MEMOIR ON PARENTAL ALCOHOLISM 7 



degradation of the parents, distress and poverty in the 

 home may, and probably do, follow in the train of intem- 

 perance. Money spent excessively on drink means less 

 money spent on the necessities of life ; it leads to neglect 

 of the children, to unhappy homes, and to undesirable 

 environment. In any consideration of the results of alco- 

 holism these very obvious facts arrest our attention, and 

 we are inclined to lose sight of the really fundamental 

 question : What is the quantitative measure of these en- 

 vironmental influences on the physical and mental characters 

 of the offspring ? ' (Memoir^ p. 2). 



Again : ^ 



* These results are certainly startling and rather upset 

 one's preconceived ideas, but it is, perhaps, a consolation 

 that to the obvious and visible miseries of the children 

 arising from drink, lowered intelligence and physique are 

 not added.' (Ethel M. Elderton. The Relative Strength 

 of Nurture a7id Nature. Lecture, Series III, p. 26.) 



The question before us was not whether there was greater 

 misery to the child, but whether there was either a toxic or 

 an environmental influence of the alcohol of the parent 

 upon the mentality or physique of the offspring. Now first 

 we actually did find a greater death-rate among the children 

 of the alcoholic parents. If our two groups represented 

 simply a ' confusion of statistics ' as Sir Victor Horsley and 

 Dr. Sturge assert, why should this greater death-rate be 

 quite sensible when we use throughout exactly the same 

 process of differentiating the alcoholic and non-alcoholic 

 groups ? The death-rate of children of sober parents is from 

 25 to 28 per cent.; that of children of drinking parents is 

 from '^'>^ to '>fi per cent., giving a ratio of from 3/4 to 7/9. 



1 With this passage undoubtedly before them, for they quote the word 

 'startling' from it (^. M. J., 191 1, p. 77), Sir Victor and Dr. Sturge do not 

 hesitate to state that we have asserted that alcoholism ' causes no appreciable 

 detriment to the drunkard or to his children'. How is it possible to deal 

 with critics who at every fourth or fifth line of their paper deliberately put 

 into our mouths statements we have not made? 



