A poster on this board said that during the Prohibition, doctors would sometimes prescribe alcohol to treat certain conditions. What can alcohol treat?
This occurs to me as interesting, since there’s an obvious parallel here with regards to the supposed medical benefits of marijuana in the current push for legalization.
Side note: Apparently, cigarettes can apparently be used to treat some disease or another (at least according to some episode of House I saw). Too lazy to search for cites…
It can be used to stop premature labor. It’s a depressant, with all the things that a depressant does for you.
There also was in the past, a lot of supposed benefits that have sense been discredited. And, of course, the big advantage of prescribing alcohol is it let people get alcohol legally during Prohibition.
Ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning.
It is part of the treatment for methanol poisoning.
It can be used to treat alcohol withdrawal itself in a hospital setting. Alcohol withdrawal can be a fatal condition although they tend to use benzodiazepines for that these days which work in a very similar way to alcohol. Plenty of alcoholics don’t use it for fun. It can be used as self-medicating for anxiety disorders although it makes things worse over time.
I learned that from Quantum Leap - the part about premature labor.
During the Depression, obtaining alcohol from a doctor via prescription was simply a scam to get alcohol legally. Many doctors willingly went along, both because they didn’t believe in prohibition and because they made money from the office visits. It didn’t matter what condition they wrote the prescription for, unless they were investigated by the feds who normally had bigger targets.
It’s true that in some ways this is parallel to the growing consensus that marijuana has medical uses. Unfortunately, it most ways it has far more parallels to the vast and faster-growing abuses of illegal prescriptions for painkillers. Doctors who write prescriptions for narcotics for no good reason produce huge numbers of addicts, who, according to most statistics I’ve read, far outnumber the addicts to the more familiar illicit drugs, like cocaine.
The Depression is really not the parallel you want it to be. Any use of it will turn around and bite you.
It’s been helping ugly people get laid for thousands of years.
So there’s that.
There’s a difference between “what medical issues can alcohol treat?” and “for what issues have doctors prescribed alcohol?” as evidenced by Exapno’s post. As another example…
When I was ~2 or 3 years old, the odd Christian holistic doctor that my mom took me to prescribed wine to supplement my diet and deal with my frequent illnesses, apparently inspired by Paul’s first letter to Timothy (KJV I Timothy 5:23: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”). My mom did give me small amounts of wine, but didn’t stick with the treatment (she mentioned years later that she was disturbed by how much I enjoyed it and clamored for more).
Alcohol didn’t necessarily treat the medical issues I had at the time (frequent bacterial and viral infections, difficulty in keeping food down), but my doctor prescribed it in the sincere belief that it would help treat them.
The two commonest historic reasons for prescribing alcohol (ethanol, specifically) in a medical setting are prevention of withdrawal symptoms in alcoholics and treatment of other alcohol poisonings–most typically methanol and ethylene glycol.
CP is old enough to have seen a variety of inpatients have “spiritus fermenti” or some other notation in a patient’s orders that it’s OK for the patient to drink ethanol while in the hospital. It’s not unusual for an alcoholic to be admitted with an condition unrelated to alcoholism, and severe withdrawal syndromes such as delirium tremens can complicate care. So one “treats” the medical condition of alcoholism with ethanol, thereby preventing withdrawal symptoms.
Poisoning with methanol and ethylene glycol can be treated with intravenous ethanol, although in recent years fomepizole is more typically used. I have used ethanol intravenously for methanol and ethylene glycol poisonings, and while it’s not particularly difficult, I do prefer fomepizole.
Well, it’s a disinfectant, so it can be used topically to clean wounds. You can also gargle with it to disinfect the mouth and upper throat and to treat sore throats.
Why, what’s the difference? Is it because fomepizole does not make the patient inebriated the way I presume intravenous ethonal would?
See here, for instance:
*"Ethanol administration has many disadvantages.[6] It is a central nervous system depressant leading to intoxication at levels required to inhibit alcohol dehydrogenase (100-150 mg/dl).[3] Because of its unpredictable pharmacokinetics and large patient variability, several ethanol concentrations must be measured. In addition, ethanol infusions may cause severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and vomiting.[3,5] Despite these shortcomings and lack of prospective evidence, administration of ethanol continues because of its wide availability and low cost. …
Fomepizole has many advantages over ethanol as an inhibitor of alcohol dehydrogenase in treatment of ethylene glycol toxicity. It can be administered as bolus injections rather than continuous infusion. Enzyme induction with fomepizole occurs rapidly – within 48 hours – which results in a linear pharmacokinetic profile. Therefore, monitoring blood levels of fomepizole is unnecessary. Unlike ethanol, fomepizole does not lead to central nervous system depression or interfere with monitoring mental status. The major drawback of fomepizole therapy is its cost, which is estimated at $4000/patient. The equivalent cost for ethanol would be only about $100/patient.[1] Costs for other treatment (such as intensive care or hemodialysis) required for acute care of a patient with ethylene glycol poisoning are additional. Also, outcomes of respective therapies must be known for appropriate cost comparison because long-term complications (e.g., long-term renal insufficiency) can be very expensive over time.[16] No appropriate cost comparison can be made because prospective clinical outcome data are lacking for either ethanol or fomepizole treatment.[16] "*