New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-03
MEDICAL DIFFIDENCE
How the County Medical Society JUSTIFIED
Karl Pearson's Comment
70 the Editor OF The Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: Your editorial upon the subject OF
Medical Men on Birth Control" Is the fairest
editorial note that has been struck upon the
question. II Is true that the Medical Society
will be denounced and cepsured as callous re-
dictionaries, and be charged with hypocrisy Tor
opposing a reasonable legal REFORM while
openly admitting, as the majority report did'
that they would and did violate the law rather
than ask for a change that would permit us
legal observance.
1t is exceedingly unfortunate that the Med
zeal Society Of the County Of New YORK ala
not see and seize the great opportunity that
was presented TO it of taking a great step
IN the direction Of the truest form Of medical
progress, namely, that Of disease prevention
and health promotion, thereby aligning itself
with the great mass Of intelligent thinkers
and workers among humanitarians, soclolo-
gists. eugenists and advanced scientists gen
orally.
The majority report Of the Medical Society
pleaded ignorance Of the essential facts IN
the case and protested that they ana inc
profession generally were not qualified 10
pass Judgment at the meeting upon so I'M
portant matter. The supporters OF the
reform in the law, those who Endorsed the
minority report, made no such plea lney
had studied the case from every standpoint
and had givea it the serious consideration
TO which il was entitled. And their stand
was based upon knowledge and not upon
ignorance.
A resolution asking for modification OF
the law was first presented before the AprH
meeting Of the County Medical society.
This was defeated at the time by vote OF
about 20 to 60, the chief ground of those VINO
opposed it being that they were too I'M
familiar with the facts in the case to vote
upon il at that time. Thereupon we ASKED
for the appointment Of a special commluee
10 study and present to the society Such
scientific data as would enable IL TO take in
telligent action. The majority OF the mem
hers Of the committee saw fit TO ignore these
instructions, and presented as their report
a few Qlittering generaliues and pur-
blind prejudices, finishing up by plead
inc lack of knowledge. 1t remained for
the minority signers TO present, as result OF
much study and prolonged investigation
series Of conclusions favoring the proposed
change in the law, which was based upon
their scientific and medical research. Ana
If. as you say in your editorial, the knowledge
of most Of the speakers at the Academy OF
Medicine was both meagre and unsatis-
factory. it is at least a satisfaction to those
who believe in the necessity Of a change IN
this law TO know that those speakers repre-
sented. with perhaps but one exception, the
supporters of the medieval majority report
do not know whether It was more anus
ing or pathetic that those who protested
AGAINST changing the law or the ground that
it would let down the bars that protected the
public against indecercy and obscenitY were
the only ones who in the discussion violated
every canon OF decenoy by indulgng in com
meuts. stories and poems" that would have
sbamed the hardened habitu6s Of vile re-
sorts. And while these thoughtless and
ribald remarks might, as you say, seem 70
Justify Professor Karl Pearson's observation
that "the amount Of the physicians real
scientific training may actually be less than
that Of the clergyman or lawyer in the same
parish.o in pleasing contrast are the numer-
GUS letters of approval received by the
signers Of the minority report from pnysE
clans OF the very highest scientific and pro
fessional standing and attainments.
A. L. G0LDWATER.
New York, Dec. %, 1916.