stantiated by the fact that he has derived conspicuous benefit from the careful administration of thyroid extract. All this is most interesting, not only from the standpoint of the clinician and therapist, but also from that of the psychologist. The all important detail is the actual determination of a male climacteric. Its definite recognition and the apparent discovery of its true physiologic basis will aid most substantially in the management of many a case that too often in the past has been lightly dismissed as "nothing but neurasthenia." The "change of life" has long filled an important place in the diagnostics of medicine. Likewise it has long been the extenuating factor in every caprice or temperamental outbreak of women of the fifth decade. Is there a physician who has not been ready, when no other reason presented to attribute every malady from hallux valgus to alopecia areata to "change of life?" And when Miss Clementina Jones, spinster, goes to church and faints most unseemly during the services, although her age is unknown, there are always plenty of good sisters ready to whisper their suspicion that "Clementina's climacteric" is responsible. If Mrs. Brown gets into a family jar with her lord and master, and has a good old fashioned hysterical fit, the young physician who is hurriedly called, asks a few questions, learns Mrs. B. is forty-one or two, and straightway sapiently advances the opinion, "'tis the change of life." Mrs. B. learns the formula and henceforth claims the privileges of a confirmed invalid, a chronic "change-of-lifer." Mrs. Smith, her next door neighbor is a gourmand and like the majority of those who live to eat, has vague pains everywhere, but especially in her much abused stomach and bowels. , 1910 , Vol. V., No. One talk with Mrs. B. and although her age she does not disclose, she promptly concludes that to the "change of life" her aches and pains are entirely due. Then, there is Mrs. White. This lady visits the leading stores and is so impressed with what she sees that she fills her shopping bag with souvenirs. The store people when they learn of it, fail to appreciate her taking ways and characterize her skill in collecting beautiful things, in the most vulgar terms! She is taken into custody, and then Mr. White appears on the scene, satisfies the aggrieved store people and explains that Mrs. White is not responsible owing to the mental unbalance occasioned by her "change of life." And so it goes. Up to now fair woman has enjoyed the "change of life" as exclusively a prerogative of her sex. Alas, it is so no longer. Man, who has so long been obliged to carry the full burden of his temperamental and other peculiarities without the slightest excuse or extenuation can now take refuge behind a climacteric of his own. Did he come home last night and place his boots on the piano and persist in singing the Marsellaise? It was nothing but the medicine prescribed to assist him in passing through his "change of life." Did Mr. B. lose his collar button and his temper at the same time? Simply the mental irresponsibility coincidental to the change of life. Is Mr. C. a staid middle aged man of a family-seen dining with a member of the chorus? Nothing to it, simply a case of dual personality. Mr. C., poor man, is suffering from an insufficiency of the thyroid which from time to time invests him with a personality that carries him irresistibly to Broadway-and its joys. its joys. These apparent lapses are never remembered by Mr, C. when he reverts to the authorized version of his life. Mrs. C. knows all about it, of course, and rightfully attributes it to his defective thyroid. It will be extremely gratifying to the profession that we can now understand and explain so much that has hitherto been shrouded in mystery. If the male climacteric proves as useful and convenient as the analogous state in the gentler sex, there will be no reason to complain. Excuses and extenuation are rare enough, Heaven knows, for the deflections of mankind, and if the medical profession has another new one that will hold water, our suffering brothers will "rise up and call us blessed." Is dishonesty innate or acquired? Here is a question that is bound to bother both the sociologists and psychologists. Is moral depravity the natural state of the human mind, and are honesty and the other manifestations of moral uprightness simply products of education and training? It is pretty hard to say. One thing is certain, the more one studies this proposition, not only as a problem of psychology, but as a problem of practical every day life, the more vexatious does the whole question become. The old saying "honesty is the best policy" is a cold blooded statement and gives little comfort to those who would like to believe that honesty is instinctive, and dishonesty nothing but the perversion of the natural moral state. It is not pessimism, nor an evidence of dishonest tendencies to raise this question, and more than one thinking man who is brought in close contact with many other men and their affairs will occasionally search his mentality and ask himself, "what is honesty?" Is it education and training, or is it a product of civilization, something that man has evolved for the protection of himself can. and his belongings? Let those answer who The whole matter is relative, for the values are as variable as people. Standards are constantly changing and the honest deeds of yesterday may be the dishonest acts of to-morrow. No better illustration could be brought forward than the sober statement of an honorable gentlemen concerning the recent grave scandals at Albany. He never denied the giving and taking of bribes to