If the cocain habit can be formed as unconsciously as this, there should be little difficulty in treating it. It is not a profound change in the organism, but only a habit. It is not the habit itself that is hard to break, but the effects [{711}] upon the nervous system of the patient are such as to create a series of symptoms that can only be soothed by the drug. It is these symptoms of depression, irritation, sleeplessness, lack of appetite, constipation and the rest that it is the physician's duty to treat in order to help the patient. The patient breaks the habit by his will-power when properly persuaded and when it is made clear to him that it is neither so difficult as he thought, nor is he so likely to fail in the matter as he has imagined, and as has perhaps been suggested to him even by physicians. The mental treatment consists in making him realize that he can do it and that if he wants to get rid of his habit he must do it for himself. With this must come the assurance that every annoying symptom will be met, that he need not recur to his favorite drug for this purpose, that his appetite will be gradually restored and that, though perhaps for a week he will have considerable inconvenience to bear, after that it will be plain sailing. Usually three days can be set as the term at which his craving ceases to be so disturbing as to make the possibility of his relapsing into the habit a positive danger. As in alcoholic and sex habits, the patient to be helped in breaking the habit should be seen once a day at least, usually oftener. If he can be made to understand that whenever the old tendency seems about to get the upper hand is the time to see his physician, and if something physical as well as moral is done for him, the breaking of the habit is comparatively simple.
This method of treatment looks too simple to be quite credible to those who have so often tried and failed in the cure of drug habits. It is not the doctor, however, who fails, but the patient. We cannot put new wills into a patient, but we can so brace up even an old and tottering will as to make it possible for the worst victims of drug habits to reform. The doctor, too, easily becomes discouraged. He has not confidence enough in his own methods to make assurance doubly sure for the patient as to his cure. This is what many of the pretended specific purveyors of drug habit cures have as their principal stock in trade. They assure patients with absolute confidence, while the physician only too often says the same thing, but half-heartedly. A half-hearted physician makes a hesitant patient, and success is then very dubious from the beginning. Every patient can be cured. They may relapse, but then they can be cured again. This is the essence of the psychotherapy of drug habits, but it is also the only successful element in any treatment of the drug habit that is really effective. Specifics come and go. Sure cures cease to have their effect. The only really effective element in any cure is the absolute trust of the patient.
In his "Drugs and the Drug Habit" (Methuen, London) Dr. Harrington Sainsbury, Senior Physician to the Royal Free Hospital of London, has emphasized all these points that can only be touched on very briefly here. He has called particular attention to the fact that the victim of one drug habit is rather prone to acquire another if by any chance he should once begin to take another habit-forming drug. The original drug habit has broken down the will. It is not so much the craving for a particular drug as the lack of will power that proves unfortunate for the patient. He suggests "incidentally, if this explanation hold good, it proves the solidarity of the will that it works as a whole and not by compartments." He has dwelt on recoveries from the most discouraging depths and insists "we must teach that [{712}] no one is ever so enslaved by a habit as to be incapable of relief—this alone is right teaching, justifiable moreover by records well substantiated of recoveries from desperate plights."
Heredity and Unfavorable Suggestion.—As to the suggestion, sometimes encountered, of the influence of heredity and its all-powerful effect in making it practically impossible for the son of a man who has taken drugs to keep from doing the same thing, we must recall very emphatically here the principles discussed elsewhere. So far as concerns heredity, opium and the other drugs are exactly in the same position as alcohol in their effect upon the human race. Instead of being justified in saying that by heredity individuals of succeeding generations are rendered more susceptible to them, just the opposite is true and, if anything, an immunity is produced. This is not only racial and general but is personal and actual. In recent years we have come to realize that individuals born of tuberculous parents who care for themselves properly are much better able to resist the invasion of the tubercle bacilli than those who come from stocks that were never affected by the disease. They are the patients who, in spite of the fact that their disease reaches an advanced stage, sometimes live on for years with proper care. Just this is true for drug addictions so far as we know anything about it. The whole subject is as yet obscure, but heredity rather favors than hurts the patient in these cases.
