No apology for these experiments could be complete, which did not refer to the alleged "consent." It is thus presented: "If the patient under these circumstances consented to the observations described, it would appear to be a matter between herself and the physician making the observations." This is the view of the matter which the apologist invites us to accept. On the one side, stands a poor, ignorant, feeble-minded Irish servant girl, full of faith and implicit trust in the benevolence of those about her; on the other a learned scientist, eager, as he says, "to ascertain how far the results of experiments on the brains of animals may be employed to elucidate the functions of the human brain"; and her "consent" to procedures the purpose and dangers of which she knows nothing,--to experiments involving her life, are suggested as a justification of whatever was done, and as a matter with which Society need have no concern! Upon such methods of vindication every intelligent reader may form his own judgment. He will doubtless reach the conclusion that such vital omission of essential facts,--no matter whether accidental or intentional,--absolutely nullifies the value of the entire apology. Let us hope that the next defender of these experiments, writing not only for the instruction of the medical profession but also for the general public, will proceed along somewhat different lines; that every symptom which Bartholow mentions, he will mention also; that if he speaks of the "CONSENT" of the victim, he will frankly tell us that it was consent of one whom the experimenter himself called rather "feeble-minded"; and that if he thinks other palliating circumstances exist, he will at least graciously furnish us with references to the evidence presented by the experimenter, upon which he grounds his belief. II. Experiments with Poison. Of all experiments upon patients in hospitals, probably one of the boldest was Dr. Sydney Ringer, physician to the University College Hospital in London. His position in this institution gave him a peculiarly favourable opportunity for the utilization of the human "material" under his care. The experiments upon his patients were frankly reported by himself, and were published in his well-known work on Therapeutics.[1] For the most part these experiments were made with poisonous drugs. Are we justified in classing them as human vivisections? If in any case, the drug can be shown to have been administered for the welfare of the patient, it was legitimate medical treatment, to which criticism does not apply. Were the drugs so administered? The experimenter shall describe his work in his own language. [1] "Handbook of Therapeutics," by Sydney Ringer, M.D. Eighth edition, William Wood and Co., New York. Poisoning with Salicine