_ (_All rights reserved_) PREFACE The attitude and the pretensions of the “medicine man” may perhaps have had some value in the days when the multitude was full of superstition and had no scientific knowledge, but we hope those days of ignorance have passed, though we fear superstition remains. The “medicine man” was a more or less clever poseur, who used his small amount of knowledge to conceal his very large amount of ignorance. The medical profession, till the more recent years, cannot be entirely acquitted of the same sort of dishonesty, but a new era of open-mindedness and honesty has, I think, begun. To get any real success in the treatment of disease, we must get confidences, not one-sided, but on both sides, between ourselves and our patients, and so alone shall we get that co-operation without which there can be little expectation of success. At present we see this success more in the wonderful results of psychotherapy than in the treatment of objective disease, but I firmly maintain that mutual trust will prove its great value in this also. Is it reasonable to expect that men of equal learning and intelligence as ourselves will accept our treatment and advice without knowing the rationale of them? Should we do it in the case of legal or religious matters? Our patients know as well as we do that medical knowledge is in a continuous state of flux and that as yet we are nowhere near finality. The dazzling garment of omniscience will be discovered to be the somewhat shop-worn cloak of ignorance. A wise and observant patient can help us enormously in the investigation of a difficult problem in disease, for the subjective symptoms are often as important as the objective. What the eye does not see may be there all the time.