PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. O06 



some months ago, said — " A medical writer in the Conttmporary 

 Review, November, 1909, argues strongly against the legalized 

 interference of medical men in respect of maxriage. He sets up 

 his ninepins with the object of knocking them down. No 

 responsible eugenist has ever advocated such a thing. There is 

 not a medical school in the Kingdom where medical students are 

 taught the laws of heredity. It is true, that there is much valuable 

 work and teaching going on in this subject at Cambridge, TJniver- 

 city College, London; Liverpool, Edinburgh, and other places, but 

 this forms no part of the curriculum of the medical student. In 

 the present day, these students are taught all about the environ- 

 ment in the causation of disease, but very little about heredity in 

 resistance and predisposition to disease." Dr. Herbert, in dealing 

 with the same subject in The First Principles of Heredity, says — 

 " Little enough is known about the laws of heredity, reproduction, 

 sex and other questions of equal importance, but the little that is 

 known is the privileged possession of a feAV trained specialists." 



Possibily, these quotations may "give one to think" on the 

 subject of the training and experience of the medical man on 

 these questions. He thinks it is all a medical question — " Pre- 

 venting breeding by certain sorts of people, and there's an end 

 o't " — forgetting altogether the legal and social sides, and taking 

 for granted that he knows everything about heredity and the prin- 

 ciples of evolution. At the present time, some medical men and 

 others advocate abortion in the case of pregnancy of, or impreg- 

 nation by, the unfit; euthanesia of the unfit; sterilization of the 

 unfit; and the medical regulation of marriage. This is their pro- 

 gramme, their platform, their panacea. Without pronouncing 

 any opinion on these as abstract propositions, or as subjects for 

 academic discussion, I say that when these people ask legal powers 

 for these pui'poses, one is constrained to ask what the anthro- 

 jiological position is. 



A consideration of the work of Hammond, Everts, Lydston, 

 Daniel, Backe, Zuccarelli, Tregold, Ellis, Chappie, Rentoul, 

 Witchell, Chesterton, and others, and a study of the latest 

 published experiences of Americans, where legislation has been 

 tried, leads conclusively to the opinion that legislation on the lines 

 desired is unjustifiable. 



Professor Thomson about two years ago wrote — 



" Perhaps the time may come when the noblest social senti- 

 ment and a maturer science v/ill agree that this bud and that 

 should not be allowed to open; but the time is not yet. The 

 biologist distrusts social surgery because of his ignorance; the 

 sociologist rejects it because the thought of it makes the 

 foundations of society tremble, and because the social ideal 

 of good citizens is wider than the ideal of good physique ; and 



