Page images
PDF
EPUB

The lies which relations and friends generally think it their duty to tell an unconsciously dying person, are prompted by real benevolence, as are those which medical men deem themselves justified in uttering to a dying patient; though, if the person dying, or the surrounding friends, be strictly religious characters, they must be, on principle, desirous that the whole truth should be told.*

* Richard Pearson, the distinguished author of the life of William Hey of Leeds, says, in that interesting book, p. 261, "Mr Hey's sacred respect for truth, and his regard for the welfare of his fellow creatures, never permitted him intentionally to deceive his patients by flattering representations of their state of health, by assurances of the existence of no danger, when he conceived their situation to be hopeless, or even greatly hazardous. "The duty of a medical attendant," continues he, "in such delicate situations, has been a subject of considerable embarrassment to men of integrity and conscience, who view the uttering of a falsehood as a crime, and the practice of deceit as repugnant to the spirit of christianity. That a sacrifice of truth may sometimes contribute to the comfort of a patient, and be medically beneficial, is not denied; but that a wilful and deliberate falsehood can, in any case, be justifiable before God, is a maxim not to be lightly admitted. The question may be stated thus; Is it justifiable for a man deliberately to violate a moral precept of the law of God, from a motive of prudence and humanity? If this be affirmed, it must be admitted that it would be no less justifiable to infringe the laws of his country from similar motives; and, consequently, it would be an act of injustice to punish him for such a transgression. But, will it be contended, that the divine, or even the human legislator, must be subjected to the control of this sort of casuistry? If falsehood, under these circumstances, be no crime, then, as no detriment can result from uttering it, very little merit can be atttached to so light a sacrifice; whereas, if it were presumed that some guilt were incurred, and that the physician voluntarily exposed himself to the danger of future suffering, for the sake of procuring temporary benefit to his patient, he would have a high claim upon the gratitude of those who derived the advantage. But, is it quite clear that pure benevolence commonly suggests the deviation from truth, and that neither the low consideration of conciliating favor, nor the view of escaping censure, and promoting his own interest, have any share in prompting him to adopt the measure he defends? To assist in this inquiry, let a man ask himself whether he carries this caution and shows this kindness, indiscriminately on all occasions; being as fearful of giving pain, by exciting apprehension in the mind of the poor, as of the rich; of the meanest, as of the most elevated rank. Suppose it can be shown that these humane falsehoods are distributed promiscuously, it may be inquired further, whether, if such a proceeding were a manifest breach of a municipal law, exposing the delinquent to suffer a very inconvenient and serious punishment, a medical adviser would feel himself obliged to expose his person or

[ocr errors]

Methinks I hear some of my readers exclaim, can any one suppose it a duty to run the risk of killing friends or relations, by telling the whole truth; that is, informing them that they are dying! But, if the patient be not really dying, or in danger, no risk is incurred; and if they be near death which is it of most importance to consider,―their momentary quiet here, or their interests hereafter? Besides, many of those persons who would think that, for spiritual reasons merely, a disclosure of the truth was improper, and who declare that, on such occasions, falsehood is virtue, and concealment, humanity, would hold a different language, and act differently, were the unconsciously dying person one who was known not to have made a will, and who had considerable property to dispose of. Then, consideration for their own temporal interests, or for those of others, would probably make them advise or adopt a contrary proceeding. Yet, who that seriously reflects can, for a moment, put worldly nterests in any comparison with those of a spiritual nature? But perhaps, an undue preference of worldly over spiritual interests might not be the leading motive to tell truth in the one case, and withhold it in the other. The persons in question would probably be influenced by the conviction satisfactory to them, but awful and er

his estate to penal consequences, whenever the circumstances of his patient should seem to require the intervention of a falsehood. It may be presumed without any breach of charity, that a demur would frequently, perhaps generally, be interposed on the occasion of such a requisition. But, surely, the laws of the Moral Governor of the universe are not to be esteemed less sacred, and a transgression of them less important in its consequences, than the violation of a civil statute; nor ought the fear of God to be less powerful in deterring men from the committing of a crime, than the fear of a magistrate. Those who contend for the necessity of violating truth, that they may benefit their patients, place themselves between two conflicting rules of morality; their obligation to obey the command of God, and their presumed duty to their neighbor; or in other words, they are supposed to be brought by the Divine Providence into this distressing alternative of necessarily sinning against God or their fellow creatures. When a moral and a positive duty stand opposed to each other, the Holy Scriptures have determined that obedience to the former is to be preserved, before compliance with the latter."

roneous in my apprehension, that a death bed repentance, and death bed supplication, must be wholly unavailing for the soul of the departing; that, as the sufferer's work for himself is wholly done, and his fate fixed for time, and for eternity, it were needless cruelty to let him know his end was approaching; but that, as his work for others is not done, if he has not made a testamentary disposal of his property, it is a duty to urge him to make a will, even at all risk to himself.

