INFANTICIDE.
In cases of alleged infanticide, the evidence of the orensic physician is of the highest importance, and as his opinion upon such an occasion must necessarily go far to influence the judgment, and direct the verdict of the jury, he should be fully prepared to appreciate the difficulties of the case, and to clear away the numerous fallacies, and popular prejudices with which the subject is embarrassed. To Dr. William Hunter, the profession and the public owe the deepest obligation, for the philosophical and humane manner in which he examined the general value of physiological testimony in proof of the commission of child-murder. Previous to this enlightened dissertation[1] it is to be greatly feared that many unfortunate women had fallen the innocent victims of false theory and prejudice. The objections, however, so forcibly urged by Dr. Hunter against the validity of certain physiological tests, although well calculated to awaken inquiry, in order to divest such evidence of its fallacy, were not intended, as some have imagined, to discard physiological testimony altogether. With this conviction, we shall proceed to a critical examination of the various proofs which physiology has been supposed capable of affording, in support of an accusation of infanticide.
- ↑ On the uncertainty of the signs of murder in the case of Bastard Children. Read before the London Medical Society, and published in the sixth volume of "Medical Observations and Inquiries."
