{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20222/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20222","id":"gutenberg_20222","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20222","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Medicine, Experimental","Vivisection"],"text":"An Ethical Problem\n\n\n                           By the Same Author\n\nRAMBLES IN JAPAN WITHOUT A GUIDE.  London, 1892\n\nILLEGITIMACY, and\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF SEASONS UPON CONDUCT.  London and New York, 1893\n\nVIVISECTION IN AMERICA.  New York, 1895\n\nTHE VIVISECTION QUESTION.  New York, 1901\n\nTHE MORALITY OF LONDON.  London, 1908\n\nTHE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY.  London, 1908\n\nAMERICAN MEAT.  London and New York, 1910\n\n\n\n                           AN ETHICAL PROBLEM\n\n                                   OR\n\n     SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN AND ANIMALS\n\n                                   BY\n\n                        ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D.\n\n           LATE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION\n               AUTHOR OF \"THE VIVISECTION QUESTION,\" ETC.\n\n                        SECOND EDITION, REVISED\n\n                                 LONDON\n                         G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.\n\n                                NEW YORK\n                   C.P. FARREL, 117 EAST 21st STREET\n\n                                  1916\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\nThe position taken by the writer of this volume should be clearly\nunderstood.  It is not the view known as antivivisection, so far as\nthis means the condemnation without exception of all phases of\nbiological investigation.  There are methods of research which involve\nno animal suffering, and which are of scientific utility.  Within\ncertain careful limitations, these would seem justifiable.  For nearly\nforty years, the writer has occupied the position which half a century\nago was generally held by a majority of the medical profession in\nEngland, and possibly in America, a position maintained in recent\nyears by such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson of England, by\nProfessor William James and Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard\nUniversity.  With the present ideals of the modern physiological\nlaboratory, so far as they favour the practice of vivisection in\nsecrecy and without legal regulation, the writer has no sympathy\nwhatsoever.\n\nAn ethical problem exists.  It concerns not the prevention of all\nexperimentation upon animals, but rather the abolition of its cruelty,\nits secrecy, its abuse.\n\nWritten at various times during a period extending over several years,\na critic will undoubtedly discover instances of repetition and\nre-statement.  Now and then, it has seemed advisable to include matter\nfrom earlier writings, long out of print; and new light has been\nthrown upon some phases of a perplexing problem.  Will it tend to\ninduce conviction of the need for reform?  Assuredly, this is not to\nbe expected where there is disagreement regarding certain basic\nprinciples.  First of all, there must be some common ground.  No\nagreement regarding vivisection can be anticipated or desired with any\nman who holds that some vague and uncertain addition to the sum total\nof knowledge would justify experiments made upon dying children in a\nhospital, without regard to their personal benefit, or sanction the\ninfliction of any degree of agony upon animals in a laboratory.\n\nA liking for the use of italics as a means of directing attention to\ncertain statements is confessed.  But wherever such italicized phrases\nappear in quotations, the reader should ascribe the emphasis to the\nwriter, and not to the original authority.\n\nThe inculcation of scepticism regarding much that is put forth in\njustification of unlimited research is admitted.  It seems to the\nwriter that anyone who has become interested in the question would\nmore wisely approach it with a tendency toward doubt than toward\nimplicit belief; to doubt, however, that leads one directly to\ninvestigation.  We need to remember, however, that inaccuracy by no\nmeans connotes inveracity.  There is here no imputation against the\nhonesty of any writer, even when carelessness, exaggeration and\ninaccuracy are not only alleged, but demonstrated to exist.\n                                                        A. L.\n  Aurora, N.Y.,\n     1914\n\n                        ---------\n\n                PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n\nAnother edition of this work being called for, the opportunity for one\nor two emendations is afforded.\n\nIn the first chapter of the present work, reference is made to the\nantivivisection societies of England, and, relying upon evidence given\nbefore the Royal Commission in 1906, one of them is mentioned as the\n\"principal organization.\" The relative standing or strength of the\ndifferent societies at the present time would appear not to be\ndetermined or easily determinable, and, of course, what was fact in\n1906 may not be at all true ten years later.  The matter would seem to\nbe of little importance as compared with the greater questions\npertaining to reform; but in the interest of accuracy the author would\nnow prefer to make no pronouncement concerning the relative rank of\nthe English societies, leaving decision as to precedence to those who\ngive them financial support.\n\nThough the first edition of the present work was quite large, yet no\nchallenge of the accuracy of any of its statements concerning\nexperimentation upon human beings or animals has yet appeared.  To\nhope for absolute accuracy in a work of this character may be\nimpossible; yet that ideal has been constantly before the writer.\nShould any errors of the kind be discovered to exist in the present\nedition, their indication is sincerely desired.\n\nIn the chapter \"Unfair Methods of Controversy\" some illustrative cases\nwere given without mention, now and then, of the persons criticized.\nIt seemed to the writer that in certain instances it should be quite\nsufficient to point out and to condemn inaccuracies and errors\nwithout bringing upon the record every individual name.  No\nmisunderstanding could possibly exist, since the references were ample\nin every case.  But since this reticence, in at least one instance,\nhas been criticized by an unfriendly reviewer, it is perhaps better to\nstate that the repeated allusions to Lord Lister's journeyings to\nFrance, and the article in Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, were from\nthe pen of the author of Animal Experimentation--a work which is\nreviewed in the Appendix to the present edition.  To his advanced\nage--now far beyond the allotted span--we may ascribe the inaccuracies\nwhich, at an earlier period of his career, would doubtless have been\nrecognized.\n\n                                                        A. L.\n\n                        CONTENTS\n\nCHAPTER                                                   PAGE\n       INTRODUCTION     -       -       -       -       -   xi\n\n    I. WHAT IS VIVISECTION?     -       -       -       -    1\n   II. ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS        -       -   12\n  III. AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIVISECTOR -       -       -   22\n   IV. MAGENDIE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES  -       -       -   29\n    V. A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE   -       -       -       -   47\n   VI. IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY?         -       -   57\n  VII. THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION    -       -       -   66\n VIII. ATTAINMENT OF REGULATION IN ENGLAND      -       -   88\n   IX. A GREAT PROTESTANT       -       -       -       -  113\n    X. THE VIVISECTION REPORT OF 1912   -       -       -  127\n   XI. THE ANAESTHETIC DELUSION         -       -       -  149\n  XII. THE VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY        -       -       -  162\n XIII. WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM?      -       -       -  196\n  XIV. THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES     -       -       -  216\n   XV. UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY    -       -       -  228\n  XVI. RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION     -       -       -  254\n XVII. THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION        -       -       -  276\nXVIII. THE FINAL PHASE: EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN          -  289\n  XIX. CONCLUSION       -       -       -       -       -  326\n\n       APPENDIXES       -       -       -       -     333-364C\n       INDEX            -       -       -       -      365-369\n       PRESS NOTICES    -       -       -       -      371-374\n\n\n                        INTRODUCTION\n\nIt is now somewhat over a third of a century since my attention was\nspecially directed to the abuses of animal experimentation.  