The spirit of the times

Physicians are slowly beginning to bear the onus of having to disbelieve in a somewhat widely accepted social evil: alcohol consumption. There’s probably no culture on Earth which hasn’t felt it’s aftershocks at some time or another, ranging from drunk driving, loss of man-hours at work and broken homes — to hangovers, cirrhosis and risk of cancer. At the same time it’s now come to light that moderate drinking is conducive to health. The American Heart Association, Harvard Medical School and the International Journal of Epidemiology , for example, have ascertained that regular light intake of alcohol is good for the heart, increases longevity and delays dementia.

On the other hand, abstainers are more likely to suffer a stroke than those who regularly partake of a modest tipple. So, what’s a doctor to do? Can he seriously be expected to tell ateetotaller with a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease, for instance, to kick the good habit and start having a glass of red wine three times a week? Strictly speaking , he should, if he wants the man to lower his chances of croaking it before his scheduled time. After all, the fundamental precept of medical ethics is the Hippocratic decree: “First do no harm” . But a doctor also functions within a social milieu. If he suddenly starts delivering ethical injunctions in reverse , what are his chances of retaining any moral high ground or credibility? Kalyug is not an age when evil overcomes good but a time when the distinction between the greater evil and greater good becomes convenient.