sent the whole truth of the matter for
the information of the public?

The defender of the experiments tells us:

"It is not an uncommon procedure in neurologic surgery, to stimulate
after operation, in conscious patients, certain areas of the brain.
This procedure is a familiar one to all neurologists, and it is
THEREFORE DIFFICULT to understand why so much has been made of these
early observations in Cincinnati."[1]

[1] Italics not in original.

Aside from the astounding confession contained in this admission of
familiar procedure, it is difficult to understand what is meant by
this paragraph. Is it a suggestion that these experiments upon Mary
Rafferty were observations following a remedial surgical operation?
It is surely impossible that this can be the meaning; for in the
original account of the "Investigations into the function of the human
brain," there is not a line in support of such hypothesis. The reader
may make his own interpretation of a paragraph which seems exceedingly
obscure.

No apology for these experiments could be complete, which did not
refer to the alleged "consent." It is thus presented:

"If the patient under these circumstances consented to the
observations described, it would appear to be a matter between herself
and the physician making the observations."

This is the view of the matter which the apologist invites us to
accept. On the one side, stands a poor, ignorant, feeble-minded Irish
servant girl, full of faith and implicit trust in the benevolence of
those about her; on the other a learned scientist, eager, as he says,
"to ascertain how far the results of experiments on the brains of
animals may be employed to elucidate the functions of the human
brain"; and her "consent" to procedures the purpose and dangers of
which she knows nothing,--to experiments involving her life, are
suggested as a justification of whatever was done, and as a matter
with which Society need have no concern!

Upon such methods of vindication every intelligent reader may form his
own judgment. He will doubtless reach the conclusion that such vital
omission of essential facts,--no matter whether accidental or
intentional,--absolutely nullifies the value of the entire apology.
Let us hope that the next defender of these experiments, writing not
only for the instruction of the medical profession but also for the
general public, will proceed along somewhat different lines; that
every symptom which Bar