10
was objectionable only after it had acquired life, and Aristotle so distinguishes the innocence or criminality of the act. The Oath seems to contemplate criminal abortion, the destruction of the fœtus when there was no danger to the mother's life. It was easier then than now, for the physician had the drugs, and the pessaries were a bit of cloth over the finger, and dipped in irritating or astringent substances. The prohibition is a wide one, and might perhaps be renewed with advantage. When pregnancy is not dishonourable, abortion is now resorted to reluctantly and after deliberation, the more trustworthy that its induction is in the hands of the practitioner. No doubt there are men willing to gratify patients by ridding them of an inconvenient responsibility, as there are who aid in the concealment of immorality. A practitioner in Glasgow (he came to a violent end) expressed surprise when another of spotless reputation remarked on the number of women patients whom he saw but once, who did not need treatment. This was not the experience he cared for, and he showed on his consulting-table a handy packet of tartar emetic: two or three grains applied to a healthy os necessitated at least one visit to ascertain what was the matter. Such a criminal is, I hope, rare. Yet a hot douche is not unknown, not unused, and family physicians who deem themselves honourable are now and again to be heard of who make use of this fruit of philosophy.
Purity of life and honesty of purpose are the two objects aimed at in the Oath. Customary vices, customary then, now criminal and treated as criminal, are forbidden. I cannot say they are spoken of as intrinsically wrong, but they involve a misuse of professional opportunities, a breach of the promise to visit for the sole good of the sick. In 425 B.C. Apollonides was killed for his intimacy with the widow of Megabyzus the Persian.
The authorship of this Oath is less important than the summary of contemporary opinion it contains. The school of Hippocrates had a lofty standard, and sought to maintain it by the exclusion of unworthy intrants. Lex is an unhappy translation: Nomos would be better rendered as the Standard, wherein it is said that the low status of the profession was due to the ignorance of those who practised it and of those who judged regarding them. There was, it is said, no punishment for incompetence save discredit,