he gained no credit "for his candour in reporting
the whole affair,"--a hint, the significance of which for future
experimenters, it is not very difficult ot perceive. Yet his
treatment of Mary Rafferty was no bar to his professional
advancement. Not long after his victim was in her grave, one of the
oldest medical schools in the country,--Jefferson Medical College of
Philadelphia--offered him a professor's chair; and for several years
he was Dean of the medical faculty of that institution.

It might seem impossible that any physician of the present day would
care to come forward in defence of this experiment. Yet forty years
after the deed was perpetrated, such justification was apparently
attempted in an American journal, and republished in a pamphlet issued
by the American Medical Association.[1] It would seem at the outset
that only by suppression of the worst facts relating to the case,
could any defence be essayed. WAS THERE ANY SUCH SUPPRESSION OF
MATERIAL FACTS? Let us see.

[1] "The Charge of Human Vivisection," by Richard M. Pearce, M.D.,
Journal of the American Medical Association, February 28, 1914.

Did any injury to Mary Rafferty result from these experiments upon her
brain? Bartholow himself admits some injury; he says that to repeat
the experiments "would be in the highest degree criminal." The modern
apologist, however will have it otherwise. At the beginning of the
experiment, she smiled as if amused; and this, he tells us, "whows
that she did not object, that the pain was not severe, AND THAT NO
HARM WAS DONE HER." Is this a fair summary of the symptoms elicited
during these experiments upon the brain? Why did the apologist mention
only the "smile," and neglect altogether to mention the other symptoms
reported by Dr. Bartholow? Why does he pass in silence her complain of
"ACUTE PAIN IN THE NECK," the "GREAT DISTRESS" EXHIBITED, THE ARM
AGITATED WITH CLONIC SPASMS, THE FIXED EYES, THE WIDELY DILATED
PUPILS, THE BLUE LIPS, THE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH, THE STERTOROUS
BREATHING, THE VIOLENT CONVULSION lasting for five minutes and the
succeeding unconsciousness lasting for twenty minutes? Why does the
apologist leave unmentioned the symptoms following the subsequent
experiments,--the pallor and depression, the blue lips, the difficulty
in locomotion, the decided paresis and rigidity of muscles, the
profound unconsciousness, THE FINAL PARALYSIS? Do omissions like these
suggest an ardent desire to pre