Moreover, the gynecologist, operating in the peritoneum, cannot correct any imperfection in his aseptic technique by the use of antiseptic solutions, as can be done in other operations of general surgery. Such antiseptic solutions, if of sufficient strength to be of any value as germicides, are very dangerous in the peritoneum. They may produce fatal poisoning from absorption through the peritoneum; they destroy the delicate peritoneal surface, and thus diminish the very useful power of the peritoneum to absorb blood and serum after the operation; they cause intestinal and other adhesions; and they so impair the integrity of the intestinal walls that septic organisms may be enabled to pass through and infect the general peritoneum. The gynecologist, thus debarred from the use of antiseptics during a peritoneal operation, must rely altogether upon the perfection of his aseptic technique. It must not be forgotten that the danger of peritoneal infection, though very much less in the minor gynecological operations on the perineum and the cervix, is yet never altogether absent. The whole genital tract of women communicates directly with the peritoneum, and infection at any point may extend and cause fatal peritoneal sepsis. The danger increases with the proximity of the infected point to the peritoneum. The danger of salpingitis and peritonitis from trivial intra-uterine manipulations not performed aseptically, such as the passage of a dirty sound, has already been referred to. Fatal peritonitis has followed trachelorrhaphy. In the various plastic operations of gynecology disastrous results are, of course, not so likely to occur from imperfect asepsis as in those operations that involve opening the peritoneum. In some of these operations, such as closure of a vesico-vaginal or a recto-vaginal fistula, it is impossible to obtain perfect asepsis. In minor gynecological operations, however, we may use antiseptic solutions which are inadmissible within the peritoneum; and the vascularity of the genital tract is so great that healing is usually rapid and perfect even with very imperfect asepsis. This fact, however, should never justify carelessness on the part of the physician. In every surgical procedure, however trivial, the strictest asepsis should always be observed. The practice avoids, at any rate, a minimum danger; it is a useful training for the physician; and it sets a valuable example to the assistants and nurses. No part of the technique should be “good enough.” It should be as good as it can be made. The greatest factor in the success of modern gynecology has been asepsis. The doctrine has become so widely spread that the technique, and consequently the results, of careless operators of the present day are much better than those of the best operators before the days of Listerism.