This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Baltimore, Md., May 4, 1896.
To the Editor:
—In the Miscellany of the Journal of the American Medical Association for Feb. 29, 1896, there appeared an item under the head of "Unchastity and Credibility," reporting a decision of the supreme court of Missouri, that unchastity in a man does not affect his character for truth, while it does that of a woman. The decision struck me at the time as piling one injustice upon another, basing a legal discrimination against the weaker of the two parties in the act of prostitution upon the original injustice to women of a double standard of morals. I am glad to see my view sustained by the London Personal Rights, of April 15, 1896.As you published the decision, will you kindly publish this criticism of it in the interests of justice and of sound morality on the only possible basis, a single standard
Unchasity and Credibility. JAMA. 1896;XXVI(20):992–993. doi:10.1001/jama.1896.02430720044013
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: