On the question, whether strict veracity should be adhered to, in every case and under all circumstances, in our intercourse with the sick, there is very great difference of opinion, as well among medical men, as in the community at large. Some are most scrupulously strict in their regard to truth; others, while they are generally so, make some few occasional exceptions in cases of great emergency and necessity; while others still (and I regret to say that they are very numerous) give themselves great latitude in their practice, if they do not in their avowed opinions. In examining this subject, it is not so much my intention to discuss the abstract question, as to present the many practical considerations that present themselves, illustrating them, so far as is necessary, by facts and cases. In order to introduce the subject, I will here quote a passage from Percival’s Medical Ethics, which presents the views of those who are in favor of an occasional departure from truth, where the necessity of the case seems to demand it. “Every practitioner must find himself occasionally in circumstances of very delicate embarrassment, with respect to the contending obligations of veracity and professional duty; and when such trials occur, it will behoove him to act on fixed principles of rectitude, derived from previous information and serious reflection. Perhaps the following brief considerations, by which I have conscientiously endeavored to govern my own conduct, may afford some aid to his decision. Moral truth, in a professional view, has two references; one to the party to whom it is delivered, and another to the individual by whom it is uttered. In the first it is a _relative duty_, constituting a branch of justice, and may properly be regulated by the divine rule of equity prescribed by our Saviour, _to do unto others as we would_, all circumstances duly weighed, _they should do unto us_. In the second it is a relative duty, regarding solely the sincerity, the purity and the probity of the physician himself. To a patient, therefore, perhaps the father of a numerous family, or one whose life is of the highest importance to the community, who makes inquiries, which, if faithfully answered, might prove fatal to him, it would be a gross and unfeeling wrong to reveal the truth. His right to it is suspended, and even annihilated; because its beneficial nature being reversed, it would be deeply injurious to himself, to his family, and to the public. And he has the strongest claim, from the trust reposed in his physician, as well as from the common principle of humanity, to be guarded against whatever would be detrimental to him. In such a situation, therefore, the only point at issue is, whether the practitioner shall sacrifice that delicate sense of veracity, which is so ornamental to, and indeed forms a characteristic excellence of the virtuous man, to this claim of professional justice and social duty. Under