In\nJanuary, 1880, a paragraph appeared in a morning paper of New York\nreferring to the late Henry Bergh.  With his approval a Bill had come\nbefore the legislature of the State of New York providing for the\nabolition of all experiments upon living animals--whether in medical\ncolleges or elsewhere--on the ground that they were without benefit to\nanybody, and demoralizing alike to the teacher and student.  As I\ndropped the paper, it occurred to me that the chances of success would\nhave been far greater if less had been asked.  That certain\nvivisections were atrocious was undoubtedly true; but, on the other\nhand, there were some experiments that were absolutely painless.\nWould it not be wiser to make some distinctions?\n\nThe attempt was made.  An article on the subject was at once begun,\nand in July of the same year it was published in Scribner's Magazine,\nthe predecessor of the Century.  So far as known, it was the first\nargument that ever found expression in the pages of any American\nperiodical favouring not the entire abolition of vivisection, but the\nreform of its abuse.\n\nMy knowledge of vivisection had its beginning in personal\nexperience.  Nearly forty years ago, while teaching the elements of\nphysiology at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, it occurred to me\nto illustrate the statements of textbooks by a repetition of such\nsimple experiments as had come before my own eyes.  Most of my\ndemonstrations were illustrative of commonplace physiological\nphenomena: chloroform was freely used to secure unconsciousness of the\nanimal, and with the exception of one or two demonstrations, the\navoidance of pain or distress was almost certainly accomplished.\n\nBut what especially impressed me at the time was the extraordinary\ninterest which these experiments seemed to excite.  Students from\nadvanced classes in the institute were often spectators and voluntary\nassistants.  Of the utility of such demonstrations as a means of\nfixing facts in memory, I could not have the slightest doubt.  Nor as\nregards the rightfulness of vivisection as a method either of study or\ndemonstration, was there at that period any question in my mind.\nWhatever Science desired, it seemed to me only proper that Science\nshould have.  The fact that certain demonstrations or experiments upon\nliving animals had already been condemned as unjustifiable cruelty by\nthe leading men in the medical profession, and by some of the\nprincipal medical journals of England, was then as utterly unknown to\nme as the same facts are to-day unknown to the average graduate of\nevery medical school in the United States.  It was not long until\nafter this early experience, and following acquaintance with the\npractice in Europe as well as at home, that doubts arose regarding the\njustice of CAUSING PAIN TO ILLUSTRATE FACTS ALREADY KNOWN.  These\ndoubts became convictions, and were stated in my first contribution to\nthe literature of the subject, the paper in Scribner's.  It is not the\nposition of what is called \"antivivisection,\" for that implies\ncondemnation of every phase of animal experimentation.  In the third\nof a century that has elapsed since this protest was made, the\npractice of vivisection has taken vast strides: it appears in new\nshapes and unanticipated environment.  But the old abuses have not\ndisappeared, and some of them, more urgently than ever before, demand\nthe attention of thinking men and women.\n\nOf personal contributions to the literature of the subject, during the\npast third of a century, nearly everything has been more or less\npolemical, called forth by either exaggeration of utility, inaccuracy\nof assertion, or misstatement of fact.  Now it has been protest\nagainst the brilliant correspondent of a New York newspaper, who\ntelegraphed from London an account of a visit to a well-known\nphysiological laboratory, where he found animals all \"fat, cheerful,\nand jolly,\" yet \"quite unaffected by the removal of a spinal cord\"--as\nsensible a statement as if he had referred to their jolly condition\n\"after removal of their heads.\" Now it has been the manifesto of\nprofessors in a medical school declaring that in the institution to\nwhich they belonged no painful experiments had been performed--an\nassertion abundantly contradicted by their own publications.  Now it\nis a Surgeon-General of the Army, defending one of the most cruel of\nvivisections in which he was not in any way concerned, by an\nexposition of ignorance regarding the elements of physiology; and,\nagain, it has been a President of a medical association, making a\nspeech, wherein hardly a sentence was not stamped with inaccuracy and\nignorance.  To some natures controversy is exhilarating; to  myself it\nis beyond expression distasteful.  Yet, when confronted by false\naffirmations, what is one's duty? To say nothing? To permit the\nuntruth to march triumphantly on its way? Or, in the interest of\nScience herself, should not one attempt the exposure of inaccuracy,\nand the demonstration of the truth?\n\nApproaching the end of a long pilgrimage, it has seemed to me worth\nwhile to make a final survey of the great question of our time.  How\nwas the cruelty of vivisection once regarded by the leading members of\nthe medical profession? Shall we say to-day that the utility of\ntorment, in the vivisection of animals, constitutes perfect\njustification and defence? How far did Civilization once go in the\napproval of torture because of its imagined deterrent effects?\n\nWhat has been accomplished by the agitation concerning vivisection\nwhich has persisted for the last forty years? Has the battlefield been\nwell selected? Have demands of reformers been wisely formulated? Is\npublic opinion to-day inclined to be any more favourable to the legal\nabolition of all scientific experimentation upon animals than it was a\nthird of a century ago?\n\nWhat has been the result of vivisection in America, unrestricted and\nunrestrained? Has it accomplished anything for the human race that\nmight not have been accomplished under conditions whereby cruelty\nshould be impossible except as a crime? Has the death-rate been\nreduced by new discoveries made in American laboratories? Is it\npossible that utility is persistently exaggerated by those who are not\nunwilling to use exaggeration as a means of defence? And of the\nFuture, what are the probabilities for which we may hope? What is\nbeing done in our century in the way of submitting animals to\nunlimited torture?\n\nTo throw somewhat of light on these questions is the object of this\nvolume.  I wish it had been in my power to write a more extended and\ncomplete exposition of the problem, but limitations of strength, due\nto advancing age, have made that hope impracticable.  But as one man\ndrops the torch, another hand will grasp it; and where now is darkness\nand secrecy, there will one day be knowledge and light.\n\n\n                        AN ETHICAL PROBLEM\n\n                            CHAPTER I\n\n                        WHAT IS VIVISECTION?\n\nUpon no ethical problem of our generation is the public sentiment of\nto-day more uncertain and confused than in its attitude toward\nvivisection.  Why this uncertainty exists it is not very difficult to\ndiscern.  In the first place, no definition of the word itself has\nbeen suggested and adopted sufficiently concise and yet so\ncomprehensive as to include every phase of animal experimentation.  It\nis a secret practice.  Formerly more or less public, it is now carried\non in closed laboratories, with every possible precaution against the\ndisclosure of anything liable to criticism.  Quite apart from any\nquestions of usefulness, it is a pursuit involving problems of the\nutmost fascination for the investigating mind--questions pertaining to\nLife and Death--the deepest mysteries which can engage the intellect\nof mankind.  We find it made especially attractive to young men at\nthat period of life when their encouraged and cultivated enthusiasm\nfor experimentation is not liable to be adequately controlled by any\ndeep consideration for the \"material\" upon which they work.  Sometimes\nanimal experimentation is painless, and sometimes it involves\nsuffering which may vary in degree from distress which is slight to\ntorments which a great surgeon has compared to burning alive, \"the\nutmost degree of prolonged and excruciating agony.\" By some, its\nutility to humanity is constantly asserted, and by others as earnestly\nand emphatically and categorically denied.  Confronted by\ncontradictory assertions of antagonists and defenders, how is the\naverage man to make up his mind? Both opinions, he reasons, cannot\npossibly be true, and he generally ranges himself under the banner of\nthe Laboratory or of its enemies, according to his degree of\nconfidence in their assertions, or his preference for the ideals which\nthey represent.\n\nNow, the object of all controversy should be to enable us to see facts\nas they are--to get at the truth.  