The Milwaukee Leader

LITTLE CHUNKS OF COLD LOGIC.
No. 3—The Law on Taking Cold.

One New York attorney writes:

"Read the enclosed and weep. The appellate division of the supreme court of New York affirms (with only one judge dissenting), a holding by the state industrial board that an exposure' caused the illness and death in question.

"I'm one of your disciples, having been converted by you long since. But now, when four very able jurists out of five members of the court hold that exposure was the direct cause of this man's death, it makes me shiver to think of all the chances I have taken since my conversion. Doctor, by the decision in this case it is now the law of this state that a feller mustn't expose himself and you mustn't tell a feller to expose himself, because if you do you are liable for damages to him or his heirs, and both the feller who exposes himself and the doctor who preaches the doctrine contrary to settled law, may be guilty of contempt of court.

"Doctor, explain yourself.

"Yours truly,

"P. S.—Judge Kellogg dissented."

Is he related to you, or a convert?

Another New York attorney calls this court decision to my attention and remarks, "The law seems to be against you in the matter of catching cold."

I thought you might be interested in this decision, since a precedent is set by the court.

The case my lawyer friends mention is that of Lerner vs. Rump Bros. et al., supreme court, appellate division, third department, May 6, 1925, appeal from state industrial board. It seems that Lerner, a salesman employed in a wholesale fruit and vegetable business, while showing fruit to a customer in the refrigerator, where they were for 10 minutes, received a chill that caused a cold that lowered his resistance and as a consequence suffered pulmonary edema, cerebral embolism, septic endocarditis, and one thing and another, which caused death.

Evidence had shown that the employee had not been accustomed to entering the refrigerator for more than a "second" at a time, and hence did not put on his arctic suit or anything to protect him from the dread rigors. While in there on this occasion he moved boxes and things about and got up a little sweat—obviously a terribly dangerous thing to do in a cold place. Vilhjalmur Stefansson ought to be warned about sweating in the far north.

The unfortunate employee felt cold when he left the refrigerator that morning. At about 3 in the afternoon he felt "bad" and went home. Next day he sent for a doctor, who decided the patient had "grip and sciatica due probably to his catching cold while in the refrigerator."

Nothing in the testimony tells us what the customer had. The lawyers must have been dumb eggs to overlook that feature of the case. The customer apparently peppered the poor man in the refrigerator and then made his getaway. Well, well. Probably the lawyers feared that if they questioned the theory that an infectious disease such as "grip" could arise de novo, develop out of thin cold air there in the refrigerator, without a human carrier to supply the starter, it might annoy the court.

This case sets a precedent, all right. It is the first case of septic endocarditis that ever happened without infection.

If anyone felt any doubt about these points, the employee's doctor smoothed it all off neatly enough. His testimony, which seemed to impress the court, was that the exposure to cold air in the refrigerator, without heavier clothing to protect the employee had a tendency to suddenly reduce the surface temperature of the body, to shut off perspiration, and cause poisons thus being thrown off to be reabsorbed by the system.

Maybe it was right here that Judge Kellogg asked the other four judges to count him out. I hope so. Our higher judges ought to be compelled to take an elementary course in human physiology just by way of protection against hooey.

The old guard in the medical profession will hail this legal decision as a great victory, for they have been fairly frothing at the mouth the last year or two trying to bolster up the venerable tradition about exposure "lowering resistance."

In all seriousness, and with the question of cold and exposure aside, isn't this case a convincing argument for the establishment of some sort of medical expert body, if not a medical member of the court, to which such technical problems may be referred by the court? If such a member had sat with this court, that bit of pure hooey about the "poisons being reabsorbed into the system" when the perspiration had been shut off, could never get by. That's a plain question of physiological fact, and if fact or truth is at variance with the law, then the law should be made to conform with the truth.

Right here, if we may do so without offense to the court, I propose three cheers for this doctor. All together, now, Hooey, Hooey, Hooey!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
Brushing Teeth.

I use common salt on a dry brush to clean my teeth, but I am told it is too harsh and may damage the enamel. I also use a pinch of salt in a glass of water as a mouthwash. What is your opinion of these practices? (K. C. G.)

Answer—Many good dentists have recommended the use of common salt for brushing the teeth. I don't understand just why, and I had rather worry along without it for my own teeth, but I doubt it can do any harm. The use of a pinch or more of salt in a glass of water for rinsing the mouth is equally harmless, though I do not understand what special benefit the salt adds.

Belated Report.

Up until recently I have suffered with severe headaches. Several months ago I noticed an "experiment" you suggested—10 weeks' treatment. I purchased the remedies and took them as you suggested for the 10 weeks' period, and now I have the headaches only slightly and at long intervals. I feel grateful to you. Should the headaches return shall I again take the medicines, and if so, for how long? (E. P. R.)

Answer—I cannot advise you without knowing your condition. The experiment was finished months ago, and I reported here the indifferent results. I found that it is not practicable to carry out such an experiment. Even in your own case, you mention one remedy which I did not suggest at all. So the experiment is a closed incident and we cannot suggest treatment for migraine.

Sweating Hands.

Kindly print your formula for sweating hands. (M. M.)

Answer—Paint the palms once or twice a day for a week or 10 days, with a solution of 25 grains of chromic acid in one ounce of water. Let it dry on the skin. This stains the skin yellow temporarily. If the staining is objectionable, the next best thing is a daily application to the palms of a weak (2 to 5 per cent) formaldehyde ointment.