Hereditary Resistance.—Instead of being discouraged by the fact that his father took a drug to excess and that therefore he is weaker against this than other people, a man should rather be encouraged by the thought that a certain amount of resistance to the craving has probably been acquired by the particular line of cells through which his personality is manifested. Dr. Archdall Reid has said that "the facts concerning opium are very similar" (to those that concern alcohol). Then he continues:
That narcotic has been used extensively in India for several centuries. It was introduced by the English into China about two centuries ago. Quite recently the Chinese have taken it to Burma, to various Polynesian Islands, and to Australia. There is no evidence that the use of opium has caused any race to deteriorate. Indeed it happens that the finest races in India are most addicted to its use. According to the evidence given before the late Royal Commission on Opium, the natives of India never or very rarely take it to excess. When first introduced into China it was the cause of a large mortality; but to-day most Chinamen, especially in the littoral provinces, take it in great moderation. On the other hand. Burmans, Polynesians and Australian natives take opium in such excess and perish of it in such numbers that their European governors are obliged to forbid the drug to them, though the use of it is permitted to foreign immigrants to their countries. In exactly the same way alcohol is forbidden to Australians and Red Indians in places where it is permitted to white men.
After-Cures.—I have said so much about the after-cure of alcoholism that applies directly to drug addictions also, that it does not seem necessary to repeat it here. Patients must be warned that if they become overtired, if they lose sleep, if they are subject to much excitement, if they put themselves in conditions of anxiety and worry, if any form of recurrent pain develops—headache, toothache, stomach-ache—they are likely to be tempted to take up their old habit. If they are in a position where they can easily get the drug it is almost inevitable that something will happen to make them feel that [{713}] they are justified in taking one or two doses and from this to the reestablishment of the habit is only a small step. Often these patients need a change of occupation. Some of them are over-occupied, some of them have not enough to do. In either case it is the doctor's duty to know enough about his patient to be able to give directions. We do not treat a drug addiction with the hope of curing it, but we treat a patient suffering from a particular drug habit and we try so to modify that patient's life that after we have succeeded in getting him away from his habit, which is never difficult, he will not relapse into it. The after-cure is the more important of the two.
CHAPTER III
SUICIDE
In spite of the gradual increase of comfort in life and its wide diffusion—far beyond what people enjoyed in the past—there has been a steady progressive increase in the number of suicides in recent years. It is as if people found life less worth living the more of ease and convenience there was in it. This increase in suicide is much greater (over three times in the last twenty years) than the increase in the population. Surprising as it may seem, prosperity always brings an addition to the number of suicides. Stranger still, during hard times the number of suicides decreases to a noteworthy degree. It is not those who are suffering most from physical conditions who most frequently commit suicide. Our suicides come, as a rule, from among the better-to-do classes of people. While suicide might seem to be quite beyond the province of the physician, it is a duty of the psychotherapeutist to prevent not only the further increase of suicides in general but to save particular patients from themselves in this matter. A careful study of the conditions as they exist, moreover, will show that he can accomplish much—more than is usually thought—and that it is as much a professional obligation to do so as, by the application of hygienic precautions and regulations, to lessen disease and suffering of all kinds and prevent death.
The same two modes of preventive influence that we have over disease in general can be applied to suicide. The physician can modify the mental attitude in individual cases and thus save people from themselves and then he can, by his influence in various ways upon public opinion, lessen the death rate from suicide. For this purpose, just as with regard to infectious disease, it is important for him to appreciate the social and individual conditions that predispose to suicide, as well as the factors that are more directly causative. The more he studies the more will he be convinced that what we have to do with in suicide is a mental affliction not necessarily inevitable in its results and that may be much influenced by suggestion. Indeed, unfavorable suggestion is largely responsible for the increase in suicide that has been seen in recent years. Favorable suggestion might be made not only to stop the increase, but actually to reduce the suicide rate. For this purpose it is important to know just what are the conditions and motives that predispose to suicide and, above all, to realize that it is not the result of insufferable pain [{714}] or anguish, but rather of the concentration of mind on some comparatively trivial ailment, or exaggeration of dread with regard to the consequences of physical or moral ills.