How many of today's ailments, or even illnesses, are purely psychological? And how far can these be alleviated by the use of drugs? For example a psychiatrist concerned mainly with the emotional problems of old people might improve their state of mind somewhat by the use of anti-depressants but he would not remove the root cause of their depression--the feeling of being useless, often unwanted and handicapped by failing physical powers. One of the most important controversies in medicine today is how far doctors, and particularly psychologists, should depend on the use of drugs for "curing" their patients. It is not merely that drugs may have been insufficiently tested and may reveal harmful side effects (as happened in the case of anti-sickness pills prescribed for expectant mothers) but the uneasiness of doctors who feel that they are treating the symptoms of a disease without removing the disease itself. On the other hand, some psychiatrists argue that in many cases (such as chronic depressive illness) it is impossible to get at the root of the illness while the patient is in a depressed state. Even prolonged psychiatric care may have no noticeable effect whereas some people can be lifted out of a depression by the use of drugs within a matter of weeks. These doctors feel not only that they have no right to withhold such treatment, but that the root cause of depression cart be tackled better when the patient himself feels better. This controversy is concerned, however, with the serious psychological illnesses. It does not solve the problem of those whose headaches, indigestion, backache, etc. are due to "nerves". Commonly a busy family doctor will ascribe them to some physical cause and as a matter of routine prescribe a drug. Once again the symptoms are being cured rather than the disease itself. It may be true to say, as one doctor suggested recently, that over half of the cases that come to the ordinary doctor's attention are not purely physical ailments. If this is so, the situation is serious indeed.