That difference of opinion will\nexist may be inevitable; for opinions largely depend upon our ideals,\nand these of no two individuals are precisely the same.  But so far as\nfacts are concerned, we should be able to make some approach to\nagreement, and especially as regards the ethical supremacy of certain\nideals.\n\nBut first of all we need to define Vivisection.  What is it?\n\nOriginally implying merely the cutting of a living animal in way of\nexperiment, it has come by general consent to include all scientific\ninvestigations upon animals whatsoever, even when such researches or\ndemonstrations involve no cutting operation of any kind.  It has been\nauthoritatively defined as \"experiments upon animals calculated to\ncause pain.\" But this would seem to exclude all experimentation of a\nkind which is not calculated to cause pain; experiments regarding\nwhich all the \"calculation\" is to avoid pain; as, for example, an\nexperiment made to determine the exact quantity of chloroform\nnecessary to produce death without return of consciousness.  The\nBritish Royal Commission of 1875 defined it as \"the practice of\nsubjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes,\"\navoiding any reference to the infliction of pain; yet, so far as\npertains to the justification of vivisection, the whole controversy\nmay turn on that.  Any complete definition should at least contain\nreference to those investigations to which little or no objection\nwould be raised, were they not part of the \"system.\" It should not\nomit reference, also, to those refinements of pain-infliction for\ninadequate purposes--also a part of a \"system,\" and which, to very\ndistinguished leaders in the medical profession, have seemed to be\ninexcusable and wrong.\n\nSuppose, then, we attempt a definition that shall be inclusive of all\nphases of the practice.\n\n\"Vivisection is the exploitation of living animals for experiments\nconcerning the phenomena of life.  Such experiments are made, FIRST,\nfor the demonstration, before students, of facts already known and\nestablished; or, SECOND, as a method of investigation of some theory\nor problem, which may be with or without relation to the treatment of\nhuman ailments.  Such experiments may range from procedures which are\npractically painless, to those involving distress, exhaustion,\nstarvation, baking, burning, suffocation, poisoning, inoculation with\ndisease, every kind of mutilation, and long-protracted agony and\ndeath.\"\n\nA definition of this kind will cover 99 per cent. of all experiments.\nThe extreme pro-vivisectionist may protest that the definition brings\ninto prominence the more painful operations; yet for the majority of\nus the only ground for challenging the practice at all is the pain,\namounting to torment in some cases, which vivisection may involve.\nThey are rare, some one says.  But how do we know? The doors of the\nlaboratory are closed.  Of practices secretly carried on, what can we\nknow? That every form of imaginable torment has at some time been\npractised in the name of Science, we may learn from the reports of\nexperimenters themselves, and from the writings of men who have\ndenounced them.  It was Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, of Harvard University,\nthe most eminent surgeon of his day, who declared that vivisection\nsometimes meant the infliction of \"the severest conceivable pain, of\nindefinite duration,\" and that it was \"a torture of helpless animals,\nmore terrible, by reason of its refinement, than burning at the\nstake.\" Is the above definition of vivisection stronger than is\nimplied by this assertion of Dr. Bigelow?\n\nWe need constantly to remember that vivisection is by no means a\nsimple act.  It may indicate investigations that require no cutting\noperation of any kind, and the infliction of no pain; or, on the other\nhand, it may denote operations that involve complicated and severe\nmutilations, and torments as prolonged and exquisite as human\nimagination can conceive.  Experiments may be made, in course of\nresearches, of very great interest and importance to medical science;\nand, on the contrary, they may be performed merely to demonstrate\nphenomena about which there is no doubt, or to impress on the memory of\na student some well-known fact.  They may be performed by men like Sir\nCharles Bell, who hesitated to confirm one of the greatest\nphysiological discoveries of the last century, merely because it would\nimply a repetition of painful experiments; and they may be done by men\nlike Magendie, who declared of his mutilated and tormented victims,\nthat it was \"DROLL to see them skip and jump about.\" It is because of\nall these differences that the majority of men have an indefinite\nconception of what they approve or condemn.  The advocate of\nunrestricted vivisection sometimes tells us that experimentation\nimplies no more pain than the prick of a pin, and that its results are\nof great utility to the human race; the antivivisectionist, on the\nother hand, may insist that such experimentation means inconceivable\ntorment without the slightest conceivable benefit to mankind.  Both\nare right in the occasional significance of the word.  Both are wrong\nif one meaning is to answer for all varieties of experimentation upon\nliving things.\n\nSome years ago the attempt was made to obtain the view of animal\nexperimentation held by certain classes of intelligent men and women.\nOne view of the practice is that which regards it merely as a method\nof scientific research, with which morality has no more to do than it\nwould have in determining in what direction a telescope should be\npointed by an astronomer, or what rocks a geologist should not venture\nto touch.  A statement embodying the views of those who favour\nunrestricted vivisection included affirmations like these:\n\n\"Vivisection, or experimentation upon living creatures, must be looked\nat simply as a method of studying the phenomena of life.  With it,\nmorality has nothing to do.  It should be subject neither to\ncriticism, supervision, nor restrictions of any kind.  It may be used\nto any extent desired by any experimenter--no matter what degree of\nextreme or prolonged pain it may involve--for demonstration before\nstudents of the statements contained in their textbooks, as an aid to\nmemory,....or for any conceivable purpose of investigation into vital\nphenomena.... While we claim many discoveries of value,....yet even\nthese we regard as of secondary importance to the freedom of unlimited\nresearch.\"\n\nThis is the meaning of free and unrestricted vivisection.  Its\nplainness of speech did not deter very distinguished physiologists and\nothers from signing it as the expression of their views.  One can\nhardly doubt that it represents the view of the physiological\nlaboratory at the present day.  Sixty years ago this view of\nvivisection would have found but few adherents in England or America;\nto-day it is probably the tacit opinion of a majority of the medical\nprofession in either land.  One may question whether any similar\nchange of sentiment in a direction contrary to reform has ever\nappeared since Civilization began.  We shall endeavor to show,\nhereafter, to what that change is due.\n\nAbsolutely opposed to this sentiment are the principles of what is\nknown as \"antivivisection.\" According to this view, all vivisection is\nan immoral infringement upon the rights of animals.  The cruelties\nthat accompany research will always accompany it, until all scientific\nexperimentation upon animals is made a criminal offence.  From a\nstatement of opinion giving expression to this view, the following\nsentences are taken:\n\n\"All experimentation upon living animals we consider unnecessary,\nunjustifiable, and morally wrong.... Even if utility could be proved,\nman has no right to attempt to benefit himself at the cost of injury,\npain, or disease to the lower animals.  The injury which the practice\nof vivisection causes to the moral sense of the individual and to\nhumanity far outweighs any possible benefit that could be derived from\nit.  Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Professor in the Medical School of Harvard\nUniversity, declared that `vivisection deadens the humanity of the\nstudents.' Nothing which thus lowers morality can be a necessity to\nprogress.... Painless or painful, useless or useful, however severe or\nhowever slight, vivisection is a practice so linked with cruelty and\nso pernicious in tendency, THAT ANY REFORM IS IMPOSSIBLE, and it\nshould be absolutely prohibited by law for any purpose.\"\n\nThis is antivivisection.  It is a view of the practice which has\nseemed reasonable to large numbers of earnest men and women whose\nlives in various directions have been devoted to the prevention of all\nkinds of cruelty, and to the promotion of the best interests of the\nrace.  When this view is maintained by men and women who oppose the\nkilling of animals for purposes of food or raiment or adornment, or\ntheir exploitation in any way which demands extinction of life, it is\nentirely consistent with high ideals.  It is against this view that\nthe arguments of those who contend for vivisection, without\nrestriction or restraint, are always directed.