Giving Information About the Prevention of Conception Chillicothe, Ill.

style And,

crit

Dear Doctor Robinson: - Have been a continuous reader of CRITIC AND GUIDE ever since I saw the first copy some six years ago. It is in a class all by itself. It is "different", and I am much inclined to take to things that are "different." I like its good horse-sense and the with which it is handed out. now, knowing that you invite icism as well as commendation, I am going to criticise just the same as tho I were capable of so doing. You tell us of so many things that should be done and that should not be done, of the most of which we are all painfully aware, but you do not tell us how to do or how to prevent these existing conditions. These are the essential things and the things most of us do not know. With your convincing language you lead us up to the full belief in your ideas regarding certain conditions and tell us plainly all the "why and wherefor" there is to be told and just as we are expecting to learn the all-important "how", of which many of us are ignorant, you drop the case, "to be continued in your next" only with a reiteration of the same thing either by yourself or some colleague, all of you stopping just short of the thing we all want to know. For instance, you tell us all about the horrors of venereal and sexual troubles and give us long preachments about the benefits of prophylaxis, but fail to tell us what are the means and methods of said prophylaxis. By what means is the budding scion, who feels he needs must worship by Venus' burning altar, to prevent his erstwhile virtuous and immaculate body from acquiring the various and dire infections lurking in the many mucous folds behind the throne whereat he worships? I have just finished reading your "Never-Told Tales."

Truth

ful tales, every one, and beautifully told. We have all seen these things, but how will we prevent it? Again, for years you have preached the prevention of conception and I heartily agree with you in all you

say, but, here again you stop just short of what we all would know, i. e. What is your "safe, harmless and efficient means?" We all know of much good that should be done and would gladly do our share if we but knew how to effectually proceed.

Thinking there were some things that could not well be put in print I wrote you some questions, but answer to my inquiries is yet to be received. I am still "Missourian" and waiting to be shown that "safe, harmless and efficient" means of preventing conception, as I still have families, as every physician has, who stand in need of this priceless boon.

With hearty wishes for success in all your labors for humanity and assuring you of my sincere sympathy in your efforts, I am, Yours truly and fraternally,

OSCAR ALLEN, M. D.

P. S. I forgot to state that I am giving three cheers for "Anna" who, writes so frankly, forcibly and truthfully in the last C. and G., and you will find many women who, if they speak the truth, can prove to you that there is no such wide difference in the sexual function and feelings of man and women.

O. A. (For answer, see Editorial in this issue.)

Women Defending Their Honor

Dear Doctor Robinson:-Referring to your article on "Women Defending their Honor", I shall not "violently disapprove;" but some of your expressions are liable to a construction which I should not like to see pass unchallenged. The question is not merely that of defending the more or less mythical entity known as "honor" in common parlance, and meaning nobody knows what, but of repelling intrusion and insolent interference with the right of privacy. Entirely without regard to sexual matters, the noisy impertinences of hoodlums make the streets or public conveyances unpleasant for both men and women; and any person complaining against these ruffians deserves praise and encouragement. The loafers who accost women that are minding their

own business, and try to thrust their society on them, do no hurt to the "honor" of the women; but they make themselves a public nuisance, like the filthy fellows who spit on the sidewalks, the smoking hogs who insist in tainting the air of the subway and other close places, the rowdies who hurl their vulgar jeers after women (or men for that matter) who chance to wear any dress of an unusual cut, and other vermin of like breed.

From verbal impudence, if unrebuked and unpunished, it is only a step to thuggery so often seen in our public conveyances, and treated with such inexcusable lenience by the average magistrate. For,, the poor wretch, who steals to keep from starving, and for many of the societymade criminals, there is ground for much pity; but no palliation can be found for the wanton rowdyism of the hoodlum, whose anti-social acts can be of no service to him, and

simply signify a thoroly depraved

nature, which finds its keenest pleasure in inflicting discomfort on others. These miscreants can understand nothing but force; and they should have their fill of it.

JAMES F. MORTON, JR.

244 West 143rd St.

I fully agree with Mr. Morton. I would deal much more severely with the adult ruffian and rowdy than with the pickpocket. Tho products of our social conditions, society has a right to protect itself from these beasts and it should show no mercy or sickly sentimentality in dealing with them. But all this has nothing to do with the subject of my editorial. I was not referring to ruffians and rowdies; I was referring rather to the variety of "masher," or to the man who is so unfortunate as to occasionally mistake a respectable woman for a demimondaine.

Defending One's Honor Dear Doctor:-I am very glad to note your editorial expression of scepticism as to the status of women who make public complaint as to insults by strange men. The institution of "catching on" is a very ancient one. It is alluded to by Solomon, in his reference to strange women and the very modern synonym of "pick

up" is used by Nausikaa in the Odyssey. Men don't go to hardware stores to buy stationery, and there would be no insulting of women on the streets if there were no women willing to accept improper advances.

