I take great pleasure in introducing to you as the first speaker of this afternoon a man interested in the Conservation movement from the standpoint of public health—Dr F. F. Wesbrook, Dean of the Medical Department of our State University—who will speak on "Life and Health as National Assets." I consider it one of the most important subjects of the Conservation movement. I take great pleasure in introducing Dean Wesbrook. (Applause)
Dean Wesbrook—Mr President, Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen: Short-sighted humanity fails to appreciate nature's gifts until threatened with their loss. This is true of even the greatest of her gifts, life itself. Although belated in our realization of the threatened overdraft on nature's storehouse, a compensatory and irresistible enthusiasm has developed within the last two years which augurs well for the retention by our country of that international leadership so manifestly foreordained by nature's bountiful equipment.
It is significant of our failure to value health, which above all other considerations makes life worth the living, that the first meeting of the Governors in the White House in 1908 failed to provide for the study of health problems. The omission was noted, and in the National Conservation Commission's Report of January 11, 1909, the general schedule gave special consideration to life and health. Only four sections, however, were created in the appointment of the National Conservation Commission. Health was not provided with a special section or with officers. In the North American Conservation Congress, in addition to the Conservation of other National resources, the protection of game received attention; but among the Commissioners representing the various countries, there was seemingly no one whose training and paramount interest lay in the field of public health. While it is apparent that the initial oversight has been in part repaired it remains to be seen what progress will result from the Second National Conservation Congress, in relation to this, the people's most important natural asset.
The inclusion in the program of a paper entitled "Life and Health as National Assets" must not be taken as evidence that there is any doubt as to the real and assessable value of life and health. Rather are we called upon at this time to realize that they constitute National or public resources furnished by nature and are not to be regarded as strictly personal or private possessions. The individual life has its economic and commercial value to the community and the Nation by virtue of the contribution it may be expected to make to society. This view may perhaps be novel to some. Our ideas concerning the conservation of other natural resources however, have undergone such rapid evolution in the recent past that we may easily orient ourselves to the viewpoint exhibited by the officers of this Congress, that the individual in matters of health, as of other resources, must respect the rights of other individuals and of his municipality, State, and Government. The health aspect of Conservation, which is its most important aspect, cannot and will not be neglected, although it has not been the first to which the attention of the Nation has been directed.
Nor can we dissociate health conservation from the other aspects of the movement, even if we would. The history of man's progress in the knowledge of the natural sciences bears out this statement. Even though we ourselves have broken faith with nature, we are able today to make her fulfil her promises in forestry, agriculture, and other economic matters by the application of our knowledge of those very sciences which may be said to owe their birth to man's search for perpetual life and youth. One can easily imagine that the medieval conservation commission comprised two sections, one on health and the other on minerals. In the former, which undoubtedly was basic and dominated all other considerations, the papers presented dealt with "elixir vitæ" and the "touchstone" whilst in the latter the chief interest was displayed in the "transmutation of metals." At this stage the studies of health and of the control of man's so-called material assets were carried on hand in hand; and, if we are logical, they always will be.
In any event, man's health depends on the success of his efforts to adapt his environment to his needs, more than it does on the adaptation of himself to his environment. Health interests are fused with social and economic development, but should undoubtedly dominate rather than be dominated by them.
Our lack of interest in matters of health is more apparent than real. It is characteristic of many of us that where our most vital interests are involved, we betray the least public concern. In nothing is this better exemplified than in matters of personal and public health, except it be perhaps in matters of religious belief and practice. Nor should we deem it strange that a similar attitude of mind obtains in matters of health and religion. In medieval times the priest and the physician were one. At the present day, aboriginal tribes combine religion and health, and to too great an extent, perhaps, do our civilized nations fail to discriminate between the two. Particularly is this exhibited in man's cowardly attempt to shift his responsibility for disease and death upon Providence.
One of the greatest causes of lethargy in the conservation of personal and public health is the failure on the part of many to differentiate clearly and sharply between disease and death. The former is really a manifestation of life and vital force, and is capable of modification, prevention, or cure by human agency, since man has shown himself quite able to solve nature's other secrets for the benefit of his comfort or convenience. We conserve health by the application of the same sciences which enable us to conserve our other better recognized but less material natural resources. Disease yields to man's mastery; death remains man's mystery. Even death, however, may be postponed, and Professor Irving Fisher has estimated that over 600,000 deaths occur each year in our country which could be postponed by the systematic application of the scientific knowledge already available. For those who think more easily in terms of dollars and cents, he has estimated this appalling annual National loss at over one billion dollars which can and should be prevented.
We must not be lulled into any sense of well-being by such statistics. There is no royal road to such a goal. Our very success in the eradication of one disease or unsanitary condition may lead to undue optimism in regard to other problems, which later may be found to be dependent on altogether different causes and to require very different methods of prevention or cure. Failure to realize the complexities of modern social activity and economic development, in their relation to health, and, at the same time, to recognize the immense number of variable factors and agencies which are involved in health-protective measures, cannot but lead to disappointment. The individual whose enthusiasm is too easily aroused by the discovery of some hitherto unknown cause of disease, or some new method or theory of cure or prevention, is a source of danger to the commonwealth. The faddist, whether in the matter of such things as food, clothing, fresh air, baths, exercise or other therapeutic agents, as well as the individual who thinks that he has discovered the one cause of all diseases, is to be feared.