\n\nBut even among antivivisectionists there are, naturally, differences\nof opinion.  For instance, the National Antivivisection Society, the\nprincipal organization of England, desires to see vivisection totally\nabolished by law; but, meanwhile, it will strive for and accept any\nmeasures that have for their object the amelioration of the condition\nof vivisected animals.  On the other hand, the British Union for the\nTotal Abolition of Vivisection will accept nothing less than the legal\ncondemnation of every phase of such experiments. \"Vivisection,\" the\nsecretary of this society writes, \"is a system, and not a number of\nisolated acts to be considered separately.  Owing to its intricate and\ninterdependent character and the international competition involved,\nUSE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM ABUSE.\" In other words, every conceivable\nphase of scientific experimentation upon living creatures, even if\nabsolutely painless, should be made a legal offence.\n\nBut we are not driven to accept one or the other of these definitions\nof animal experimentation.  A third view of vivisection exists, which\ndiffers widely from either of these opposing ideals.  Instead of\ntaking the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific\ninvestigations involving the use of animals, should be legally\nprohibited, it maintains that distinctions may, and should, be drawn,\nand that only the abuses of vivisection should be condemned by law.\nIt asks society neither to approve of everything, nor to condemn\neverything, but to draw a line between experiments that, by reason of\nutility and painlessness, are entirely permissible, and others which\nought assuredly to be condemned.  It makes no protest against\nexperimentation involving the death of an animal where it is certain\nthat consciousness of pain has been abolished by anaesthetics; but it\ncondemns absolutely the exhibition of agony as an easy method of\nteaching well-known facts.  The utility of certain experiments it does\nnot question; but even increase of knowledge may sometimes be\npurchased at too high a price.  From a statement of this position\nregarding vivisection, drawn some years since, the following sentences\nmay be of interest:\n\n\"Vivisection is a practice of such variety and complexity, that, like\nwarfare between nations, one can neither condemn it nor approve it,\nunless some careful distinctions be first laid down.... Within certain\nlimitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to\nbe legitimate, expedient, and right.  Beyond these boundaries, it is\ncruel, monstrous, and wrong.... We believe, therefore, that the common\ninterests of humanity and science demand that vivisection, like the\nstudy of human anatomy in the dissecting-room, should be brought under\nthe direct supervision and control of the State.  The practice,\nwhether in public or in private, should be restricted by law to\ncertain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard\nagainst license or abuse.\"\n\nThis is a statement of what is meant by vivisection reform.  Every\nunprejudiced mind can see at once that it is not the same as\nantivivisection.  Is it the enemy of science? The leading name affixed\nto this declaration of principles was that of the late Herbert\nSpencer, the chief apostle of modern science.  Is it against the\ninterests of education? It was signed by eleven presidents of American\nuniversities and colleges, and by a large number of men closely\nconnected with institutions of learning.  Is it antagonistic to\nmedical science and art? The statement received the endorsement of\ntwice as many physicians and surgeons as were favourable to\nexperimentation upon animals without any restriction or restraint; and\namong these physicians favourable to reform were men of national\nreputation.  No one should expect that men whose sole profession is\nexperimentation of this character would approve of any limitations to\ntheir activity in any direction; but they constitute only a small\nfraction of human society.  Outside their ranks we may be confident\nthat there are very few, at all acquainted with the subject, who will\nnot concede that in the past many things have been done in this\nexploitation of animal life which are greatly to be deplored.  Is\nthere, then, no method of prevention? Are we simply to fold our hands\nand trust that the humaner instincts of the present-day vivisector,\nworking in the seclusion of his private laboratory, will keep him free\nfrom all that we regret in the vivisection of the past? Or must we, on\nthe other hand, ask for the total condemnation of every experiment,\nbecause some are cruel and atrocious?\n\nThis is the platform of the Restrictionist.  It cannot--except by\nperversion of truth--be regarded as antivivisection, for there is not\na single society in England or America, devoted to the interests of\nthat cause, which would acknowledge these views as in any way\nrepresentative of its ideals; but it is the expression of sentiments\nwhich formerly were almost universally held by the medical profession\nof England.  Yet the advocates of unrestricted vivisection have never\nbeen willing to consider this position, and, in controversy,\ninvariable fall back upon arguments applicable only to the views of\nthose who would abolish vivisection altogether.\n\nThere is yet another position to be taken; it is the attitude of\nunconcern.  From vast numbers nothing better can be expected.  The man\nwho is utterly indifferent to the unnecessary agony accompanying the\nslaughter of animals for food, or to the cruelties of sport, or the\nwoman whose vanity demands sacrifices of animals at the cost of\nincalculable suffering, will take little or no interest in the\nquestion of vivisections; nor is complicity with other phases of\ntorment and cruelty alone responsible for the indifference which so\ngenerally exists.  In every age, from the twilight of earliest savagery\ndown to the present time, the vast majority of human beings have been\ninclined, not to doubt, but to believe, and especially to believe\nthose who claimed superior knowledge in matters of Life and Death.\nThis tendency to unquestioning faith has been the support of every\nphase of injustice, of cruelty, and of wrong.  It has led to\ninnumerable men and women of education and refinement to remit all\nquestions of animal experimentation to the vivisector and his friends,\nprecisely as they would have done had they lived three centuries ago,\nand had it been theirs to decide on the morality of burning a witch.\nOn the other hand, the alliance between the laboratory and the medical\nprofession, their mutual endeavour to stifle criticism and to induce\napproval of all vivisection whatever, has given rise to a new spirit\nof inquiry.  A moral question is never absolutely decided until it is\ndecided aright.  If the problem of vivisection is ever settled, it\nwill be due, not to the influence of those who advocate unquestioning\nfaith in the humaneness of the average experimenter, who decline\ninquiry, and who rest satisfied with their ignorance, but rather to\nthose who, having investigated the question for themselves, have given\nall their influence for some measure of reform.  In questions of\nhumanity, even the unwisdom of enthusiasm that tends toward reform is\nfar better than indifference and unconcern.\n\nThe ignorance of history, shown often by the advocates of unlimited\nvivisection, is a singular phenomenon.  The beginnings of this\ncontroversy are not without interest.  Let us glance at them.\n\n                           CHAPTER II\n\n                ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS\n\nEvery reflecting student of history is struck by the divergence of\nopinions manifest among educated men in regard to the great problems\nof life.  Why is it that so few of us are able to state the facts and\narguments which favour conclusions to which we are utterly opposed?\nTake, for instance, the great question of religious belief.  Can one\nrefer to any Protestant writer of our time who has placed before his\nreaders the arguments which inclined men like Newman or Manning to the\nCatholic faith? Has any Catholic writer of our time been able to\npresent fairly the arguments which seem so overwhelmingly convincing\nto Protestant thinkers? In either case, is there not something of\ndistortion or exaggeration? Certainly it cannot be due to intentional\nand perverse obliquity of mental vision.  As a rule reasonable men\nendeavour to be just and fair.  Now and then, in the heat of\ncontroversy, a tendency to overstatement or exaggeration may be\nevident, especially where great issues appear to be involved; but\nthe purpose can be reconciled with honesty.  Is it not more than\nprobable that the principal reason for divergent views on the part of\nhonest opponents is IGNORANCE OF FACTS?\n\nTake, for example, the opinion held to-day by the great majority of\nyoung physicians concerning animal experimentation.  As a rule they\nregard all criticism of vivisection with infinite contempt.  