29

of nearly three times the Ghittenden ration of
protein on the plea/ that we shall be on the ' safe
side' when we have everything in abundance. It is
not the safeside, but the danger side, because
protein is a putrefyable food.

To be on the safe side/ says the allopath/ we
should have an abundance of food—much more than
what we actually need. To be on the safe side, says
the Naturopath, we must not eat more than what we
really need or what we can assimilate.

When a patient is suffering from fever/ the
Naturopath wants to conserve Life and refuses to tax
the patient with the work of digestion; he puts him
on a complete fast. On the other hand,, the
allopathic text books/ under the same circumstances/
recommend feeding the patient with nourishieg food
in order to sustain life *. While the Naturopath
tries to conserve Life by abstaining from food/ the
allopath tries to sustain Life by taking in food.

Why should there be this radical difference in
method between these two systems of treatment ?
The reason, as I said already/ lies in the radical
difference in their conceptions of life.

* Dubois in his 'Basal Metabolism ' recommends liberal
feeding of fever patients He admits that patients under such
conditions, are generally unwilling to take food, but insists
on coaxing or even forcing them to eat. An intelligent nurse,
he writes, should not find it difficult to cajole the patient and
make him eat. According to this author, feeding is necessary
to keep up the ni+^ogen balance, for which purpose the
patient may have to eat ^ven more than people normally do-
But many sensible allopaths, when they find that the
Nature-Cure method of putting the patient on a fast works
better in -oractice, set aside the teaching of their text books
and put their fever patients, »ot exactly on a fast, but on
a di<3t which is an approach to ci fast.