The history of the revolutionary action taken at the annual meeting of the Medical Society of the State of New York in February last, seems to be briefly as follows: A few prominent members have for some years past been dissatisfied with certain features of the Code of Ethics, and have occasionally tried in vain to get the subject before the Society for discussion, Other members have succeeded in preventing this, feeling that such discussions were often fruitless for good; and that when carried on with the enthusiasm likely to be aroused by such a subject, from the well-known differences of principle and opinion involved, it would be very likely to be fruitful in harm to the profession as represented in the society. President Bailey, in his inaugural address, Transactions of 1881, page 9, recommended that the "Code be materially revised, possibly a new one made." The committee on the President's address considered this recommendation and reported, see Transactions of 1881, p. 25, that it would not be competent or prudent then to make any radical propositions, but advised a special committee of five to be appointed by the President, "whose duty it shall be to consider the whole question of desirable changes in the Code, and who shall present to the Society at the session of 1882 such suggestions on this subject as their observations and investigations may direct."

This report and resolution were adopted, and at a later session the President announced as the special committee Drs. Wm. C. Wey, C. R. Agnew, S. O. Vander Poel, W. S. Ely and Henry G. Piffard. At the first session of 1881 the New York County Society pres

ented a resolution "that the Medical Society of this State be requested to revise the Codes of Ethics by which the profession of this State are governed." This was subsequently, p. 30, referred to the Special Committee on the Code of Ethics.

Then at the annual meeting of 1882 this special committee reported, and the revolutionary action reported in the last number of the EPHEMERIS was taken.

Now, from this, it plainly appears that the whole profession of the State was duly notified a year in advance that this special committee would report on this important subject, and yet with a reg. istry of over three hundred names, at this annual meeting only seventy were present when the whole profession was revolutionized by a vote of 52 against 18.

Whether this is to be taken as showing that the profession at large has but little interest in this subject, and therefore did not send communications or delegations to control any action that might be taken, or whether the matter was carelessly overlooked or neglected, cannot be known, but it is highly probable that action of a revolutionary character was not expected, and that it has taken a large and important proportion of the profession by surprise, and caused much dissatisfaction and regret.

One thing may certainly be taken for granted, and that is that no radical and unexpected action of fifty-two members out of a profes sion of more than 3,800 can be settled without an acquiescence of a majority of those represented in the action, and who are to be governed by it. Hence it is but fair and wise that some measures be taken to ascertain whether or not this action be acceptable to, or be acquiesced in by a majority of the profession represented in the State Society.

Therefore, in order to allow the whole profession an opportunity to express itself through its organizations and thus definitely settle this matter one way or the other, the following preamble and resolutions will be offered at the first session of the annual meeting of the State Society, in February, 1883, and they are published now with the hope that all the county societies will take them up, and having discussed them freely and fully, will, by communications to the State Society through their delegations, pronounce definitely for or against repealing the action of this year. If any county societies be not heard from on the subject at all, of course it must be held that they approve of and acquiesce in the action; but it would be much better and more straightforward and manly to have the ap

proval expressed. At any rate, the resolutions will give an opportunity to every county society and every permanent member to vote on one side or the other of the most important question which has come up in the profession for many years; and they will serve to remind all those who do not vote that their silence and inaction will be fairly construed into acquiescence, and make them morally responsible for any harm that may ensue.

WHEREAS, The Special Committee on the Code of Ethics, in its report at the last annual meeting, recommended a change in one part of the Code which was more in the nature of a revolution than of a revision, and, therefore may be more radical than was expected or desired by the constituency of this Society; and

WHEREAS, That report was adopted at a session wherein only fifty-two members voted in the affirmative, and thus legislated for the entire profession of the State on a subject of vital importance in a direction which may not have been anticipated or desired by the profession at large ;—

Therefore, for the purpose of bringing the matter before the whole profession of the State for more general and more deliberate action

Be it Resolved, That all the action taken at the annual meeting of 1881, in regard to changing the Code of Ethics, be repealed, leaving the Code to stand as it was before such action was taken.

Resolved, That a new Special Committee of five be nominated by the Nominating Committee of the Society, and be appointed by the Society to review the Code of Ethics, and to report at the annual meeting of 1884 any changes in the Code that may be deemed advisable.