During\ntheir medical studies they were continually imbued with the idea that\nthe opposition to laboratory freedom of experimentation was an\nagitation of comparatively recent date, and confined to a small class\nof unthinking sentimentalists.  Of that strong protest against cruel\nexperiments which made itself heard more during more than a century,\nand of the atrocities which led to that protest, the average physician\nof to-day knows nothing whatever.  Plunged into the practice of a\nprofession which may absorb every moment of time, he has perhaps\nneither leisure to investigate nor disposition to doubt whatever he\nhas been told.\n\nNow, if the average student of medicine is thus ignorant of history,\nis it not because those who have taught him were equally devoid of\nknowledge of the facts? Of the history of the vivisection controversy\nprevious to 1875, some of the most distinguished men in the medical\nprofession have proved themselves profoundly ignorant.  Illustrations\nof this lack of information might be almost indefinitely adduced, but\nI propose to bring forward only a few instances typical of their kind.\n\nOn June 10, 1896, Dr. Henry P. Bowditch, then professor of physiology\nin Harvard Medical School, delivered an address on vivisection before\nthe Massachusetts Medical Society.  The character of his audience, and\nthe profession of the speaker, might be presumed to give assurance of\nabsolute accuracy concerning any question of historic fact.  A quarter\ncentury before, Dr. Bowditch had studied physiology in German\nlaboratories  Returning to America in 1871, he had been given the\nopportunity of reorganizing the teaching of physiology at Harvard\nMedical School, so as to bring it into conformity with Continental\nmethods.  It is quite probable that to him, more than to any other\nperson, is due the introduction of Continental methods of\nphysiological instruction in the medical colleges of the United\nStates.\n\nAccording to Dr. Bowditch, the criticism of vivisection in England\nbegan in 1864.  To his audience of physicians he made the following\nstatement:\n\n\"The first serious attack upon biological research in England seems to\nhave been made in an essay entitled `Vivisection: is it Necessary or\nJustifiable?' published in London in 1864, by George Fleming, a\nBritish veterinary surgeon.  This essay is an important one, for\nalthough characterized at the time by a reviewer in the London\nAthenaeum as `ignorant, fallacious, and altogether unworthy of\nacceptance,' its blood-curdling stories, applied to all sorts of\ninstitutions, have formed a large part of the stock-in-trade of\nsubsequent vivisection writers.\"\n\nThe sneering reference to \"blood-curdling stories\" is of itself\nextremely significant.  It indicates unmistakably the utter contempt\nwhich nearly every physiologist feels for the sentiment of humaneness\nwhich underlies protest against experimental cruelty.  The speaker\nomitted to tell his audience that this essay of Dr. Fleming received\nthe first prize offered by the \"Royal Society for the Prevention of\nCruelty to Animals,\" and that the Committee which decided the merits\nof the essay included some of the most eminent scientific men of\nEngland, among them Sir Richard Owen and Professor Carpenter--the\nlatter one of the most distinguished of English physiologists of his\ntime.  He forgot to add that if the examples of atrocious vivisection\ngiven in this essay were horrible--as they were--yet every instance\nwas substantiated by reference to the original authorities, and that\ntheir accurate quotation could not be impugned.  Especially curious is\nthe fact that Professor Bowditch placed the beginning of criticism at\n1864.  Of the arraignment of cruel vivisections by English physicians\nand English medical journals before that time, Dr. Bowditch apparently\nnever heard, and all the infamous atrocities which they condemned he\ndismissed with a sneer as \"blood-curdling stories.\" Yet, in his day,\nthe speaker was one of the leading physiologists of the United\nStates.  We cannot believe that the suppression of material facts was\nintentional; it was due rather to complete ignorance of the history of\nthat protest against physiological cruelty which England witnessed\nduring the first part of the nineteenth century, and of which some\naccount shall follow.\n\nTake another instance.  In the International Journal of Ethics for\nApril, 1904, there appeared an article in defence of animal\nexperimentation by Professor Charles S. Myers of the University of\nCambridge, England.  Of any abuses of the practice, Dr. Myers gave his\nreaders no reason for believing that he had ever heard; and as an\nindication, perhaps, of an animal's eagerness to be vivisected, he\ntells us that \"again and again dogs have been observed to wag the tail\nand lick the hands of the operator even immediately before the\nbeginning of the operation.\" Commenting upon the singular conclusion\nwhich this fact seemed to suggest to Dr. Myers, the present writer\nquoted a sentence or two from an editorial which once appeared in the\ncolumns of the London Lancet.[1] It would apparently seem that\nDr. Myers brought the quotation to the attention of someone in the\neditorial office of the Lancet, on whose judgment he thought he might\nsafely rely; for, in a reply, he refers to it as a quotation\n\"attributed to the editor of the Lancet, which, AFTER SPECIAL INQUIRY,\nI HAVE REASON FOR DOUBTING.\" Concerning a reference to some of\nDr. Sydney Ringer's experiments upon patients in a London hospital, he\nis even more confident that they could never have occurred, and\nindignantly rejoins, \"I unhesitatingly declare SUCH ABOMINABLE\nACCUSATIONS TO BE FALSE.\"\n\n[1] See p. 73 for this Lancet editorial.\n\nNow, all this indignant scepticism was rather creditable to the\nwriter's heart.  That an English medical journal like the Lancet\nshould denounce vivisection cruelties, or that a reputable London\nphysician should experiment on his patients with various poisons,\nseemed to Dr. Myers beyond the bounds of belief.  But it is always a\nserious thing positively to deny any historical reference simply\nbecause of personal ignorance of its truth.  It was quite easy to\nrefer the sceptic not only to the editorial which he thought he \"HAD\nREASON FOR DOUBTING,\" but also to the experiments on human beings\nconcerning which his indignation rose so high.  To be ignorant of\nDr. Ringer's experiments on his patients is to be ignorant of the\nhistory of modern medicine.  The Medical Times (London) in its issue\nof November 10, 1883, thus editorially commented upon certain of these\nexperiments:\n\n\"...In publishing, and, indeed, in instituting their reckless\nexperiments on the effect of nitrite of sodium on the human subject,\nProfessor Ringer and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false\nmove.... It is impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet\nwithout distress.  Of the EIGHTEEN adults to whom Drs Ringer and\nMurrill administered the drug in 10-grain doses, all but one averred\nthat they would expect to drop down dead if they ever took another\ndose.... Whatever credit may be given to Drs. Ringer and Murrill for\nscientific enthusiasm, it is impossible to acquit them of grave\nindiscretion.  There will be a howl throughout the country IF IT COMES\nOUT THAT THE OFFICERS OF A PUBLIC CHARITY ARE IN THE HABIT OF TRYING\nSUCH USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS ON THE PATIENTS COMMITTED TO THEIR\nCARE.\"[1]\n\n[1] In all quotations, here and elsewhere throughout this volume, the\nitalics have been supplied.\n\nWhat but ignorance of the history of medicine during the last fifty\nyears could lead any one to deny the occurrence of experiments, the\nproofs of which rest on statements in medical journals, and in the\npublished works of the experimenters themselves?\n\nOne of the most singular statements concerning vivisection that ever\nappeared in print was given out not many years ago by one of the\nprofessors of physiology in Harvard Medical School.[2] The accuracy of\nthis manifesto--which purported to be \"a plain statement of the whole\ntruth\"--received the endorsement of five of the leading teachers of\nscience in the same institution, men whose scientific reputation would\nnaturally give great weight to their affirmations regarding any\nquestion of fact.  So impressed was the editor of the Boston\nTranscript with the apparent weight of this testimony, that he\ndeclared in its columns that \"the character and standing of the men\nwhose names are given as responsible for this explanation to the\nBoston public, FORBID ANY QUESTIONING OF ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS.\" What\nis the value of authority in matters of science, if assertions so\nfortified by illustrious names are to be received with doubt?\n\n[2] See \"The Vivisection Question,\" pp. 114-133 and 253.\n\nThe inaccuracy which characterized this \"statement of the whole truth\"\nwas demonstrated at the time it appeared; but to one paragraph\nattention may be recalled.  