1189c

over the profession and the public. We should have anotherillustration of the fable of King Log and King Stork. Wemight rid ourselves of the present government, but if wedid we might have that democracy that ends in despotism.If, nevertheless, it be necessary to have a medical unionit must be unanimous and it must be perfectly volun-tary. The body, to be enduring and strong, musthave its strength from within; in and between eachmember there must exist that force that hold t getherthe atoms in an iron rod, they must not merely be boundtogether like the wires in a bundle. We shall only form apowerful and an honourable union when the several districtsare fitted for it and when the individual members of theprofession are themselves men of honour ; no rules can makemen professionally honourable any more than laws can makepeople sober. Doubtless, if a man is a member of any societyit becomes more difficult for him to sin against it, but ifthe unclean are ostracised they will not attempt tocleanse themselves. The harder the wind blew thetighter the man buttoned up his coat and the more

he tried to wrap himself up from it, but when the sun shonewarm he undid his coat and even took it off. I believe weshall do more good for our ’profession and render a unionmore easily formed by decentralising our efforts, by makingevery district work and act for itself. The smaller thedistrict the greater will be the proportion of the member tothe society, the more interest will he feel in it, and themore will he feel its influence. As a member only ofan immense society he is apt to feel a nonentity anda corresponding lack of responsibility to the society. Wemust also look to our schools to inculcate principles of

professional morality, and I believe they are doing so,and every individual must be made to feel that it is his

personal duty to uphold the honour and maintain the well-being of the profession; this end may be helped by encouragingand making popular all those associations, societies, andmeetings, both scientific and social, which tend to pro-duce a feeling of esprit de corps. I have, I am sorry to see,taken up much more space than I intended ; my excuse mustbe an honest fear lest in the thought that union is strengthwe might forget that the battle is not always to the strong.

I am, Sirs, your obedient servant,Freshford, Oct. 20th, 1896. CHAS. E. S. FLEMMING.

"HOSPITAL ABUSE."To the Editors of THE L A N C, E T.

SIRS,—At a meeting of the Provisional Committee held inLondon on the 15th inst. I was directed to write and thankyou for your articles on Hospital Abuse in the columns ofTHE LANCET. I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,

T. GARRETT HORDER,Hon. Sec. Hospital Reform Association.

Windsor-place, Cardiff, Oct. 16th, 1896.

"ELECTION OF DIRECT REPRESENTATIVESTO THE GENERAL MEDICAL

COUNCIL." To the Editors of THE LANCET.

SIRS.-In the Medical Yimes and Ilospital Gazette ofOct. 17th there appeared a notice of a meeting held atDr. Barkwell’s house, 299, Lavender-hill, on Tuesday,Oct. 6th. The meeting was called for the purpose of hearingan address from Dr. Alderson and had no reference whateverto other candidates. The resolution, which was proposed byDr. Richards, seconded by Dr. Horton, and almost unani-mously carried, was in these words : " This meeting thanksDr. Alderson for his address and pledges itself to give himevery support in its power." The notice, then, as it appearsin the Medical Times and Hospital Gazette is inaccurateand calculated to mislead.

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,

London, Oct. 19th, 1896.JAMES SAVAGE, Hon.F. HERBERT ALDERSON, Secs.

To the Editors of THE LANCET.SIRS,—At the next meeting of the Gainsborough and

District Medico-Ethical Society, to be held on the 28th inst.,the chief thing on the agenda will be to discuss theaddresses, &c., of the various candidates for the General

Medical Council and, if possible, select three candidates forwhom we shall all vote. May I be allowed through yourvaluable paper to ask each candidate to send me a few copiesof his address together with any other intelligence he maywish conveyed to our meeting? ?

I am, Sirs, faithfully yours,

Gainsborough, Oct. 17th, 1896.JOHN E. S. PASSMORE, Hon. Sec.1896

" ST. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY MEDICALSCHOOL."

To the Editors of THE LANCET.SIRS,—Mr. Mark Anderson’s letter in THE LANCET of

Oct. 17th. has not modified my opinion of his proposal tocompulsorily retire assistants to professors after three years’service. The position of each assistant is already subject toannual review by the corresponding professor and the

University court, and with this repeated opportunity for theremoval of any man proving himself to be in any senseundesirable it seems fatuous to ask the University to binditself by an inflexible rule, as a result of which the servicesand abilities of the most diligent and competent of assistantsmust needs be lost to the University. At the present momentthe University has full liberty to retain those who serve itwell and to get rid of the lazy and incompetent. Mr.Anderson’s desire is to limit this freedom of action.

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,Oct. 19th, 1896. YOUR CORRESPONDENT.

A POINT IN THE NOTIFICATION OFDISEASE.

To the -Editors of THE L A N C E T.SIRS,—Will you kindly give your opinion on the following

case in the next issue of THE LANCET? A tradesmanreceives a servantmaid into his house who in forty-eighthours develops scarlet fever ; he (the tradesman) wishes toremove the girl to her own home, a distance of four miles, ina thickly populated neighbourhood. The medical man inattendance shirks the responsibility by putting the onus ofthe case on the medical officer of health. This is thequestion—Is the latter keeping within the law by not con-senting to the removal ? Apologising for troubling you,

I am, Sirs, yours faithfully,Oct. 19th, 1896. E. G.

*** The case is not free from difficulty, and the maindifficulty would appear to be due to the fact that the localsanitary authority have failed to provide for their districtmeans of isolation for such cases. Under such circumstancesthe tradesman has a perfect right to remove the case fromhis house where his wares, his customers, and his familymight otherwise be subject to the risk of infection. But hemust do this in a way that will not injure the patient orlead to risk of infection to others. Thus, if the patient’shome is a proper place for her reception and the usual carein removal—such as is observed in removal of cases to

hospital—is taken, the removal may be made without con-travention of law or propriety. These are the essential

points which the medical officer of health should have inview and on which his decision should be based.—ED. L.

MISQUOTATIONS.To the Editors of THE LANCET.

SIRS,-Although the subject on which I venture to addressyou is not a medical one, it is of great interest and of someimportance to all who take part in controversies in the

public press. In the last paragraph of his letter on " TheNew Poor-law Officers’ Superannuation Act," published lastweek in THE LANCET, Mr. John H. Rutherglen writes : " Iknow from experience that a man convinced against hiswill remains of the same opinion still. "’

" If this be so, Mr.

Rutherglen must be able to see further through a brick wallthan can most of us. For my part, I cannot understandthe possibility of a man (or woman) being "convinced"

"

! *’ against his (or her) will " and remaining ’’ of the same