Dr. Stevens, who has used the treatment upon himself and patients for over twenty years, says that it in no wise interferes in his case with the normal movement of the bowels. To test it in this respect he has frequently discontinued its use for a week, with the result of a regular movement, as soon as enough fæcal matter had accumulated to demand it.
He recommends flushing every two or three days as a preventive of disease. For over twenty years he has practiced flushing upon himself as a precaution, and, although now between seventy and eighty years old, since beginning its use he has never known a day of sickness.
It is contended by some people, including a percentage of physicians (who should know better), that the frequent use of this treatment will so stretch the colon that it will remain permanently distended. This argument is so totally opposed to physiological law, to say nothing of experience and common sense, that it is almost laughable. The veriest tyro in the matter of exercise knows that exercise develops a muscle; that repeated flexion and extension of the arm, for instance, will strengthen the muscles of that limb, not cause them to lose their contractibility. All muscle fibres are alike in structure, except that some are voluntary, others involuntary, but that difference is simply due to the difference in the source of nerve supply. There is no reason that can be shown why the muscles of the colon should lose their elasticity through exercise in contra-distinction to all the other muscles of the body, since they are not subjected to any extraordinary strain, the extreme tension only lasting for a few seconds, while as soon as the water commences to escape, relaxation follows, and, in addition, heat acts as a stimulant. The objection does not even merit serious consideration.
“It operates against peristalsis,” we are told. I deny it, for the energy evinced by the intestine in expelling the water is proof of increased peristaltic vigor, if it is proof of anything. And even if it did suspend peristalsis for a few minutes, is it not a fact that other natural functions can be suspended for a much longer period, only to be resumed with unabated vigor?
Equally absurd, and destitute of foundation, in fact, is the objection frequently advanced that the washing of the interior surface of the colon is injurious; as it washes away the fluid that Nature secretes for the purpose of lubrication.
Where, in the name of common sense, do they get their authority for such a statement? Do they not know that such a contention is in direct opposition to physiological law? Does bathing the external surface of the body prevent the further excretion of perspiration; or bathing the eyes destroy the functions of the Meibomian glands? Does the drinking of water prevent any further discharge of saliva into the mouth, or of gastric juice into the stomach? If the washing away of a secretion destroyed the power of the secreting gland, human existence would be brief indeed.
The truth is, that not one in ten thousand has any practical knowledge of the subject. They may possess a smattering, and in the endeavor to make it show to advantage, they draw upon their imagination to supply the deficiency. On the other hand, I have been making this subject a constant study for the past twenty years, having had experience in thousands of cases, and, therefore, contend that my opinion is of more value than that of the average man—whether physician or layman—and is at least entitled to respectful consideration.
Whether the practice of the treatment is to be persisted in will, of course, depend upon the nature and habits of the patient. If the pernicious habits that caused the trouble are not abandoned, a constant resort to the treatment will be necessary. If the patient is naturally of a costive habit, and has thoroughly weakened his intestines by a reckless and indiscriminate use of cathartics, it will require a long persistence in reformed habits before the weakened bowels will have gained sufficient strength to fulfil their functions normally.