The manifesto touches the question of past\ncruelties in animal experimentation, not merely without the slightest\ncriticism or condemnation, but, on the contrary, with what would seem\nto be a definite denial that anything reprehensible had ever\noccurred.  It contemptuously referred to evidence of abuses, as \"these\nreiterated charges of cruelty, THESE LONG LISTS OF ATROCITIES THAT\nNEVER EXISTED.\" What other meaning could the average reader obtain\nthan the suggestion that the cruelties of Spallanzani, of Magendie, of\nMantegazza, of Brown-Se'quard, of Brachet, and a host of others,\nexisted only in the imagination, AND HAD NO BASIS OF FACT? For this\nastounding suggestion, what explanation is possible? That there was a\ndeliberate purpose to mislead the public by an affirmation that cruel\nand unjustifiable experiments were a myth, the creation of\nimagination, is an hypothesis we must reject.  But there must have\nbeen a stupendous ignorance concerning the past history of animal\nexperimentation.  Simply because of their utter lack of knowledge\nregarding history, distinguished scientists became responsible for\nsuggesting to the public that the story of the past cruelty of\nvivisection was a myth, and unworthy of belief.\n\nWhile illustrations of this singular ignorance of the past might be\nalmost indefinitely multiplied, another example must for the present\nsuffice.  It is afforded by the evidence given before the Royal\nCommission of Vivisection in 1906, by Sir William Osler, M.D., Fellow\nof the Royal Society, and Regius Professor of Medicine at the\nUniversity of Oxford.  In the course of his examination, the following\ndialogue occurred:[1]\n\n\"Are you familiar with the writings of Dr. Leffingwell?\"\n\"Yes.\"\n\"I think he points out that it was through the strong attacks that\nappeared in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal that the\nVivisection Act was passed?\"\n\"THAT IS NEWS TO ME.\"\n\"You do not know that?\"\n\"NO.\"\n\n[1] Minutes of Evidence, Questions 16,780-16,782.\n\nPerhaps the question asked may have implied somewhat more of influence\non the part of the medical journals named than actually belonged to\nthem; but these periodicals certainly initiated that exposure and\ncondemnation of cruelty in vivisection--which in England led to an\nagitation for reform.  Sir William Osler's replies, however, suggest\nsomething more than mere word-fencing; he was evidently surprised to\nhear it intimated that medical journals like these could ever have\nbeen found attacking vivisection in any way.  Of the strong attacks\nwhich appeared in these organs of medical opinion less than forty\nyears before, he had apparently never heard.  Now, when men like\nthese, leaders in the formation of public opinion on medical matters,\nare thus ignorant of history, ought one really to wonder at the lack\nof knowledge on the same subject betrayed by the new generation of\nphysicians in active practice to-day--men not only of lesser\ninfluence, but of more restricted opportunities for gaining\ninformation? Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the physicians\nengaged in medical instruction in England and America probably would\nhave replied to the questions asked Sir William Osler to the same\neffect--\"It is news to me.\" Sitting at their feet, how can pupils be\nexpected to do otherwise than to absorb both their prejudices and\ntheir learning? How can any medical student distinguish between them?\nWe are all inclined to give implicit faith to men whose abilities in\nany direction we admire and reverence.  It is only with the advance of\nyears and the test of experience that men come to learn the distrust\nof authority, the wisdom of doubt, and the value of personal inquiry\nconcerning every great problem of life.\n\nSuppose, then, that we look into this question.  Was Professor\nBowditch correct in assigning the beginnings of criticism concerning\nvivisection to Dr. Fleming's essay published in 1864? Or was its\norigin long before? Were the professors of the Medical School accurate\nof statement when they practically denied that cruelty in vivisection\nwas a historic fact, and endorsed a reference to authenticated\ninstances as \"long lists of atrocities THAT NEVER OCCURRED\"? Is it a\nfact--although Dr. Myers of Cambridge and Sir William Osler of Oxford\napparently never heard of it--that it was the MEDICAL journals of\nEngland whose indignant condemnation of vivisection cruelties led up\nto its attempted regulation by law? The public assumes that\nauthorities like these are not likely to err concerning methods of\nmedical instruction or research.  In the mind of the average man,\nevery prepossession is in their favour; he cannot easily bring himself\nto believe that if cruelty ever existed, THEY should be so completely\nignorant of it.  It may, indeed, be questioned whether in the\nliterature of controversy on the subject there has been a single\ndefender of unrestricted freedom in vivisection, who has intelligently\nreferred to the horrible experiments of past vivisectors except either\nto sneer or to condone.  Even Mr. Stephen Paget, in his recent work,\n\"Experiments upon Animals,\" never once condemned the cruelty that but\na generation ago excited indignation throughout the medical profession\nof Great Britain.\n\nThe truth of this matter is not to be attained by unquestioning\nacceptance of authority, but by a study of the history of the past.\nIt would be impossible, except in a volume, to write a complete\nhistory of that protest against the unjustifiable cruelties of animal\nexperimentation, which gradually led to a demand for their legal\nsuppression.  All that may here be attempted is a demonstration that\nthe sentiment is not of recent origin; that more than a century ago\nthe cruelties, which to-day are so carefully ignored, were\nunquestioned as facts, and that to medical journals of England is\nprincipally due that weighty condemnation of cruel vivisection, which\nprobably more than any other influence was the foundation of the\nagitation for vivisection reform.\n\n                          CHAPTER III\n\n                AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIVISECTOR\n\nEnglish literature during the eighteenth century presents no more\ndistinguished name than that of Dr. Samuel Johnson, the lexicographer\nand essayist.  His learning was immense; his judgments and criticisms\nwere everywhere regarded with respect; and, above other great men of\nhis time, he was fortunate in having as friend and companion one who\nproduced the best biography that the world has ever known.\n\nDr. Johnson's views of vivisection and vivisectors appeared as a\ncontribution to the Idler, on August 5, 1761, more than a hundred\nyears before the date given by Professor Bowditch as that of \"THE\nFIRST SERIOUS ATTACK UPON BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND.\" It may,\nnevertheless, be doubted whether any attack more \"serious\" or protest\nmore weighty was ever made than was written by the most eminent\nliterary man of his time, a century and a half ago.\n\n\"Among the inferior professors of medical knowledge is a race of\nwretches whose lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty; whose\nfavourite amusement is to nail dogs to tables and open them alive; to\ntry how long life may be continued in various degrees of mutilation,\nor with the excision or laceration of vital parts; to examine whether\nburning irons are felt more acutely by the bone or tendon; and whether\nthe more lasting agonies are produced by poison forced into the mouth\nor injected into the veins.  It is not without reluctance that I\noffend the sensibility of the tender mind with images like these.  If\nsuch cruelties were not practised, it were to be desired that they\nshould not be conceived; but since they are published every day with\nostentation, let me be allowed once to mention them, since I mention\nthem with abhorrence.... The anatomical novice tears out the living\nbowels of an animal, and styles himself a `physician'; prepares\nhimself by familiar cruelty for that profession which he is to\nexercise upon the tender and helpless, upon feeble bodies and broken\nminds, and by which he has opportunities to extend his arts and\ntortures, and continue those experiments upon Infancy and Age which he\nhas hitherto tried upon cats and dogs.  What is alleged in defence of\nthese hateful practices, everyone knows; but the truth is that by\nknives and fire knowledge is not always sought, and is very seldom\nattained.  I know not that by living dissections any discovery has\nbeen made by which a single malady is more easily cured.  And if the\nknowledge of physiology has been somewhat increased, he surely buys\nknowledge dear who learns the use of the lacteals at the expense of\nhis own humanity.  IT IS TIME THAT A UNIVERSAL RESENTMENT AGAINST\nTHESE HORRID OPERATIONS SHOULD ARISE, which tend to harden the heart,\nand make the physician more dreadful than the gout or the stone.\"\n\nA more vigorous denunciation of the cruelty of vivisection never\nappeared than these words of the first scholar of the English-\nspeaking world.  