My own opinion, which I give with great humility, is, that the truth is never to be violated or withheld, in order to deceive; but I know myself to be in such a painful minority on this subject, that I almost doubt the correctness of my own judgment.

I am inclined to think that lies of Benevolence are more frequently passive, than active, are more frequently instanced in withholding and concealing the truth, than in direct spontaneous lying. There is one instance of withholding and concealing the truth from motives of mistaken benevolence, which is so common, and so pernicious, that I feel it particularly necessary to hold up to severe reprehension. It is withholding or speaking only half the truth in giving the character of a servant.

Many persons, from reluctance to injure the interests even of very unworthy servants, never give the whole character unless it be required of them, and then, rather than tell a positive lie, they disclose the whole truth. But are they not lying, that is, are they not meaning to deceive, when they withhold the truth?

When I speak to ladies and gentlemen respecting the character of a servant, I of course conclude that I am speaking to honorable persons. I therefore expect that they should give me a correct character of the domestic in question; and should I omit to ask whether he, or she, be honest, or sober, I require that information on those points should be given me unreservedly. They must leave me to judge whether I will run the risk of hiring a drunkard, a thief, or a servant otherwise ill disposed; but they would be dishonorable if they betrayed me into

receiving into my family, to the risk of my domestic peace, or my property, those who are addicted to dishonest practices, or otherwise of immoral habits. Besides, what an erroneous and bounded benevolence this conduct exhibits! If it be benevolence towards the servant whom I hire, it is malevolent towards me, and unjust also. True christian kindness is just and impartial in its dealings, and never serves even a friend at the expense of a third person. But, the masters and mistresses, who thus do what they call a benevolent action at the sacrifice of truth and integrity, often, no doubt, find their sin visited on their own heads; for they are not likely to have trustworthy servants. If servants know that, owing to the sinful kindness and lax morality of their employers, their faults will not receive their proper punishment-that of disclosure,when they are turned away, one of the most powerful motives to behave well is removed; for those are not likely to abstain from sin, who are sure that they shall sin with impunity. Thus, then, the master or mistress who, in mistaken kindness, conceals the fault of a single servant, leads the rest of the household into the temptation of sinning also; and what is fancied to be benevolent to one, becomes, in its consequences, injurious to many. But, let us now see what it the probable effect on the servants so screened and befriended? They are instantly exposed, by this withholding of the truth, to the peril of tempttation. Nothing, perhaps, can be more beneficial to culprits, of all descriptions, than to be allowed to take the immediate consequences of their offences, provided those consequences stop short of death, that most awful of punishments, because it cuts the offender off from all means of amendment; therefore it were better for the interests of servants, in every point of view, to let them abide by the certainty of not getting a new place, because they cannot have a character from their last; by this means the humane wish to punish, in order to save, would be gratified, and consequently, if the truth was always told on occasions of this nature, the feelings of REAL BENEVOLENCE would, in the end, be gratified.

But, if good characters are given to servants, or incomplete characters, that is, if their good qualities are mentioned, and their bad withheld, the consequences to the beings so mistakenly befriended may be of the most fatal nature; for, if ignorant of their besetting sin, the heads of the family cannot guard against it, but, unconsciously, may every hour put temptations in their way; while, on the contrary, had they been made acquainted with that besetting sin, they would have taken care never to have risked its being called into action.

But who, it may be asked, would hire servants, knowing that they had any "besetting sins?"

I trust that there are many who would do this from the pious and benevolent motive of saving them from further destruction, especially if penitence had been satisfactorily manifested.

I will now endeavor to illustrate some of my positions by the following story.

MISTAKEN KINDNESS.

ANN BELSON had lived in a respectable merchant's family, of the name of Melbourne, for many years, and had acquitted herself to the satisfaction of her employers in successive capacities of nurse, house-maid, and lady's maid. But it was at length discovered that she had long been addicted to petty pilfering; and, being emboldened by past impunity, she purloined some valuable lace, and was detected; but her kind master and mistress could not prevail on themselves to give up the tender nurse of their children to the just rigor of the law, and as their children themselves could not bear to have " poor Ann sent to gaol," they resolved to punish her in no other manner, than by turning her away without a character, as the common phrase is. But without a character she could not procure another service, and might be thus consigned to misery and ruin. This idea was insupportable! However

« PreviousContinue »