success, to fight against immorality, or at least to render it less dangerous to public health. The endeavour was, however, on the whole unsuccessful; only in the United States the measures adopted achieved a certain success. As a result, we are to-day confronted with an extremely serious situation, which appears to bring into contradiction the laws of morality and those of hygiene. Once more, with utter disregard of human dignity and of scientific fact, there is an active movement in favour of State regulation of prostitution, a system the evil effects of which no longer require demonstration. Without going into details of the work of the numerous commissions instituted in various countries (France, Extra-Parliamentary Commission 1904 England, Royal Commission, 19131914 Sweden, Commission of 1916 etc.) it should be recalled that all unanimously condemned State regulation of prostitution: as worthless from the point of view of hygiene inasmuch as it creates the illusion of a safeguard for debauchery which it is incapable of assuring; as contrary to justice, seeing that it places a whole class of women outside the laws; finally as eminently prejudicial to morality, because it sanctions, by its authorisation, the degradation of the unfortunate creatures given over to prostitution as a result of poverty, abandonment or, occasionally, of hereditary taint, and who might have been saved by a more wisely organised social system. Syphilis, like tuberculosis, is a social disease. In order effectively to combat its ravages, it is necessary in the first place to instruct young people concerning the danger of wasting their strength before the time has come to found a family; adults should also be made to realise the risk to themselves and to their surroundings of exposing themselves to infection, or, when infected, of not undergoing medical treatment. It cannot be too often repeated, that there is no.such thing as a disgraceful disease, that there are merely sick persons who, in their own interests and in that of the community, are entitled to the care necessitated by their condition. There can be no question of disgrace or crime unless the person infected does not take necessary precautions, and spreads his disease. In order, however, that, once this conception of social duty has fully asserted itself, all infected persons may receive treatment it is essential to organise everywhere dispensaries, in which gratuitous medical treatment may be freely obtained, with due observance of discretion and without fear of exploitation by quacks or empirics. In the large towns in which these dispensaries have been organised, thousands of patients of both sexes present themselves for treatment every year. In Paris, whether in the Cochin hospital, the St. Louis hospital, that attached to the St. Lazare prison, or in the admirably organised dispensaries of the Prophylactic Institute, the number of patients treated each year is sufficient evidence of the need of these institutions. Moreover, the results obtained may be regarded as conclusive. I am well aware that the system of gratuitous dispensaries is opposed by medical specialists, who claim, no doubt with truth, that they are being deprived of their practice. Nevertheless, if it is a fact that venereal diseases constitute a national and international peril, every effort should be made to diminish its ravages, and minor considerations should not be permitted to interfere. The interests of medical specialists are no doubt worthy of respect and consideration, in so far as they do not hinder progress, but these doctors should find ample scope for their activities in the numerous clinics to be organised, and in which their services should be adequately remunerated, so that, instead of opposing the system of anti-venereal dispensaries, they may warmly support them. The second question, that of prostitution, should similarly be examined from every point of view. Notwithstanding that several years before the war the regulation of prostitution had in numerous countries been abandoned as ineffective and was subjected to violent attack in those in which it had been retained, at the present time, when the system appeared to have been finally condemned, a distinct movement in favour of renewed regulation has become apparent. We are assured that utter disaster is inevitable unless legislative measures are adopted to put down clandestine prostitution, more especially juvenile prostitution. It is incontestable that the prostitution of women, similarly to masculine debauch, constitutes a danger from the hygienic point of view. The debatable point is whether regulation diminishes this danger. To ascertain the actual facts, it is only necessary to consult the statistics supplied by States which have seriously endeavoured to organise public health. If regulation has produced the beneficial results claimed, the countries in which it has been established for the longest period should be most free from venereal diseases. Is this however the case? No one who has dealt with the question, even among the most enthusiastic partisan of the system of regulation, has ventured to affirm it. It is equally impossible to prove that the suppression of regulation in countries which have abolished the system, has aggravated the situation. On the contrary, statistics and charts are there to prove the utter absurdity of such statements. Free, discrete and gratuitous treatment has not failed to achieve beneficial results wherever introduced. A study of the negative results of the system of regulation from the standpoint of hygiene, its questionable effects from the point of view of public order and its absolutely disastrous consequences from that of morality, naturally leads us to enquire what reasons can possibly exist in favour of its retention, in despite of the conclusive arguments against it. How can the police, responsible for the maintenance of public order in the streets, carry out its mandate when it issues to women, practising prostitution and open solicitation, tickets which are veritable permits for hunting? No doubt it will be objected that accosting is prohibited, and that prostitutes are not authorised openly to seek out their clients in the public streets. Which is equivalent to saying that the administration grants with one hand that which it withholds with the other, a procedure surely unworthy of nations otherwise inspired by such high ideals. Further, regulation with its arbitrary arrests, its compulsory examinations, its periods of emprisonment and internment, does not reach all prostitutes; it is a form of census applied only to the poorest and most wretched of this unfortunate class. Public opinion is unanimous in recognising that from the moral standpoint the results of the system are disastrous, not only for the unfortunate women to whom it applies and whom it places outside the law, but for those who escape it. How indeed is it possible to make them understand the degradation of their trade, when the administration, that is to say, the State, in a sense recognises its legitimacy by authorising it and legislating for it? What, moreover, is the effect of this conception of morality on young people, who, side by side with the moral principles instilled in State schools, are faced with such deplorable practical conditions? What is the use of exhorting our young people to lead chaste lives, when next door to colleges and universities semi-official centres of debauch are permitted to exist? What is the good of advising them to found families, when what is most calculated to deter them from so doing is not only tolerated, but actually organised? How many indeed of those we reproach with having failed in their duty would be entitled to retort: "Temptation was placed within my reach; all I did was to take advantage of it." How is it possible that, with the recollection of his early excesses, a man should be capable of the respect due to woman, to his future wife, the mother of his children? A celebrated writer has stated that "the degree of civilisation of a people may be judged by the measure in which they respect woman. By condemning a whole class of women to degradation, through infamous legislation such as official regulation of prostitution, the State seriously jeopardises the respect due to women, and undermines the foundations of society. The duty of the State is to suppress, without distinction of person or of sex, all disorder in the streets. Its task is not to organise debauch, but to repress its manifestations and to punish all persons, whatever their position, guilty of demoralising young people and of exploiting vice. Now that the question of the regulation of prostitution has been once more brought up, it cannot be solved by half-measures. Regulation must disappear, and although its disappearance may not solve the difficult problem of prostitution, we shall at least have made an effort to diminish its harmfulness by ridding it of that which spells dishonour for a State and glaring injustice for individuals. BOARD OF GOVERNORS HENRY P. DAVISON, American Red Cross, Chairman. M. GIOVANNI CIRAOLO, Senator, Italian Red Cross. Dr. F. BLOCK, Swedish Red Cross. Dr. M. CALMON DU PIN E ALMEIDA, Brazilian Red Cross. Dr. E. ANDREAE, Argentine Red Cross. Dr. A. DEPAGE, Senator, Belgian Red Cross. The VISCOUNTESS NOVAR, Australian Red Cross. Dr. F. SVENDSEN, Danish Red Cross. Dr. YEVREM ZUJOVIĆ, Serbian Red Cross. M. R. B. BENNETT, Canadian Red Cross. SIR DAVID HENDERSON, Director General, Vice-Chairman. SIR CLAUDE H. HILL, Secretary General. The above order of names follows the date of appointment The Bulletin of the League of Red Cross Societies is |