used in our work should be in some hidden chamber where our patients who are in waiting may not be disturbed by unpleasant anticipations. There are many odors which cling about a doctor's office which should as far as possible be removed. Particularly should he strive not to allow them to be associated with his person. There are certain practitioners who may well be termed "walking apothecary shops," as they carry with them wherever they go, the penetrating odors suggestive of physic. Carbolic acid and iodoform are essentially shop odors, and just in so far as they can be ruled out, they should be. Whatever good iodoform may have done as a remedial agent has been more than undone by the amount of disagreeableness and disgust which it has caused to the olfactory nerves of its victims. It has been supposed to be an antiseptic, but the bulk of evidence that is accumulating, is against it. On general principles, it may be safely said that any antiseptic or disinfectant which does its chief work by developing a loud smell, is inefficient. By its pungency it so saturates the distal filaments of the olfactory nerve, that the same have no conception of putrescence or any thing in fact except the drug which effects it.

A patient came under my observation recently who had, so to speak, been between two fires for some days. He had an acute attack of laryngitis, superinduced by a heavy cold, and being in somewhat of a bilious condition, with the portal circulation well tied up, the persistent coughing and straining soon developed a first class case of hemorrhoids; so with laryngitis at one extremity and a series of swollen and distended veins at the other, he was truly between wind and water. His condition (living in a city full of specialists), soon necessitated two

doctors, each approaching him from opposite directions. To show, however, that they were somewhat similar in their tendencies, both dressed the respective parts with iodoform. Fancy covering the larynx with iodoform for laryngitis! The chances are that it would remain there in a form to produce a remedial effect but a very few moments, but that which was most objectionable, its odor, would remain indefinitely. The patient was really in a condition to be disgusted with himself and to disgust everybody with whom he came in contact. I claim that that patient had a just cause for action against the doctors who attended him. Physicians in treating patients, have no right to treat them in a manner to advertise to the world that they are sick, and certainly they have no right to use a remedy whose associations are so filthy and disgusting as iodoform.

Since years of clinical experience have demonstrated that iodoform is surpassed by many remedies as a disinfectant and as a healing application to wounds and ulcerated surfaces, and since all will admit that all the principles of æstheticism absolutely rule it out, I think the profession is safe in saying that "iodoform must go." A remedy which I have found during the past two years of great value, and which will act much more efficiently than iodoform, is Aristol. Literature almost a mountain high has accumulated, written by the best men in the profession, pronouncing in favor of Aristol as a substitute for iodoform. It is truly disinfectant, it is a stimulator of the healing process, and last but not least, it is free from disagreeable odor. I feel that the profession is under obligations to the pharmaceutical guild for its constant efforts in the direction of developing medicaments which are of value; and for the fact that they are coupling