"The erroneous and one-sided opinions, which the advocates for the indiscriminate use of the speculum hold, prove how little they have presented to themselves the true facts of the case. Dr. Locock, who made the startling assertion that delicacy ought not to be considered in matters of disease, and was both for and against the speculum, said, that he looked into the vagina as he would into the throat. True enough, so far as _he_ simply is concerned. He would look into the vagina as an ordinary matter of business, and think _only_ of what, in the course of business, it might be necessary to do there. But would the _woman_ regard it in this philosophical light? Is it the same to _her_ whether her tongue is pressed down with a spatula, or her vagina distended with a speculum? Is _her_ moral state to be left out of account altogether, and are we to treat the most sensitive organ in her frame as if it was so much inert matter, whose great use was to be cauterized? "We do not hesitate to say, that no man, who regards properly his science and himself, can ever use this instrument without feeling that he is _driven_ to it; that other means have failed, and that it has become necessary to adopt additional modes of investigation and of cure. And if it appear from the inquiries which will, doubtless, now be made--that the necessities for its employment have been knowingly exaggerated by its advocates, no condemnation can be too severe for so great a breach of scientific honour."--_Medical Times_, 8th June, 1850.