There is no malady to which womankind is liable that should engage more consideration than gonorrhea. Strewn in the train of its ubiquitous and wily germ are pathologic ravages of surpassing import in their clinical and moral consequences, yet hardly recognized or understood. Sinclair, a decade ago, observed a strange indifference toward differential diagnosis of gonorrhea in the female, and even now, when, in the light of recent bacteriology, it is easily possible to demonstrate the gonococcus in the act of pathologic mischief, there exists a notable, if not notorious, tendency on the part of the most general practitioners, and some specialists, to disregard discriminating diagnosis in doubtful cases.
The diagnosis of acute gonorrhea in women is comparatively easy, even without the microscope. What with a history of impure coitus, free purulent secretion from vulva, vagina and urethra, intertrigo, burning on micturition, and vesical tenesmus, the diagnosis is not far