NEW QUESTIONS IN MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 455 



The theory is to develop the higher nature of man by causing 

 pain and suffering in the lower nature ; in this way to rouse up 

 the brain and will power to regain control of the animal part. 

 Three hundred years ago Lord Coke, of England, held that in- 

 ebriety always aggravated the offense, and the punishment should 

 rather be increased. This has been the corner-stone of the legal 

 view of inebriety up to very recent times. 



Tlie third theory is the scientific and medical view. This 

 afl&rms inebriety to be a physical condition, the tendency of 

 which is often inherited and also acquired ; that this physical 

 condition is always a disease, a modified or pronounced form of 

 insanity. In other cases it is a positive symptom of insanity ; 

 also, it is a form of brain degeneration that, like other diseases, 

 has distinct causes, development, progress, and decline. It is 

 also urged that the continuous use of alcohol always causes dis- 

 turbances of brain circulation, and is followed by brain conges- 

 tion, brain paralysis, and impaired senses ; the result of which 

 is incapacity to realize the nature and character of acts, the 

 judgment is defective, and the control is lessened and is not nor- 

 mal. Medico-legally this theory regards the inebriate as diseased 

 and incapacitated to act sanely, to be treated as a sick man and 

 placed under medical and legal care and control, until recovery 

 or for life. 



The first two theories assume perfect sanity in all cases of 

 inebriety, and assert that the remedy is to be more severe punish- 

 ment, and accountability to law and society. The third theory 

 recognizes a physical condition, and demands a scientific study of 

 each case before the remedy or treatment can be determined. 

 Another theory has been asserted, that in some cases inebriety 

 was a vice at first, then later a disease ; that in some cases 

 punishment is the remedy, and in others medical care and treat- 

 ment. Such are some of the theories and standpoints from which 

 the subject of inebriety is approached medico-legally. 



The confusion and doubt of the exact nature of inebriety is 

 due in a large part to the failure to study these cases independ- 

 ently. The dictum of judges, the teachings of theologians, news- 

 paper views, and public opinion, are too often the sources from 

 which medical men derive their views. This was very apparent 

 in a contested will case, where five medical men testified to the 

 mental capacity of a chronic inebriate who willed his property to a 

 mistress. The judge declared he should act on his own judgment, 

 and decide the man unsound and incapable. A man set fire to a 

 church without apparent motive. Three physicians swore to his 

 sanity, although he had delirium tremens repeatedly and was a 

 chronic inebriate, and intoxicated at the time. The jury decided 

 otherwise. 



