It is said on good authority that if a patient, at the end of five years, has been two years without symptoms or treatment, he may be guaranteed for marriage. Though he can never be wholly guaranteed from relapses in his own person. These, however, are considered noninfectious.
The cure of the disease depends upon the individual's environment, constitution and his habits, chiefly as regards alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol is considered the commonest and most active enemy of the patient's recovery. Men addicted to the use of alcohol are the most difficult to cure.
There seems to be no doubt that if the disease receives the proper treatment there is every hope for the individual to live a normal life. Fouriner, a French authority, says:
“Personally I could cite several hundred observations concerning syphilitic subjects who, after undergoing thorough treatment, have married and became fathers of healthy, good-looking children.” The question, then, to receive some attention is what means are available for the treatment of both syphilis and gonorrhoea.
Dr. Prince A. Morrow says: “Prompt curative treatment is not only in the interests of the patients themselves, but especially in the interests of the others they might infect. But everywhere we are confronted with this situation: There are no special hospitals for this class of diseases; few general hospitals receive them in the early, curable stage; still fewer have special venereal wards; even the dispensary services are not organized with special adaption to the needs of venereal cases; few have night classes, so that working people who go to the dispensary must lose half a day, which often means the sacrifice of their employment. As a consequence they resort to quacks or the use of nostrums (secret or quack medicines). They are not cured, but go on spreading the seeds of contagion.”
This is the condition as far as hospitals are concerned in the matter of venereal diseases. And in relation to private practice the average person's position is still more deplorable. Take, for example, the story of a girl who came under my care some years ago, after having suffered three years with the disease. She had been refused attendance in public hospitals in three different cities while she was working her way to New York. At different times she consulted physicians, only to learn that to be cured she must be treated regularly, and to be so treated would require money. Different estimates were quoted from $150 to $500 for treatment. As the amount of money left over after she had paid her expenses each week was never over $2, the possibility of a cure looked hopeless. She concluded to purchase patent medicines whenever she could, but her condition became worse, until she was picked up by a charitable organization, who cared for her until she died. When I saw her all her hair, eyebrows and eyelashes were gone, her nose and upper lip were almost entirely eaten away, most of her teeth were gone—in fact, to try to describe her condition would be almost impossible.
This is only one case, but there are thousands of syphilitics who are wandering around unable to pay the prices which the physician asks to treat this disease. The same can be said of gonorrhoea, and the same physician who clamors against the prices of the so-called quack, forgets that the price he asks of the public is exorbitant in the extreme. So the only course for the individual to take, if he cannot pay the price, is to remain a menace to society. The physician assumes no responsibility toward society to find out if the patient is under treatment elsewhere; the patient can do as he pleases with his disease when he closes the doctor's door. This, then is the situation as regards society's attitude toward the venereal subject: Society seems to take a different attitude towards other contagious and infectious diseases, such as measles, chicken pox, diphtheria, etc. In these diseases, a physician has some responsibility toward society; he must report each case as it comes to his attention, to the Board of Health, who in turn assume some responsibility by isolating the disease.
If this is necessary in these comparatively simple diseases, how much more important should it be to register and isolate patients suffering from the venereal diseases.