good education, no general code of ethics is necessary for them which is not equally recognized by all educated gentlemen.

But inasmuch as the relation of the physician to the patient and to other physicians is often a peculiar one, it may be wise to keep in mind certain other principles of special application, and which are recommended by experience and sanctioned by wisdom.

(1.) The physician should remember always that he is called for the good of the patient; and this consideration should be uppermost in his mind, prompting him to thoroughness, to faithfulness, and to diligence, without selfishness or vain glory.

(2.) With the same view to the patient's good, and also having in mind the importance and the dignity of his profession, he should call counsel when in doubt, or when requested, and in cases of unusual gravity and responsibility, and should call good counsel. And the deliberations and discussions in council should be confidential.

(3.) He should discourage quackery, which is false pretence, and should make himself no partner to this by consulting with quacks, which is not only to be false himself, but to jeopardize the patient, to injure the public, and to degrade the profession.

(4.) He should not interfere with any other physician; and, especially, should not undertake to undermine his practice or his reputation. This not only injures his fellow but his fellow's patients, and also subjects his own motives to suspicion and demeans the calling.

(5.) The relation of physician and patient is strictly and wholly confidential, and neither the patient, nor the sickness, nor the surroundings, should be made the subject of general conversation. (6.) The professional differences of physicians should be settled. between themselves, the public being no competent arbiters.

(7.) The practice of medicine should be conducted not only as a liberal profession, but also as a practical philanthropy, personal and public. The sick poor should never be allowed to suffer from neglect, and public health should be looked upon always as a particular charge.-Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Jan. 8, 1880.

(We suspect that Dr. Sargent has been reading the MEDICAL ECLECTIC.-EDS.

CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGE.

M. Godet reported to the Medical Society of Rheims some interesting facts bearing on the question of consanguineous marriage. Of nine children, born to an uncle and niece who had united themselves in matrimony, two died at an early age, four are deaf mutes, one is an epileptic, while only two are healthy.

This is certainly a very fearful showing, but the case as it stands is a very imperfect argument against close intermarriage. It is lacking in certain elements, which are necessary to make it strong evidence against consanguinity in the marriage relations.

Reasoning from the analogies, furnished by the inferior animals, there is nothing injurious, per se, in blood relationship of parents, that is, in its effects on the physical constitution of the offspring. These analogies, so far from showing the relationship to be disastrous, demonstrate that it may be made positively beneficial. The breeders of fine stock understand this, and some of the finest strains are the results of in-and-in breeding. Instances are by no means wanting in which able men, and physically stalwart, are the children of parents between whom there existed a blood relationship. With these facts before us, it becomes necessary to look further than to the mere fact of the legally, and morally too, incestuous marriage for the cause of the disastrous results in the case cited. It would have helped to a solution if the reporter had given us some facts regarding the peculiarities of the parents. Was there an inherent tendency in each to any neurosis? there any constitutional taint common to each? These coincidences are liable to occur between parents not united by any blood relationship, and when they do occur, the offspring of the union suffers. The same law applies to the better qualities of mind and body. The children of parents in whom there is a common genius, will inherit that genius in an intensified degree. Stock raisers, in propagating "points," select for mating a male and female which each have the particular "point" sought. The feathering of a bird can be regulated with an almost mathematical certainty, by the selection of the male and female. The patriarch Jacob understood this trick of "points," and turned his knowledge to good account.

Was

Mr. Darwin, in his theory of natural selection

and survival of the fittest, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of most minds, that even different species have been created through an instinctive conformity to the principle of "points."

Consanguineous marriages offend our sense of what is right, and under the haphazard system, or rather lack of system, of marriage which obtains, they should be discountenanced and prohibited by law. If another system, however, prevailed, than that under which the very erratic passion called love, existing between a young man and a young woman, is a sufficient warrant for them to enter into relations through which they may legally procreate, the scientific objection to blood relationship in parents, would, in a large measure, be removed. Consanguineous marriage intensifies in the child tendencies common to the parents, and is operative for good as well as for evil. In cases in which it has operated for good it receives no credit; but when, perchance, the condition existed through which it intensified a vicious predisposition, it is held up as a crime against nature and morality.-Michigan Medical News.

DETROIT, MICH., January 10, 1880.