Of course the plea will be put forth that in\nDr. Johnson's time the use of anaesthetics was unknown.  Are we, then,\nto conclude that the present-day defenders of absolute freedom in\nanimal research would join him in condemning the perpetrators of ALL\nEXPERIMENTS CAUSING DISTRESS IN WHICH ANAESTHETICS CANNOT BE EMPLOYED?\nFor the merit of Dr. Johnson's plea lies in this, THAT HE MAKES\nETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF HIGHER IMPORTANCE THAN THE DISCOVERY OF\nPHYSIOLOGICAL FACTS. \"If the knowledge of physiology has been somewhat\nincreased, he surely buys knowledge dear who learns the use of the\nlacteals at the expense of his own humanity.\" Is there a physiological\ndefenders of vivisection-freedom living to-day who would accept\nDr. Johnson's conclusion, that one should forbear research which is\npossible only by the infliction of animal torment? How unfair it is,\ntherefore, to suggest that the force of Dr. Johnson's argument is\ninvalidated because anaesthetics were unknown--when the disagreement\nis infinitely deeper!\n\nTo what physiologists of his time did Dr. Johnson allude? Apparently\nhis denunciation was sweeping; he referred to \"a race of wretches\"\nrather than to any particular individual, and to experiments then\ncarried on and \"published every day with ostentation.\" Who were the\nmen thus stigmatized? We do not know.  The record of their useless\ntormenting has sunk into the oblivion that hides their names; there\nare but one or two whose identity may perhaps be guessed.  It is\npossible that one of them was John Hunter; yet Hunter did not go up to\nLondon until 1764, and Dr. Johnson's condemnation had appeared three\nyears earlier.  Still, this does not preclude the possibility that\nDr. Johnson had Hunter in his mind.\n\nIn some ways John Hunter was a remarkable man.  He made an anatomical\ncollection, which is still in existence and which bears his name.  At\nEarl's Court, then a suburb of London, he established a sort of\nzoological Inferno, that reminds one of the \"Island of Dr. Moreau.\"\nOne of his biographers, Ottley, tells us that Hunger \"TOOK SUPREME\nDELIGHT\" in his physiological experiments; and inasmuch as he\nsuggested in a letter to a friend the performance of the most\nagonizing experiments as likely to \"amuse\" him, the statement was\nundoubtedly true.  A man's occupation generally has an influence upon\nhis character, and Hunter's biographer rather hesitatingly admits that\n\"he was not always very nice in his choice of associates,\" and that\namong his companions were certain abominable wretches known as\n\"resurrection men,\" who robbed graveyards for the benefit of students\nof anatomy.  Under all circumstances, we can hardly be surprised that\nhis married life was anything but serene.\n\nIn the infliction of pain he seems to have been without any idea of\npity.  To a friend who asked for his experience in a certain matter,\nhe wrote:\n\n\"I thank you for your experiment on the hedgehog; but WHY DO YOU ASK\nME A QUESTION, by the way of solving it? I think your solution is\njust, but why--WHY NOT TRY THE EXPERIMENT? Repeat all the experiments\nupon a hedgehog as soon as you receive this, and they will give you\nthe solution.  TRY THE HEAT.  CUT OFF A LEG...and let me know the\nresult of the whole.\n                                        \"Ever yours,\n                                             \"JOHN HUNTER.\"\n\nEven his own word, or the result of his own observations, he did not\nwish to have accepted, when, merely at the cost of another tortured\nanimal, his friend could find the answer for himself.  Is not this the\nphysiological ideal of to-day?\n\nAgain he writes to his scientific friend:\n\n\"If you could make some experiments on the increased heat of\ninflammation, I should be obliged to you.... I opened the thorax of a\ndog between two ribs, and introduced the thermometer.  Then I put some\nlint into the wound to keep it from healing by the first intention,\nTHAT THE THORAX MIGHT INFLAME; but before I had time to try it again,\nmy dog died on the fourth day.  A deep wound might be made into the\nthick of a dog's thigh, then put in the thermometer and some\nextraneous matter.... IF THESE EXPERIMENTS WILL AMUSE YOU, I should be\nglad they were made; but take care you do not break your thermometer\nin the dog's chest.\"[1]\n\n[1] Barron's \"Life of Jenner,\" i. 44.\n\n\"IF THESE EXPERIMENTS WILL AMUSE YOU\"--what a suggestive confirmation\nof Dr. Johnson's charge that the torture of vivisection was then\nregarded as an \"amusement\"! A century after, an Italian physiologist,\nMantegazza, devoted a year to the infliction of extreme torment upon\nanimals, and confessed that his tortures were inflicted, not with\nhesitation or repugnance, but \"CON MULTO AMORE,\" with extreme\ndelight.[2]\n\n[2] \"Fisiolgia del Dolore di Paulo Mantegazza,\" pp. 101-107.\n\nHunter does not seem to have regarded his own experiments other than\nas an intellectual pastime.  Mr. Stephen Paget, in his work on \"Animal\nExperimentation,\" refers to \"one great experiment...that puts him\n[Hunter] on a line with Harvey\"--an experiment upon a deer in Richmond\nPark.  There is no reason for doubting that such an experiment may\nhave been made; but the curious thing is, that it rests only on verbal\ntradition, for in his surgical lectures treating of aneurism Hunter\nhas not a word to say of the experiment which now, we are told, \"links\nhis name with that of Harvey,\" who made known the circulation of the\nblood.  His biographer, Ottley, referring to his surgical operation\nfor aneurism, tell us that \"he was led to propose the improved method,\nin consequence of the frequent failure of the operation by the old\nmode.\" No reference whatever is made to the legendary experiment on\nthe stag in Richmond Park.[1]\n\n[1] Ottley's \"Life of Hunter,\" p. 97.\n\nOf other experiments by Hunter we know more.  Sometimes his\nobservations were of a character that illustrates his environment.  In\nhis \"Observations\" Hunter tells us that at one time, on going to bed\nat night, he \"observed bugs, marching down the curtains and head of\nthe bed; of those killed, NONE had blood in them.\" In the morning \"I\nhave observed them marching back, and all such were found FULL OF\nBLOOD!\"[2] A wonderful discovery for a philosopher to record, leaving\nunmentioned the one experiment and observation by which his fame is to\nbe linked with that of Harvey!\n\n[2] Letter to Ottley, \"Life,\" p. 89.\n\nHunter had erroneous views on various matters of science.  He believed\nthat there was \"no such thing as a primary colour, every colour being\na mixture of two, making a third.\" He tells us that he once formed a\ntheory that if a human being were completely frozen, \"life might be\nprolonged a thousand years, he might learn what had happened during\nhis frozen condition.\"[3] His biographer, Ottley, alludes to this\ntheory of Hunter's as \"a project which, if realized, he expected would\nmake his fortune.\"[4] With this not altogether admirable object in\nview, his experiments upon freezing animals were doubtless made.  A\ndormouse, confined in a cold mixture, he tells us, \"showed signs of\ngreat uneasiness; sometimes it would curl itself into round form to\npreserve its extremities and confine the heat, and finding that\nineffectual, would then endeavor to escape.\" Its feet were at last\nfrozen, but Hunter could not freeze the entire animal because of the\nprotection afforded by the hair.  How should the scientist overcome\nthis difficulty? He pondered over the problem; then made a dormouse\ncompletely wet over, and placed it in the freezing-mixture.  The\nwretched animal \"made repeated attempts to escape,\" but without avail,\nand finally became quote stiff.  Alas, for the grand \"fortune\"!\nHunter tells us that \"on being thawed, it was found quite dead!\"[1]\n\n[3] \"Lectures,\" i. 284.\n[4] Ottley's \"Life of Hunter,\" p. 57.\n[1] Hunter's Works, vol. iv., p. 133.\n\nThe influence of Hunter upon English biology was undoubtedly very\ngreat.  In a mean and sordid society, he was an enthusiast for the\nacquisition of knowledge, and while his passion for physiology\ninduced--as it so often does--an indifference regarding the infliction\nof pain, his pitiless vivisections were not more cruel than\nexperiments made in this twentieth century, and some of them by men of\nnational reputation.  He was the type of the class of experimenters\nwhom Dr. Johnson had in his mind, men whose long practice in the\ninfliction of torment creates an indifference to the ordinary emotions\nof humanity, so that even in the causation of agony they find\nsomething \"to amuse,\" and in the performance of the most painful\nvivisection an occasion for \"supreme delight.\"\n\n                        CHAPTER IV\n\n                MAGENDIE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES\n\nIt may be doubted whether any physiologist has ever lived whose\ncruelty to animals exceeded that which, for a long period, was\nexercised by Franc,ois Magendie.  Born at Bordeaux, France, in 1783,\njust before the beginning of the French Revolution, he studied\nmedicine, receiving his medical degree in the year 1808.  