kill legislative bills, but simply said "it was the custom at that time, and nobody looked at it as we do nowadays!" If Within the last few years there has been a notable moral unrest among all classes of people and the resulting investigations in politics, railroad and insurance management and countless other fields of activity have shown that our most honorable and honest citizens have been guilty of acts that in their ultimate analysis seem questionable if not actually criminal. To a goodly proportion of these men, an accusation of dishonesty would have been an insult. they as insurance presidents maintained expensive lobbies and paid for legislative protection or immunity, they were but serving their policy-holders, the widows and orphans. If as directors of railroads, they gave rebates and protected themselves in diverse ways against legislative brigandage, they also were but safeguarding the interests of their stockholders. And so it went all down the line. The people kept certain men in office because they "made good" in serving their constituency, individually and collectively. The office holders traded their votes on railroad, insurance or other matters, for patronage, a liberal portion out of the "pork barrel," or a few more pensions. The main consideration in looking at the proposition is that was the custom; no one expected anything else. As a man who is respected and admired by every one who knows him, recently said, "Nobody thought these things dishonest, until somebody said they were and then everybody knew it." It was the manner of looking at these various matters, in other words purely a question of education. No reasonable, fairminded man can believe for a minute that many of those who were the most flagrant offenders realized that their acts were wrong and dishonest. Most of them were men who prized their honor, reputation and record of success high above everything. They were good husbands, good fathers and worshipped their families. They would have died cheerfully to save one of their loved ones from harm or disgrace. Is it likely that they would have knowingly and intentionally exposed those whom they loved to dishonor? The game wasn't worth the candle. Thus custom, usage and the law, give honesty a prominent place in the social scheme, and the average individual acquires a modicum of honesty if he never has a day of teaching. This, however, is the exception and few there are to-day who do not receive more or less schooling. There are three great schools, where man is given his education in the principles and practice of honesty-the school proper, the home and the church. These have collateral branches of more or less value. All vary in efficiency, so it is not surprising that many well meaning individuals vary in their knowledge and practice of honesty. But here is the bright side of the picture: every day sees extension of the principles of honesty. Education is doing it. Dishonesty is decreasing and the day is not far distant when there will be but one standard of honesty, a standard which every man will know, and knowing, practice. Honesty is largely a matter of education and training. This does not mean, however, that we are naturally dishonest any more than that we are by nature immoral. Children are just unmoral and by the same token just unhonest if we may be pardoned this etymologic atrocity. In a state of uneducated mentality, human beings are, therefore, neither honest nor dishonest. A study of primitive people as well as of the developing child proves this fact conclusively. Honesty in its primary or preliminary stages is simply social reciprocity. As the social organism becomes more complex, honesty likewise extends. While in the beginning it is of the nature of a comity between individuals, in its more complicated phases it takes on obligatory features. Again the anti-vivisectionists are making the welkin ring with their false claims and accusations. So loudly and viciously have they made their attack on certain scientific institutions, notably the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, that Dr. Simon Flexner has actually been driven to make a public reply. It is a shameful state of affairs when men of Dr. Flexner's attainments and standing have to defend their work for humanity against the faddistic outcry of comparative nonentities of achievement or anything else. It makes one's blood fairly boil to read the ravings of the mental myopes who consider the discomfort and suffering of a ridiculously few animals, of far greater importance than the welfare of countless human beings. When one thinks of the , 1910 , Vol. V., No. great discoveries of medicine that would have been impossible but for animal experimentation, and of the wonderful progress of surgery made possible through the same agency, the hysterical objections of the anti-vivisectionists seem as nothing else than the products of unbalanced, if not perverted minds. The writer yields to no one the possession of a greater love than his for dogs and other animals. He has known the genuine affection of more than one noble beast and treasures, as not the least of the things that make life worth while, frequent companionship with several intelligent dogs and horses. A person who from circumstance or non-inclination has never enjoyed such associations has been denied much. But in spite of this inborn love for animals and the anguish that has ever been felt at their slightest suffering, the writer would willingly sacrifice every dog or other animal that could become the slightest possible factor in aiding to solve any problem of medicine or surgery; the needs of the human family transcend those of every animal ever created. those whose work legitimately calls for animal experimentation, never abuse their opportunities, and those who practice vivisection illegitimately, can be adequately restrained and punished by existing laws. As a matter of fact As a matter of fact The anti-vivisectionists may be only terrible examples of how far astray good intentions wrongfully directed will carry the simple and thoughtless. But if the people who are carrying on this ridiculous movement do accomplish their avowed purpose, it will be a sorry day for scientific research. It would seem about time for medical men generally to make themselves heard on this vital matter. Woman Suffrage.