=Wrong Conditions of Relief-Giving.= Relief is sometimes given in a way that makes it defeat preventive work, and tends to create new sources of infection. For example: we recall a case in which the father of a family was in the last stages of consumption. His wife took in washing, and was general drudge for the patient and five small children. This man refused to go to a hospital, and also refused to use his sputum cup, or take any other precautions. Most of his time was spent in bed, and beside him in the bed were his two small children, whose presence gave him pleasure. Neither doctor, nurse, nor agent could bring about a better state of things, yet the family was desperately poor and in great need of help. In consequence, assistance was given upon the patient’s own terms of being allowed to carry out his right to infect his family. Groceries were given in large amounts, and the patient himself was supplied with abundant milk and eggs, which kept him alive for weeks beyond the point where his own manner of living would have ended the matter. Soon after his death, one of the children died of tubercular meningitis, while his wife developed a pulmonary lesion. All the family are now public charges. We recall another case: The family consisted of the patient, his wife, and eight children. The patient was grossly careless, declining to observe the slightest precautions, and flatly refused to enter a hospital. After his death, his wife and five of the eight children were found to have tuberculosis. During the last six months of his life, a certain agency had poured in unceasing relief, thereby subsidizing a centre of infection. Still a third case is that of a widow, with two small children. She would not part from these children, and refused to go to a hospital, or to let them go to the country. A separate bed was provided, so that for part of the time at least the children might be away from her, but she declined to let them occupy it. She kept them in bed with her. Neither would she use a sputum cup nor follow advice in any way. All this time, some benevolent old ladies kept her well supplied with groceries, milk, eggs, coal, rent, and so forth, by means of which assistance she was able to drag out a moribund existence for eight or ten months. Pitiful as this case was, the utter selfishness and immorality of this sort of “mother love” is something which should repel rather than attract the sympathies of thinking people. These are perhaps extreme instances, yet in a lesser degree this is what usually happens unless relief is made conditional upon removal of the danger. Charitable associations should be careful not to act as accessories in the spread of tuberculosis, and should not prolong conditions under which this is practically inevitable. If centres of infection are thus perpetuated, through sources over which the associations in question have no control, nurse and agent, at least, should not countenance such “benevolence.”