52 PHYSIOLOGY OF ALIMENTATION. 



observers have been unanimous in claiming that nutrient 

 enemas introduced into the rectum are absorbed and utilized 

 by the patient, others have been equally certain that they 

 are of little or no value. The burden of evidence is, how- 

 ever, in favor of the good results which are obtained by 

 this method of artificial feeding. Lack of success is no 

 doubt in large measure due to mistakes made in the com- 

 position of the enemas used, for the absorption of many 

 foods can occur from the intestinal tract only after they 

 have been acted upon by the digestive juices. 



Leaving aside for the moment the chemical aspects 

 of the problem, two great objections have been brought 

 against the efficacy of rectal feeding. The first of these 

 is that the rectum has no powers of absorption, the second 

 that the food does not pass from the rectum to a portion 

 of the bowel, where it can be absorbed. It must be con- 

 fessed that experimental evidence has until recently been 

 largely in favor of these views. With scarcely an exception, 

 investigators have come to the conclusion that food intro- 

 duced into the rectum does not move far away from it. 

 Against this idea has stood GRUTZNER, 1 who found that when 

 certain easily recognizable substances, such as starch grains, 

 hair, or charcoal, suspended in normal salt solution are 

 injected into the rectum they are carried upward through 

 the bowel into the small intestine, even as far as the stomach. 

 More recently CANNON 2 has brought direct proof of the move- 

 ment of nutrient enemas from the rectum, not only through 

 the large intestine but even into the small intestine. If we 

 admit, therefore, that the rectum has but feeble or no powers 

 of absorption, we can no longer maintain that the enemas 

 are not moved to a place in the intestine in which ab- 

 sorption is possible. The following may help to elucidate 

 what has been said: 



: Deutsche med. Wochenschrift, 1894, XX, p. 897. 

 2 CANNON: American Journal of Physiology, 1902, VI, p. 272. 



