1. As soon as an extrauterine pregnancy is discovered remove the foetus through an opening made in the mother's abdominal wall. Do not use electricity or the injection of poisons into the foetal sac, or the incandescent knife. Emmet and a few others approved of the use of electricity at times, but this is against the teaching of the great majority of writers at present. The reason for removing the foetus at once is that it is apt at any moment to cause rupture and fatal hemorrhage before surgical aid can be effective. 2. In a case of rupture with free hemorrhage and collapse the only operation advised is an immediate coeliotomy to stop the bleeding by ligatures. The rupture should not be approached through the vaginal wall according to the common doctrine, but through the abdominal wall. 3. If there is a rupture in which the bleeding is confined and there is no collapse, do not operate at once unless the haematocele increases steadily or shows signs of suppuration. Sometimes evacuation of the haematocele through the vaginal wall is possible. 4. In the later months of an extrauterine pregnancy, whether the case is intraligamentous or abdominal, perform coeliotomy as soon as the diagnosis has been made, and remove the foetus, because there is always danger of sudden and fatal hemorrhage before the surgeon can reach the source of the bleeding. What is to be done in a case where the surgeon is certain before operating that the foetus is {11} dead, has interest only for the physician, and it involves no moral question. Operating for extrauterine pregnancy maybe a simple coeliotomy, if any coeliotomy is really simple, but it commonly is the most dangerous operation for the mother that the gynaecologist is called upon to perform. The discussion of the moral questions that arise in cases of ectopic gestation which began in volume ix. of the _American Ecclesiastical Review_ was very valuable, but as the moralists had not full data to work on their decision as a whole is not satisfactory. The original cases presented are in part obsolete in the medical practice of to-day, and important physical conditions were not disclosed in some of the other parts of the cases. Father Holaind tentatively agreed with Father Lehmkuhl in one decision, Fathers Eschbach and Sabetti directly attacked Father Lehmkuhl's reasons, and Father Aertnys indirectly opposed Father Sabetti's chief argument. These men are all eminent authorities, but as each, except Father Holaind, was dissatisfied with the arguments advanced by the others, and as their data were incomplete, we can not rest the case on their decision.