Resolved, That the report of this Committee be discussed at the meeting of 1884, and be then laid over for final action at the meeting of 1885.

Should this preamble and resolutions, after being freely published for consideration during the remainder of this year, and after being sent, as they will be, to the president of every county society of the State, be defeated as a whole when it is put to vote, then the action of this year will stand confirmed by the whole profession of the State, and it will be then definitely settled that the old Code of Ethics needed but little change, excepting that consultation with legally registered quacks of all kinds, which were before prohibited, should now be permitted.

If the preamble and resolutions should be admitted, the preamble would be adopted as a mere recital of the facts, and the test vote would be upon the first resolution. If that was defeated it would

1

necessarily defeat all the others, and would be equivalent to rejecting the preamble and resolutions as a whole. But, should the first resolution be carried, it would leave the whole matter exactly where it was before the appointment of the special committee, and then the question would be upon the second resolution. If this should be defeated, the defeat would carry with it the third and dependent resolution, and the effect of this defeat would show that the society was satisfied with the old Code of Ethics as it has stood for so many years; or at least would show that as yet it was not sufficiently dissatisfied with it to run the risk of making changes at present which might prove hurtful rather than beneficial.

If, however, the second resolution should be adopted it would raise a new committee having the same precept or duty as the previous special committee. But this new committee would be appointed in a very different way, and in a way very much more in harmony with so important a matter. The Nominating Committee of the Society being made up anew every year by the delegates and permanent members of each of the eight old senatorial districts of the State, meeting and selecting one of their number for this important committee, is necessarily a very fair and impartial committee and comes afresh very directly from the constituency of the State Society. If this nominating committee of nine men fresh from all parts of the State should nominate this special committee just as they nominate the officers of the Society, and then if the Society should confirm or modify the special committee so nominated, then the committee would be a far better representative of the will and the wishes of the profession at large than if appointed, as the last one was, by the President of the Society.

Should the first and second resolutions be carried and the third one be defeated, then the Society would proceed at once to a final action on the report of the committee, and should there happen to be only a few members present the important result would be reached through the bias of a two-thirds vote of the few, and the matter would have to be undone, if afterward it did not meet the approval of the many.

But, if the third resolution should be carried, the subject could be discussed as freely as might be desired, and would then go over for a year, thus giving plenty of time for any amount of deliberation and writing, and would come up for final action before a new audience fresh from the total constituency of the Society. By this course a much larger proportion of the profession could think and

act upon it with the chances for a much wiser decision. An effort was made at the last meeting to have the report of that special committee discussed and laid over for a year so as to come up for final action at the next annual meeting, but the motion was summarily defeated, and a final action was taken which careful deliberation does not sustain, and which probably could not have been taken in February next. This precipitate forcing through of an unex. pected revolutionary measure by the mere power of six votes in a meeting of seventy votes, representing a constituency of over 3,800, is a kind of legislation always to be deplored, and which by its very precipitancy and urgency is far more likely to be wrong than right. The whole object of these resolutions is to ascertain whether in this particular instance of this kind, the action taken was wrong or right as judged by the profession to which it is thus arbitrarily applied.

The resolutions will be offered at the first session of the meeting of February, 1883, and the Society will be asked to appoint a special session for their consideration, so that all may be present who desire to be. The evening session of Tuesday was specially appointed for the subject at the last meeting.

And now a few words on the principles involved in this scheme for free consultations, and the principles may perhaps be best got at by parallel illustrations. There is a profession of the art of mechanical engineering which is based upon the operation of wellknown scientific laws governing matter and its reciprocal relations; yet all the operations of all the natural laws are not either well known or well studied. That is to say, both the science and art of mechanical engineering are progressive. A large national population of steam engines are to be repaired from time to time, and kept in running order by this profession. In this profession there are Keely motor men who would do away with steam boilers, and substitute their little spheres-mere globules-of dynamic vapor. There are also perpetual motion men who make something out of nothing, and there are whole buildings in the Patent office filled with models of the visionary schemes of such men. Their quackeries bear very much the same relation to the principles of mechanical engineering that the quackeries of the so-called schools of medicine do to the regular profession of medicine. Do mechanical engineers want to consult Keely motor engineers, and if so, to what effect? The answer must be that conflict and confusion alone can be the result. What owner of a sick steam-engine would desire or