and purpose of this instrument by falling in with the public judgment and condemning it by faint praise. In truth can the profession as a whole claim that any moving faith animates the rank and file in support of this "Charter of Achievement, Responsibility and Conduct"?
Had not progressive men from time to time in the history of organized medical development, made conscientious effort to formulate "By-laws" or "Principles" as a guide to professional conduct, they would have been most recreant to duty in their day and generation. As well think of the American Commonwealth without a Constitution, a religion without a creed, or the Bible without its Ten Commandments. Our "Code" is not a perfect instrument—never can be. With evolution in medical progress it will need revision to meet the changes which wisdom and experience have proved out, and found not wanting. For the present it will be to our mutual advantage to know better our commandments of "Shalts" and "Shalt-nots".
It is surprising and rather disheartening how few medical men are familiar with the Principles of Medical Ethics. This explains why they do not more frequently come to the defense of its teaching. This is owing in part I believe to the fact of its stilted form. That it is framed by Chapters, Articles and Sections is in conformity with usage in the writing of Constitutions and By-laws. This method has its practical value in enabling one to find quickly certain articles of the instrument. But it is open to the very serious objection that it lacks in readable qualities which hold one's interest and attention. Constitutions are very important in setting forth the aims and rules of action in organizations, but who takes any particular delight in reading them? They possess a sort of stereotyped monotony of mechanism which is repellant to enthusiasm. However fine and fundamental may be the American Constitution, does one gather enthusiasm from perusing its contents, as he does from reading the Declaration of Independence? The former is cold, concise to the point of mathematical exactness, so carefully wrought that not a word can be spared. It is the bulwark of wisdom and farsight, coming out of the fertile brain of Hamilton, protecting the liberties gained at so great a price, against future calamity. It is utterly devoid, however, of appeal to the imagination or emotions. In contrast to Hamilton's master work, contemplate the immortal instrument penned by Jefferson. It burns with righteous indignation, kindles the flame of patriotic fervor and lights the torch of liberty. Who is not proud of both? One served to arouse the builders of a republic to action and having served the purpose of the day, lives now chiefly as a beautiful historic sentiment. The other became the permanent foundation upon which the governmental structure of liberty rests.
In our present state of national unrest, following the world-war, millions of unassimilated foreigners upon our shores fail to comprehend the significance of American institutions. The American Constitution, however wise and just, is a cold and meaningless thing to them. Is not the imperative duty of the hour to read into the Constitution the spirit and the fire of the Declaration of Independence in order that they may know the price paid for liberty? When we who have enjoyed these blessings are aroused by a zeal like Paul of old, to proclaim again and again upon every hand, the sacrifices and the spirit out of which and through which our country has grown, there will come to these peoples conviction and conversion. As soon as they are nationally born again they will become fit subjects to live and work under a wise governing Constitution.
By analogy may it not be said of our constitution, "The Code of Medical Ethics," that like the American Constitution, it too needs to have read into it an awakening spirit of medical evangelism—which will renew the faith and arouse to more determined influence and power in medicine. For may it not be true that we have been carried from safe moorings by the world-wide wave of materialism? The captains of industry have occupied the stage of chief interest in our day and generation. Likewise the captains of medicine have marched to material conquest in laboratories, revealing cold facts; along the avenues of specialism, searching for isolated and unemotional truths—all splendid and serviceful achievements taking little account, however, of man as a thinking, feeling organism. In the light of these facts is it not well that we should come to our medical senses, giving proper evaluation to the ethical and moral phases of medicine.
It must be granted that the Principles of Medical Ethics is a remarkable instrument comprehending the very essence of wisdom which should govern the conduct and widen the vision of every right-thinking physician. But a deplorable weakness lies in its cold, stereotyped, constitution-like manner of presentation, which repels rather than invites contemplation. Certainly it has failed to bring conviction to the public mind, which views it with ill-concealed contempt. Nay, even more. There often arises wide-spread suspicion of concerted endeavors of physicians for the common weal. Is it an impending epidemic of small-pox in which general vaccination is urged, the cynical voice of suspicion is raised, charging the medical profession with planning a vaccination harvest. Should unsanitary conditions threaten the health
