The patient has pneumonia and we seek to care for him Hygienically. We give him enough food to meet the normal demands of nutrition, provide as much water as thirst demands, give him plenty of air to breathe, a daily sun bath and give him a daily bath. We require that daily he take a brisk walk; we provide him with a television program to watch and permit him to have plenty of congenial company. All of this is strictly Hygienic; but in defiance of it all, the patient would probably die--not for want of Hygiene, but for lack of proper adjustment of Hygiene to his needs.

Writing in the Journal, June 1859, D. A. Gorton, M.D., said: "When we lay down the principle that nothing in this wide and expansive universe can restore the primitive harmony of the disordered organism but the conservative power resident in all living tissues, we have a grand physiological idea or basis upon which to work understandingly. Taking this principle as our guide, we necessarily discard the use of those agents whose effects are to disturb the equilibrium of the vital forces. When we select our remedial agents, therefore, our choice necessarily lies between two classes of substances, which we might denominate usable and non-usable agents. Hence we are to select the former; and in so doing, we do but imitate unerring nature."

She pointed out on this occasion that when the body is violently active in remedial effort, to supply her plentifully with pure Hygiene in the same way that we would a healthy individual, would facilitate its destruction. Then she adds: "It is obvious, therefore, that the mere supply of the elements of hygiene are not adequate, in all cases, to cure disease. And when we assume this obviously erroneous position, we expose ourselves to the unrelenting attacks of our enemies, our fancied arguments are liable to be blown into 'thin air,' and the fabric of (our) boasted system shattered into a thousand fragments. When art, therefore, affects the cure of disease by the use of hygienic remedies, it is cured hygieopathically, not hygienically. In an argumentative sense, the distinction is broad and important; in a practical point of view it is superfluous . . ."

Hygiene is the preservation and restoration of health by the use of means that are absolutely essential to life and that are abundantly supplied to man to preserve him in a normal state. But in an abnormal state these means have to be adjusted to the body's capacity to use them. Dr. Gorton wrote that the distinction between preserving health and restoring health should be borne in mind. She wrote that many prominent advocates of the Hygienic System had failed to fully define the difference between the two processes; that they have argued so indefinitely on this point that the opponents of Hygiene have maintained, with a fair degree of logic, that Hygienic care fails to meet the demands of an age of suffering and disease. She added: "It would not, certainly, were the elements of hygiene applied in a diseased state hygienically." She differenciated between the normal application of the means of Hygiene, that is, for use in health, and their application in disease, calling the latter pathologically. She said: "Applied pathologically--according to pathological indications--their potency in restoring harmonious activity is not equalled by any drug in the materia medica."

Applied to the sick, the amount of food the patient should receive, the amount of bathing he should do, the length of time he should stay in the sunshine, the amount and vigor of exercise he should have is dependent upon the ability of his organism to appropriate and make constructive use of these substances and influences. The more vigorous patient may bathe regularly, exercise freely, eat more food; the feeble patient must rest more, bathe less, take less sun, eat little or not at all and treat himself with the utmost gentleness. Any heroic measure will prove harmful.

Returning to our hypothetical case of pneumonia, we provided the patient with all the means of Hygiene, but without adapting these to his needs in the state of disease, hence, probably killed the patient. The lesson derivable from instances of this nature could have been learned ages ago had intelligence reigned, rather than a pretended and imperfect science. The superior efficacy of physiological care is soon evident to the candid observer.

At the time when Graham and Jennings began their work, the first thing a physician did when called to the bedside of a sick man was to have him sit up in bed and then bleed him until he sunk down, fainting. The lancet was regarded as a most powerful remedy to counteract inflammation. Hygienists advised, instead of opening the veins and letting out the vital fluid, that the capital of health should be left untouched. They had learned not to interfere with the living process, except to supply suitable materials for its use and to supply conditions favorable to their appropriation. The true principle of caring for the sick is that of providing the sick organism with favorable conditions for the efficient operation of its own remedial processes. This principle rejects in toto every means and process which, in its nature and tendency, in authorized medical quantities, degrees or modes of application, is known to directly destroy life or to injure the living tissues, or to interfere with the performance of the normal physiological activities of the organism.

Having recognized the profoundly important fact that the vital system may be consciously directed in its physiological actions by due attention to its basic requirements and that these requisites may be adapted to every pathological requirement, the Hygienist may extend his investigations in many new directions and an almost endless variety of detail may be entered upon in adjusting the special use of the several means of life to the varying requirements of life under many circumstances and conditions. He should recognize that in proportion as this is effected shall we acquire a more effective system of Hygiene. Such a perfected Hygiene must displace the vague and contradictory plan of treating the sick that is in vogue.

Hygiene in sickness is the use of all the means by which the living organism is originated, preserved and perpetuated in nature. It is the complete bringing of the sick under normal physical and emotional conditions. Under the benign influence of the normal things of life, health soon returns.

The Hygienic System, in its application to the sick, comprehends in the broad scope of its means, the adaptation of all normal materials and conditions to the needs and capacities of the diseased organism in the restoration of health. Replying in the Journal, March 1859, to a criticism made by Joseph Bigelow, M.D., of Boston, Dr. Trall said that among its Hygienic resources are "air, light, caloric, electricity, magnetism, personal influences, exercise, food, sleep, rest, clothing, drink, bathing, etc." (Referring to electricity, Gorton said: "Electricity and magnetism are generally classed among the hygienic agents, and perhaps justly so; but they can not be considered primitive agents.") The Hygienic System, he pointed out in this same editorial, embraces every directly remedial agency in the universe and rejects nothing that nature does not reject. He said it excludes nothing except those poisons which nature declares to be incompatible with the living organism. Bigelow had accused them of relying exclusively on cold water. Trall replied that: "In very many cases, cold water, so far from being the 'one remedy,' is not used at all. In the majority of cases, water, of any temperature, so far from being the 'only remedy,' is not the chief or leading remedial appliance. And in a large list of diseases we place much more stress on either eating, breathing, or exercise, than we do on bathing."