On the simple ground of expediency some of the best alienists
are accustomed to say to their assistants, "Do not deceive a
patient."

Some teachers have proposed to limit the application of
the law of veracity to the cases where the questioner has the
right to the information he seeks. There is a difficulty here.
Not always but often it is an open question as to the inter-
rogator's right to the truth, and it is surely a grave assumption
that pending that decision I have a right to lie to him. The
difficulty is best solved by simply closing the lips and refusing
to testify. Indeed a large number of those cases where false-
hood is generally condoned are effectually met in the exercise
of what Dr. Lieber has aptly called "the hberty of silence."
It may be contended that such a refusal would put the officious
questioner in possession of the truth to which he has no right.
But his supposed knowledge is an inference from your silence,
which may have more than one reason, and inferences are like



174 STUDIES IN MORAL SCIENCE

some kinds of freight on the railroads, "taken at the owner's
risk." When I "simply refuse to be interviewed," I certainly
am not responsible for the questioner's inferences, but I clearly
am responsible if, consenting to the interview and professing
to give information, I utter a falsehood.
Against several common evasions of the law of veracity we
must raise a protest: i. The practice of deceiving the sick.
