oplicants for life insurance who cannot truthfully and categoric sert that they are total abstainers? By any such extremely l assification the man who actually drinks maybe two or t asses of wine or beer in the course of an entire year, the man kes a cocktail or so practically every day in the year, and the 1 ho regularly takes two or three drinks of whisky or other disti quor each day, are all counted in the single group of non-abstair Imost countless other sub-groupings on the basis of what t ink, how much they drink, and how drinking affects them i dually, might doubtless be made in the large body of men c ehensively branded as drinking men, or non-abstainers, by w life insurance companies which undertake so to classify t olicyholders. And by adding up all the deaths in this group, in robability including more or less men who are comparati eavy drinkers, as well as the men at the other extreme who pra ally if not literally are total abstainers, an alleged death-rate on-abstainers is obtained! Can any such process be regarded as rational, let alone sc fic? The fact that precisely that sort of process has been wed in certain quarters for many years proves nothing, for m olish things have become habitual. Would it not be equ ir to classify policyholders by their answers to such abs estions as, for instance, "Do you drink coffee?" "Do you eat W rebits?" "Do you take supper after going to the theatre?" S the men who had to plead guilty to these implied charges m onfine their indulgence in coffee to the demi-tasse after the band hich they semi-occasionally attended, might not care for W ceived. And surely there can be no difference e fundamental necessity of at least reasonably s if any classification of the slightest scientific The real issue is by no means the accuracy of thus compiled, but is, it seems to me, what pparent excess of mortality in the case of nonared with abstaining policyholders is properly use of alcohol, what percentage to their other tage to their occupations, and so on and so on There is the real question, as I see it. CONTRIBUTE TO FIX CLASS MORTALITY e difficulties of credibly and scientifically groups of various classes, suppose we look at the mortality statistics of England and Wales, by occupations for many years by the Regisin its decennial supplements. By the latest ts issued in 1908 we find that the mortality of nd ministers at ages 35-45 in England and Wales 1.06 per 1,000, whereas that of general shopages was 19.71 per 1,000, or nearly five times as safe to assume on the strength of these figures ''s occupation was nearly five times as hazardous y? Dozens of similarly striking contrasts might os no further evidence is needed to make it clear ess factors contribute to fix the mortality rate roup of lives, and that it would be absurd to eater is any of and no such g questio as I ca Over-ea the clo toward are so w many e people practica factor b the deat Wh types an it possib modern drinking hours, a than are of relaxa all things two entir many no hypotheti ater is not likely to live as long as some excessive drinkers." ny of the discussions of the apparent death-rates of abstai nd non-abstaining groups in English life companies mainta uch groups of policyholders seriously taken into account uestion as to the eating habits of the two groups? Not in s s I can recollect. Nevertheless, the bad physiological effec ver-eating in the way of undue strain on the digestive organs he clogging of the whole system, and the resultant tend oward arterio-sclerosis, apoplexy, and other degenerative dis re so well known as to call for no enumeration here. I have many eminent physicians tell me they had no question that people were killed by over-eating than by over-drinking. ractically no consideration seemed to be paid to this impor actor by the people who triumphantly cite the apparent exce he death-rate of non-abstainers over that of total abstainers. While it is scarcely safe to trust to generalizations as to ypes and general habits of men who do and men who do not di E possibly might be guardedly said that as a rule that section o modern community which would commonly be regarded as rinking class leads more active and strenuous lives, keeps 1 ours, and in both their work and play is subject to more st han are those who never indulge in any form of alcohol as a m f relaxation. Perhaps it would not be going too far to say t 11 things considered, the total abstainers and non-abstainers wo entirely different types of men-although of course there many notable exceptions.. Assuming for the moment that ypothetical type-differentiation is correct, might it not be es which have long maintained separate classes non-abstaining policyholders as evidence of any. either (1) the respective death-rates of the drinkng classes of the community in general, or (2) an -f the supposed excess of the death-rate of drinkt of non-drinking people. If the reasons for this cited do not raise a similar question in the minds ders, suppose the figures for the two sections of gest of all the English life insurance companies ussion, the United Kingdom Provident Instituto the argument and critically analyzed. In his efore the Association of Life Insurance Medical ca, on the subject of "The Use of Alcohol and the k," Dr. McMahon included a tabulation of the nce under ordinary whole life policies" of the on” and “general section" of the above named For the forty-five years, 1866-1910, arranged by In the figures thus presented were included the ed and actual claims in both sections for each amounts of claims have absolutely no bearing on ìs, or deaths, and as the averages of claims in the e forty-five years were substantially identical5 and $1,167 for the Temperance Section and —there would seem to be no reason for clouding e irrelevant data. Thus edited, the tabulation experience of the United Kingdom Provident ed by Dr. McMahon was as follows: 1906-1 Total, 45 years At uniformi differenc by an ex or an ave a week. puzzling cluded in the custo life insura two classe did, use al between t difference, annual dis large grou by either o would be e *This to from the sun error in the d with the tota 906-10 2,291 1,504 2,282 1,900 65. 21 Total, 83.20 12,754 *8,988 15,794 14,711 70.47% 93.1. At first glance these figures would seem to show a gene iformity, and both demonstrate and sharply accentuate ference between the death-rates of abstainers and non-abstair an experience of forty-five years with a total of 23,699 dea an average of about 527 deaths a year, or approximately 10 dea week. A study of the figures in detail, however, reveals so zzling discrepancies. All of the persons whose deaths are ded in the above-tabulated mortality presumably had pas e customary medical examination and had been accepted as go e insurance risks. If the only material difference between o classes was the fact that one class did not, and the other cl 1, use alcohol, might it not naturally be expected that the differe tween the death rates of the two classes would be a fairly consta ference, at least if computed by five-year periods and any slig nual discrepancies thus eliminated? If the relative mortality ge groups of policyholders were tabulated for five-year peric either occupations or localities, a substantially constant differen uld be expected unless changes in conditions or other abnorm *This total as printed in the Proceedings of the Association differs by m the sum of figures in the column, indicating a probable typographi or in the column, as the ratio of actual to expected claims, 70.47% tal h the total given. |