Who does not remember when all the wiseacres with number eighteen collars and number five hats seriously discussed the relative propriety of “Specialty” vs. “Practice Limited,” on professional cards? How times have changed. And then came the discussion by a learned society, of the ethical relations of “Oculist and Aurist” to “Practice Limited to Diseases of the Eye and Ear.” And it was decided that men who had the former on their cards were not ethical and could not enter that society. Ye Gods! Is the fool-killer always on a vacation? Must we always see those long ears waving over the top of the ethical fence, built by the fat hogs to keep all the little pigs out of the clover patch? What is the public to think 27of a profession that winks its other eye at the man who prints on his cards, “Diseases of Women Only,” but rolls up it eyes like a dying rabbit at the sight of a card reading, “Diseases of Men Only?” What has raised the woman with leucorrhea to a more exalted plane than that occupied by a man with prostatorrhea, does not appear. Why so many inconsistencies, and why such hypocrisy! Sir Astley Cooper had his own private “hours for the poor.” Our European brethren print their college and hospital positions and all their titles on their cards. Are they less ethical than we? Homeopathy is a dead duck over there, and quackery has a hard row to hoe in Europe—queer, isn’t it? Our system of ethics has not only been hypocritic, but somewhat confusing. The young man on the threshold of medicine doesn’t know “where he is at.” He is confronted by the unwritten law that only celebrated men and quacks may advertise. Small fry, who haven’t the ear of the newspapers nor a chance for a college position, are tacitly ordered to keep their hands off. And the young fellow watches the career of the big man, who hides every other man’s light under his own bushel, and marvels much. Especially does he marvel at the accurate photographs, life histories and clinical reports of his more fortunate confrères that appear in the newspapers without their knowledge. Experiences differ. I haven’t yet got around to newspaper clinical reports, but it has been my fortune to be “written up” on several occasions. I do not recall that the newspapers drew on their imaginations for my photograph. I wish I might think so, and that their imaginations 28were distorted—the result was so uncomplimentary.