DRS. NEWTON, Editors Medical Eclectic,

19 East Thirty-second Street, New York.

DEAR SIRS: In the Medical and Surgical Reporter, Philadelphia, April 19, 1879, there appeared an original communication from the pen of Dr. J. R. Black, of Newark, O., on the subject of Euonymus Atropurpureus (Wahoo bark). In this article the writer took occasion to make the following statement with regard to his use of the fluid extract of this drug:

"It is here proper to remark, that the fluid extracts in the market are of unequal strength. That of Parke, Davis & Co., for instance, prepared, apparently, from the bark of the tree, is only half the strength of that prepared by Wyeth & Co., extracted from the bark of the root. It is of the latter on which my observations are founded."

As soon as this article was brought to our notice, we wrote to the editor of the Medical and Surgical Reporter, stating the facts in the case, and the injustice in this article, which resulted in the following comments in that journal, May 10, 1879:

"In reference to the statement, made by Dr. J. R. Black, in the Reporter, page 335, column 1, Messrs. Parke, Davis & Co. write us as follows: We would state, that never since we have been in the business, have we used one pound of the bark of the Wahoo tree for the preparation of the fluid extract or any other medicinal article. On the contrary, we use for this purpose a superior and selected article of the bark of the root. Furthermore, we use the full amount prescribed of the root bark, and we thoroughly exhaust the drug of what the best authorities deem to be the medicinal principles thereof.'"

We have now to state, confirming the statements covered in the above comments, that parties interested in the same line of manufacture and hostile to us, have been attempting to influence editors of medical journals to publish this article as an item of interest to the profession, although the bias in the case is fully evident. We have to request that if you deem it advisable to publish this article, you will also publish our statements in the Medical and Surgical Reporter, as above quoted.

We remain, very truly yours,

PARKE, DAVIS & Co.

The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal of January 8, 1880, has an editorial upon the code, which is but an endorsement of the views held by Eclectic physicians for the past forty years. A few extracts which we make are rather suggestive of "Eclectic" reading:

"It would be generally conceded that a code of ethics for the government of any body of men in their relations to each other and to the outside world is requisite only in so far as there may be among their number the ignorant or the evil minded. The ignorant are unaware of the obligations incurred by associating themselves with others; the evil minded, knowing these obligations, seek to evade them. And then there is that disturbing element of 'human nature' which, without adopting the dogma of original sin, we are forced to acknowledge still clings to a man even after he has developed into an 'educated gentleman' and a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society; its misdeeds, however, we must class with those of the evil minded."

Is it because all allopathic societies have such a large number of "ignorant" and "evil minded" members that the code is perpetuated? The editor answers this by asking, Can a code of ethics give the instincts of a gentleman to one who has them not? Can it enlighten one who, knowing the golden rule, is incompetent to apply it in the practice of medicine? And, secondly, can such penalties be attached to its violation-can and will these penalties be so enforced-as to restrain the evil minded? This question of the feasibility of accomplishing the objects for which a code might be demanded we will not attempt to decide. We know there are those who are disposed to think that the weaknesses of our mortal nature may find comfort in arbitration, and that the vigorously depraved will always find an escape through any paper barrier?

Joining ourselves, however, for the moment, with those who think that a code of ethics is required for regularly educated practitioners of medicine, and that some form of code will secure all, or much, that is desired, the final question presents itself as to what that form shall be; and this immediately leads us to ask ourselves what we expect from a code of medical ethics. To this a fair reply would be, simplicity and thoroughness in teaching physicians how to practice medicine—which the best and wisest men for centuries have agreed should not be regarded as a trade, and yet by which its followers must earn their bread-with the greatest benefit to the community at large and the least friction among themselves. The old problem in mechanics of unlimited power and no friction, suggests scarcely greater difficulties. If the code is too short, it consists almost necessarily of beautiful platitudes, and we can see no reason for going beyond the "do unto others as you would be done by;" if too long, it falls to the ground from its own weight; if there is no detail, the ignorant will not be instructed, nor will the evil minded be hedged in; if there is too much detail, the enlight. ened and sensitive will not submit, nor can their rebellious conduct be easily reached. Will a code of ethics restrain the social tendencies of a physician's wife, or bring him to punishment for them? And what will it affect with the aged senior consultant, who vows he will give his opinion first instead of last, or vice versa !