Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 2.djvu/91

 SANITA TION AND SOCIOLOGY 77

ary, social, physical, mental and moral, which ought to be avoided.

It may be claimed that such a conception has always been some- what recognized by the sanitarian. For instance, E. A. Parkes in the introduction to his work on Practical Hygiene says "Taking the word hygiene in the largest sense, it signifies rules for perfect culture of mind and body. It is impossible to dissociate the two. The body is affected by every mental and moral action; the mind is profoundly influenced by bodily conditions. For a perfect system of hygiene we must train the body, the intellect and the moral faculties in a perfect and balanced order. Look- ing only to the part of hygiene which concerns the physician, a perfect system of rules of health would consider the human being ( I ) in relation to the natural conditions which surround him, (2) in his social and corporate relations, (3) in his capacity as an independent being, having within himself sources of action in thoughts, feelings, desires, personal habits, all of which affect health and which require self-regulation and control." But such broad, general statements do not entirely satisfy. It is with a feeling of relief that we find that in the address of Dr. Bowditch already quoted the third object of the Massachusetts Board of Health was stated to be "to investigate the effects of the use of intoxicating liquors upon the industry, prosperity, happiness, health and lives of the people."

The sanitarian, then, who rests content with figures which show that his work results in a diminished rate of mortality and disease, utterly fails to grasp the real significance of his task and is, in so far, unfitted to accomplish it. While holding fast to the idea of the value of physical life, he should recognize the fact that there are other and higher ends which it is his duty to subserve. In the words of Sir John Simon, "When sanitary reformers appeal to the conscience of modern civilization ag the merely quantitative waste of human life, their deeper protest is against the heedless extinction of those high and beautiful possibilities of being, against the wanton interception of such rs for good, against the cruel smothering of such capacities