-"Once, and that not so long ago," said a cynic, "women-God bless them were our superiors: now, they are our equals." Alas, " 'tis true, 'tis a pity, and pity 'tis, 'tis true," and fair woman once the guiding star of man's loftiest aspirations and dreams, is doing her best-or worst-to win the empty privilege of the franchise. Wifehood, motherhood and all the lovable attributes of her sex count as nothing in the hectic struggle to force man -the erstwhile brute-to give her the right to vote. And the loud and vulgar mouthings, the protestations, accusations and threats, the shrieks of derision and the bursts of anger, in truth cause many a man to pause and wonder. Can this thing be? Can womankind have journeyed so far? And in the hidden chambers of the mind, memory mayhap conjures a lullaby, the crooning of a mother, with its burden of love and devotion. Pictures come and go, leaving naught but the dearest memories of the woman our boyhood knew. She sought no vote, for her the ballot box held no charm. The home was her field of activity and the fulfillment of her sacred place as wife and mother met her every desire. Her keen realization of the physical limitations imposed by her sex, her appreciation of the part God gave her in the Plan, and her delight in giving to her offspring the best that was in her, left no desire nor time for fads and foolish ambitions. She was a woman, sensible of her opportunities and proud to fill them according to her conscience and her ability. Who shall say that her influence in her home and on the lives of those who looked to her for love, guidance and sympathy was not greater than it ever could have been in the ruck of the political arena? Somewhere we ran across these crude little verses. The poetry may be questionable, but the sentiment, ah, the sentiment is the thing; "A wholesome smell of bread, new baked: Yet search the whole world thro' and thro', Her drowsy babe upon her breast, His hand upon the latch!" A lovely face, flushed with exertion but happy in the sheer delight of motherhood and the toil of the home, somehow or other fits into the picture. Would the privilege of the ballot add one jot or tittle to the happiness of the mother or lighten ever so little the tired steps of him who lifts the latch? But woman, lovely woman wants to vote at least a strenuous few of her sex do-and seeks to become a unit-or is it a numeral-in the political sum. Oh no, it is not our mother or our wife, or your mother or your wife who are making the fight. They do not care to vote, for they have something better to do. So what's the use of worrying. If there are a few "new" women who insist on voting because, well just because-why not let them do it? The price they pay for the empty bauble of being counted in the returns from "de fif' ward"-if they are "in right"-is a price that may leave them poor indeed. A double sewer system is the inevitable result, if present day discussion continues in its present trend. Every city must be compelled to adopt one of the modern systems of sewage disposal, but the entrance of rain water into the sewers makes the volume of fluid too great and the cost prohibitive. The matter of expense may thus compel us to resort to a system of drains to carry off the rain water, for though such drainage carries with it the washing of streets, they are not so dangerous as sewage and would be almost harmless if the streets were properly cleaned. The house wastes could then be disposed of at reasonable expense, and our rivers would become so clean that the filtration would be much cheaper and perhaps effective in securing perfectly safe drinking water, though the time when filtration can be omitted will probably never come. Federal control of stream pollution seems to be a future necessity, for no community will go to the expense now demanded unless compelled by a higher power. Such an evolution of national sanitation is freely predicted, for it is said that no city should be permitted to pour its sewage even into the ocean, to be a nuisance to the coast dwellers. Much less should a bay be so-used. New York City has so befouled the harbor as to have seriously injured the property and lives of its neighbors. Indeed the condition of those waters is a disgrace to civilization. Not only are the fish and other sea foods being exterminated in this and other harbors, but it is now unsafe to eat raw oysters because so many of them are "fattened" in typhoid sewage direct from the water-closets. Surely the time is ripe for a house-cleaning. And yet there must be new laws, for the Supreme Court practically decided that by present laws the City of Chicago had a perfect right to dump its filth on other communities, although the case merely raised the question as to whether St. Louis got some of the sewage. As this point was not proved, St. Louis had no redress. Cities higher up stream no doubt have a real grievance but not enough money to force the issue. Chicago can ignore the rights of weaker neighbors. |