It occurs to me that a good deal of the present discussion as to fee splitting and giving and taking of commissions, as well as to other ethical vices in our profession is quite in analogy to the matter of sexual honor among women. Last year, I was able to make the statement that, in an experience of 22 years, at first in general practice, afterward in a specialty involving consultations in both ways, I had never been asked to commission nor had one

pay a

The Pernicious Fasting Habit

Dear Doctor Robinson: -Your challenge to Mr. Upton Sinclair in the April issue of the CRITIC AND GUIDE will hardly be accepted by him. No one would expect or desire to see Mr. Sinclair infected with a loathsome disease for no other reason, than to demonstrate the utility of a therapeutic agent. Such heroism is expected only from physicians who 'count many such heroes among them. The probabilities, however, are, that most of the socialists, who are ready to attack you for daring to disagree with Mr. Sinclair, have never heard of such sacrifices on the part of members of the medical profession.

Mr. Upton Sinclair claims to have had a good deal to do with medical problems, his own and other people's. He has also given much time to the investigation of such questions. He does not, however, state what those problems were, or wherein his investigations consisted. His medical education, according to his own statement, consisted in reading the new ideas and thinking for himself. Orthodox medical education he styles as Idead medical formulas. Can anyone conceive more profound conceit, more absolute intellectual blindness, or greater absurdity? He is ready

and willing to stake the lives and wellbeing of his gullible followers on the mere thought and investigation of one man entirely ignorant of medicine, as against the study and investigation of thousands of specialized men in this branch of science. The conclusions arrived at by investigators and clinical observers for ages are as nothing to him. The science and art of medicine, which has been slowly evolved from a jumble of superstitions and baseless beliefs, and has reached a stage when it may deservedly be ranked with the exact sciences, and when such wonderful practical results have been achieved, is utterly disregarded by this wonderful new-thoughter of the 20th century. And this from the pen of a leading socialist, who is supposed to stand for progress and advancement. The physician, who has little time for theories and high thoughts, keeps on working and alleviating human suffering to the best of his ability. Little by little he gathers experience from observation at the bedside. In his daily rounds he applies the latest discoveries, elaborated by specialized laboratory workers, who give up their lives to research and study for the benefit of mankind. Which method is more conducive to progress in medicine? Is it thinking high thoughts and reading new ideas at the green table, or the constant work of tens of thousands of physicians at the bedIside and in laboratories?

If Mr. Sinclair had only taken the trouble to study the structure and functions of the human organism; if he could only muster up enough courage to give up theorizing and to apply himself to the study of morbid changes in disease, he would quickly realize the absurdity and injuriousness of his fasting therapy. Is Mr. Sinclair aware that the cells composing the human organism require the constant supply of food elements for their existence and that chemical changes constantly take place in each and every cell of the body; and that this perpetual chemical activity determines the very life of the cell. Does he know that in infectious diseases there is a constant struggle between the cells, or more properly speaking, between the protective sub

stances elaborated by the cells and the toxins generated by the invading bacteria? Can any sane man reconcile himself to the suggestion of Mr. Sinclair, that in order to fight those diseases, the very weapons of the cells be taken away from them?

No, Dr. Robinson, his ideas are wrong, because they are based on ignorance. His presumption to heal human beings is an unpardonable transgression on the rights of the individual, for which principle he claims to be fighting. Mr. Sinclair's influence among a certain class of people makes him a danger to the community. If he really means to do good, let him study medicine seriously, and he will quickly drop his dangerous hobby.

HARRIS WEINSTEIN, M. D.

New York.

A Curious Laboratory Analysis Some time ago a ruddy faced man, well dressed, bejewelled, and otherwise showing signs of affluence, presented himself at our laboratory bringing a bottle of whisky he said he wanted analyzed for poison. He had no objection to charges and would pay after he found out what the whisky contained.

He seemed very much exercised, and no amount of questioning could elicit more than his name and telephone number. He was thoroly convinced, however, that the whisky was poisoned. He left after receiving our promise that report would be sent in due time.

The fluid in the bottle had the appearance and the odor of whisky. It was subjected to distillation, and found to contain about 30% of alcohol. The usual strength of whisky is from 40% to 42%. To look for an unknown factor in such cases the imagination is usually drawn upon, and poisons looked for which are easily accessible to the laity. We looked for cyanogen, arsenic, mercury, for morphine and strychnine, but all gave negative results.

Recalling that Spanish Fly is frequently used in love potions, I thought that possibly fragments of the shimmering wings of the insect might be found; accordingly, we centrifuged the residue after the distillation and looked with a 2/3 Objective.