Fasting Girls: Their Physiology and Pathology

by William A. Hammond

In a case recently under my care, a young lady twenty-three years of age became hysterical in consequence of domestic troubles, and losing all desire for food, took nothing daily but a single cup of chocolate. She persevered in this restricted diet for twenty-nine days, although during the last eight or ten she gave decided evidences of starvation. She became emaciated, her temperature fell, especially in the extremities, her breath was offensive, her menstruation ceased, and there was such a marked sense of discomfort that she began to crave food, not, as she said, because her appetite had returned, but because she was afraid she would die. Still she resisted till, on the thirtieth day, she begged for a little beef tea, and from that moment her appetite returned to her, and by the end of another week, she was eating her ordinary quantity and variety of food.

Now, in this case, though the amount of nutriment taken daily was small, it was of such a character as to be well able to sustain life. The half pint of chocolate contained milk and sugar, besides the highly nutritious chocolate, with its carbonaceous and nitrogenous matters, and yet a month was the extreme limit of endurance.

That a state of inanition exists in Miss Fancher is not to be doubted. The extreme emaciation, the reduced bodily temperature, the contracted stomach and intestines, the great bodily weakness, all show that she is not sufficiently nourished. In her case there is apparently not only an absence of appetite but a positive disgust for food; and another symptom often present in inanition—vomiting when nutriment is taken into the stomach—appears also to be a prominent feature. It is probable that there is likewise a notable diminution in the amount of urine excreted, as this is a common accompaniment of hysterical manifestations such as hers. In some instances the function appears to be almost entirely arrested, as was the fact in a case described by M. Charcot,[27] and in two which have come under my own observation.

There is nothing remarkable in the admitted fact that Miss Fancher eats very little. We have seen how existence can be kept up on greatly reduced quantities of food, and under circumstances such as those governing her case, for periods which would be impossible in healthy persons. No one yet under any conditions, whether of hysteria or trance or assumed miraculous interference, has, to the satisfaction of competent and disinterested investigators, lived even two months without the ingestion of any food whatever. As to going nearly fourteen years in a state of abstinence—a statement in her behalf which many persons believe to be true—I can only say that all the teachings of science and of experience are against the claim. No one who had the most superficial idea of what knowledge is and how facts can be proven, would for a moment accept such a preposterous story, no matter by whom asserted.

The whole subject is one which is to be examined into and determined like any other matter, and yet, when a proposition is made to investigate by skilled observers the remarkable claim put forward, it is met with abuse and misrepresentation, as if these people thought that all they had to do was to make an assertion of a phenomenon which, according to what we know of nature, is absurd and impossible, to have it at once accepted by those who know, by painful experience, how doubtful all things are till they are proven, and how difficult it is to get satisfactory evidence of the most simple event in physiology or pathology. No one doubts the abstract possibility of a human being living without food, for, bearing in mind the discoveries that are constantly being made, nothing can be regarded as absolutely impossible outside the domain of mathematics. Two and two cannot make six, neither can two distinct bodies occupy the same space at the same time, nor the square of the hypothenuse be otherwise than equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right-angled triangle.

Our knowledge of natural science is, however, founded on experience. Looking at a bear, for instance, for the first time, and with no knowledge of its habits and capacities we would not be apt to believe that the animal could go into retirement at the beginning of winter and remain till spring in a condition of semi-existence and without food. But experience teaches us that the bear when it begins to hibernate is fat; that during hibernation it is in a perfectly quiescent state; that when it emerges into active life again it is emaciated, and that during the whole period of retirement it has taken nothing into its stomach. We then know by observing that all bears go through the same process, that it is a law of their organism to do so, and that their reduced functional actions are maintained by the consumption of the fat with which in the beginning their bodies were loaded. Even here, then, there is no exception to the law that there is no force without the decomposition of matter. Now, it is just possible that by some hitherto unknown or unrecognized condition of the system a man or woman may obtain the force necessary to carry on life for fourteen years without getting it through food taken into the stomach. But a possibility and a fact are two very different things, and the admitted possibility has not yet been shown to be a fact. It is easier—to use the argument of Hume—for the mind to accept the view that there is deception or error somewhere, than to believe that a woman, contrary to all human experience, should live fourteen years without food. Turtles, we know, will live for months while entirely deprived of nutriment. Many others of the cold-blooded animals will do the same thing. It is their nature to do so, and we have experience of the fact, but it is not the nature of women, so far as we know, and therefore we refuse to accept as true the stories which are told of their powers in this direction. And our knowledge is based not only on our daily experience of the wants of their systems and the examples of starvation which have come to our knowledge, but also upon the fact that in the many cases of alleged long abstinence from food that have been investigated, error or deception has been discovered. Therefore, when it is said that Miss Fancher lives without food, and has so done for fourteen years, we simply say, "give us the proofs." Of course the proofs are not given.

How far Miss Fancher is responsible for the assertions that have been made in regard to her long-continued abstinence I do not know. A tendency to deception is a notable phenomenon of hysteria, and if she has led those about her to accept the view that she has existed without food for years, the circumstance would be in no way remarkable. Other hysterical women have deceived in the same or in still more astonishing ways. Or it may be that the amount of food taken being very small, carelessness or want of exactness has led to the expression that she lived upon "absolutely nothing," just as we hear the words used every day by those who have little or no appetite, but who nevertheless do eat something. Again, a love for the marvellous is so deeply rooted in the average human mind that it willingly, and to a certain extent unconsciously, adds to any statement of a remarkable circumstance, till the latter grows, whilst being repeated, to fabulous dimensions.

But however this may be, whatever the explanation, it is quite certain that if Miss Fancher has lived fourteen years without food, or even fourteen months, or weeks, she is a unique psychological or pathological individual, whose case is worthy of all the consideration which can be given to it, not by superstitious or credulous or ignorant persons, but by those who, trained in the proper methods of scientific research, would know how to get the whole truth of her case, and nothing but the truth. It is to be regretted, therefore, that the proposition contained in the annexed letter ([Appendix]) was not accepted, and that we are forced to place Miss Fancher's case among the others which have proved to be fallacious, till such time as it may suit her and her friends to allow of such an examination.

FOOTNOTES:

[15] Recherches expérimentales sur l'inanition. Paris, 1843, p. 20.