Main  Contacts  
Table of contents
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.1
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.2
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.3
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.4
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.5
THE CONQUEST OF THE VENEREAL DISEASES-8.6
FOOTNOTES
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.1
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.2
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.3
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.4
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.5
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.6
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.7
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.8
SEXUAL MORALITY-9.9
MARRIAGE-10.1
MARRIAGE-10.2
MARRIAGE-10.3
MARRIAGE-10.4
MARRIAGE-10.5
MARRIAGE-10.6
MARRIAGE-10.7
MARRIAGE-10.8
MARRIAGE-10.9
MARRIAGE-10.10
MARRIAGE-10.11
MARRIAGE-10.12
FOOTNOTES
THE ART OF LOVE-11.1
THE ART OF LOVE-11.2
THE ART OF LOVE-11.3
THE ART OF LOVE-11.4
THE ART OF LOVE-11.5
THE ART OF LOVE-11.6
THE ART OF LOVE-11.7
THE ART OF LOVE-11.8
THE ART OF LOVE-11.9
THE ART OF LOVE-11.10
THE ART OF LOVE-11.11
FOOTNOTES
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.1
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.2
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.3
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.4
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.5
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.6
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.7
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.8
THE SCIENCE OF PROCREATION-12.9
FOOTNOTES
INDEX OF AUTHORS

special case of the infliction of bodily injury.[246] In this matter 

Germany is behind most of the Scandinavian countries where individual 

responsibility for venereal infection is well recognized and actively 

enforced. 

 

 

In France, though the law is not definite and satisfactory, actions for 

the transmission of syphilis are successfully brought before the courts. 

Opinion seems to be more decisively in favor of punishment for this 

offense than it is in Germany. In 1883 Despres discussed the matter and 

considered the objections. Few may avail themselves of the law, he 

remarks, but all would be rendered more cautious by the fear of infringing 

it; while the difficulties of tracing and proving infection are not 

greater, he points out, than those of tracing and proving paternity in the 

case of illegitimate children. Despres would punish with imprisonment for 

not more than two years any person, knowing himself to be diseased, who 

transmitted a venereal disease, and would merely fine those who 

communicated the contagion by imprudence, not realizing that they were 

diseased.[247] The question has more recently been discussed by Aurientis 

in a Paris thesis. He states that the present French law as regards the 

transmission of sexual diseases is not clearly established and is 

difficult to act upon, but it is certainly just that those who have been 

contaminated and injured in this way should easily be able to obtain 

reparation. Although it is admitted in principle that the communication of 

syphilis is an offence even under common law he is in agreement with those 

who would treat it as a special offence, making a new and more practical 

law.[248] Heavy damages are even at the present time obtained in the 

French courts from men who have infected young women in sexual 

intercourse, and also from the doctors as well as the mothers of 

syphilitic infants who have infected the foster-mothers they were 

entrusted to. Although the French Penal Code forbids in general the 

disclosure of professional secrets, it is the duty of the medical 

practitioner to warn the foster-mother in such a case of the danger she is 

incurring, but without naming the disease; if he neglects to give this 

warning he may be held liable. 

 

In England, as well as in the United States, the law is more 

unsatisfactory and more helpless, in relation to this class of offences, 

than it is in France. The mischievous and barbarous notion, already dealt 

with, according to which venereal disease is the result of illicit 

intercourse and should be tolerated as a just visitation of God, seems 

still to flourish in these countries with fatal persistency. In England 

the communication of venereal disease by illicit intercourse is not an 

actionable wrong if the act of intercourse has been voluntary, even 

although there has been wilful and intentional concealment of the disease. 

_Ex turpi causa non oritur actio_, it is sententiously said; for there is 

much dormitative virtue in a Latin maxim. No legal offence has still been 

committed if a husband contaminates his wife, or a wife her husband.[249] 

The "freedom" enjoyed in this matter by England and the United States is 

well illustrated by an American case quoted by Dr. Isidore Dyer, of New 

Orleans, in his report to the Brussels Conference on the Prevention of 

Venereal Diseases, in 1899: "A patient with primary syphilis refused even 

charitable treatment and carried a book wherein she kept the number of men 

she had inoculated. When I first saw her she declared the number had 

reached two hundred and nineteen and that she would not be treated until 

she had had revenge on five hundred men." In a community where the most 


Page 4 from 5:  Back   1   2   3  [4]  5   Forward