Entering\nwith some zest upon the study of physiology, he published several\npamphlets regarding his investigations, and rapidly earned that\nnotoriety--which for some natures is the equivalent of fame--for the\npeculiar and refined torments which, in public demonstrations, he took\nfrequent occasion to inflict.  In 1821 he was elected a member of the\nInstitute; in 1831 he had become a professor in the College de France,\na position he held for the remainder of his life.  He died in 1855.\n\nOne of the earliest exposures of Magendie's infamous vivisections was\nmade in the British Parliament.  On February 24, 1825, Mr. Richard\nMartin of Galway, an Irish Member of the House of Commons, moved to\nbring in a Bill for the repression of bear-baiting and other forms of\ncruelty to animals.  His name is worth remembering, for to this\nRichard Martin belongs the honour of being one of the first men in any\nland who attempted to secure some repression of cruelty to animals\nthrough the condemnation of the law.  During his speech on this\noccasion Mr. Martin said:\n\n\"It was not merely bear-baiting and sports of a similar character that\nhe wished to abolish; there were other practices, equally cruel, with\nwhich he thought the legislature ought to interfere.  There was a\nFrenchman by the name of Magendie, whom he considered a disgrace to\nSociety.  In the course of the last year this man, at one of his\nanatomical theatres, exhibited a series of experiments so atrocious as\nalmost to shock belief.  This M. Magendie got a lady's greyhound.\nFirst of all he nailed its front, and then its hind, paws with the\nbluntest spikes that he could find, giving as reason that the poor\nbeast, in its agony, might tear away from the spikes if they were at\nall sharp or cutting.  He then doubled up its long ears, and nailed\nthem down with similar spikes.  (Cries of `Shame!')  He then made a\ngash down the middle of the face, and proceeded to dissect all the\nnerves on one side of it.... After he had finished these operations,\nthis surgical butcher then turned to the spectators, and said: `I\nhave now finished my operations on one side of this dog's head, and I\nshall reserve the other side till to-morrow.  If the servant takes\ncare of him for the night, I am of the opinion that I shall be able to\ncontinue my operations upon him to-morrow with as much satisfaction to\nus all as I have done to-day; but if not, ALTHOUGH HE MAY HAVE LOST\nTHE VIVACITY HE HAS SHOWN TO-DAY, I shall have the opportunity of\ncutting him up alive, and showing you the motion of the heart.'\nMr. Martin added that he held in his hands the written declarations of\nMr. Abernethy, of Sir Everard Home (and of other distinguished medical\nmen), all uniting in condemnation of such excessive and protracted\ncruelty as had been practised by this Frenchman.\"[1]\n\n[1] Hansard's Parliamentary Reports, February 24, 1825.\n\nWithin the past forty years has the cruelty of Magendie been condemned\nby any English or American physiologist? I have never seen it.\n\nThe objection is sometimes raised that evidence like this of\nMagendie's cruelty is only \"hearsay.\" Is not this generally the case\nwhere inhumanity is concerned? When Wilberforce described the\natrocities of the African slave trade, or Shaftesbury the conditions\npertaining to children in coal-mines and cotton mills, their\nstatements were equally questioned; yet, when reform had been\naccomplished, nobody doubted that, although they had not personally\nwitnessed the cruelties, they had reported only the facts.  Now, one\npeculiarity of Magendie's vivisections WAS THEIR PUBLICITY.  There was\nno attempt at concealment, such as governs the practice in England and\nAmerica to-day.  Magendie's experiments were publicly made, seemingly\nwith a desire to parade his contempt for any sentiment of compassion\ntowards animals.  The evidence of Magendie's cruelty is supported by\nan overwhelming amount of evidence, and to Mr. Martin's account of his\nvivisections, none of Magendie's English friends or apologists ever\nventured to reply in the public journals of the day.\n\nAn English physician, Dr. John Anthony, a pupil of Sir Charles Bell\nand a strong advocate of vivisection, has given us a little account of\nhis personal experience in 1838, while a student of medicine in\nParis.  The English members of his class, he says, \"were indignant at\nthe CRUELTIES which we saw manifested IN THE DEMONSTRATION OF\nEXPERIMENTS ON LIVING CREATURES.... What I saw in Paris pointed to\nthis: that very frequently men who are in the habit of making these\nexperiments are very careless of what becomes of the animal when it\nhas served its purpose; ... the animal is thrown (aside) to creep into\na corner and die.... I have carefully avoided seeing experiments in\nvivisection after the awful dose which I had of it in Paris, in 1838.\nTHE MEN THERE SEEMED TO CARE NO MORE FOR THE PAIN OF THE CREATURE\nBEING OPERATED UPON THAN IF IT WERE SO MUCH INORGANIC MATTER.\"[1]\n\n[1] Vivisection Report, 1876, Questions 2,347, 2,447, 2,582.\n\nAnother witness of Magendie's cruelty was Dr. William Sharpey, LL.D.,\nFellow of the Royal Society, and for more than thirty years the\nprofessor of physiology in University College, London.  It is a\ncurious fact that the \"Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory,\"\nwhich, when published in 1871, increased the agitation against\nvivisection, was dedicated to Professor Sharpey.  Before the Royal\nCommission on Vivisection, in 1876, he gave the following account of\nhis personal experience:\n\n\"When I was a very young man, studying in Paris, I went to the first\nof a series of lectures which Magendie gave upon experimental\nphysiology; and I was so utterly repelled by what I witnessed that I\nnever went again.  In the first place, they were painful (in those\ndays there were no anaesthetics), and sometimes they were severe; and\nthen THEY WERE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT OBJECT.  For example, Magendie made\nincisions into the skin of rabbits and other creatures TO SHOW THAT\nTHE SKIN IS SENSITIVE! Surely all the world knows the skin is\nsensitive; no experiment is wanted to prove that.  Several experiments\nhe made were of a similar character, AND HE PUT THE ANIMALS TO DEATH,\nFINALLY, IN A VERY PAINFUL WAY.... Some of his experiments excited a\nstrong feeling of abhorrence, not in the public merely, but among\nphysiologists.  There was his--I was going to say `famous' experiment;\nit might rather have been called `INFAMOUS' experiment upon vomiting\n.... Besides its atrocity, it was really purposeless.\"[2]\n\n[2] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Questions 444, 474.\n\nOf Magendie's cruelty we have thus the evidence of the best-known\nEnglish physiologist of his day.  Even by his own countrymen\nMagendie's pitilessness was denounced.  Dr. Latour, the founder and\neditor of the leading medical journal of France--L'Union Me'dicale--\nhas given us an incident which occurred in his presence, translations\nof which appeared in the editorial columns of the London Lancet and\nthe British Medical Journal, August 22, 1863.\n\n\"I recall to mind a poor dog, the roots of whose vertebral nerves\nMagendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's theory, which he\nclaimed as his own.  The dog, already mutilated and bleeding, twice\nescaped from under the implacable knife, and threw his forepaws around\nMagendie's neck, licking, as if to soften his murderer and ask for\nmercy! Vivisectors may laugh, but I confess I was unable to endure\nthat heartrending spectacle.\"[1]\n\n[1] The London Lancet, August 22, 1863.\n\nThe proof of Magendie's ferocious cruelty to his victims seems\noverwhelming. \"In France,\" says Dr. George Wilson, \"some of the most\neminent physiologists have gained an unenviable notoriety as PITILESS\nTORTURERS, ... experimenters who would not take the trouble to put out\nof pain the wretched dogs on which they experimented, even after they\nhad served their purpose, but left them to perish of lingering torture\n.... It is pleasing to contrast the merciless horrors enacted by\nMagendie\"--with the reluctance manifested by Sir Charles Bell.[2]\nDr. Elliotson, in his work on Human Physiology, states that \"Magendie\ncut living animals here and there, with no definite object BUT TO SEE\nWHAT WOULD HAPPEN.\"[3] In a sermon on cruelty to animals, preached at\nEdinburgh, March 5, 1826, by the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, the speaker\nespecially alludes to \"THE ATROCITIES OF A MAGENDIE,\" then recently\nmade known in England.  The President of the Royal College of\nSurgeons, Sir James Paget, once testified that Magendie \"disgusted\npeople very much BY SHOWING CONTEMPT FOR THE PAIN OF ANIMALS.\"[1] The\ngreat scientist, Charles Darwin, in a letter to the London Times, made\nreference to Magendie as a physiologist \"NOTORIOUS, half a century\nago, FOR HIS CRUEL EXPERIMENTS.\" \"It is not to be denied that\ninhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as\nphysiologists.  WE HAVE SEEN THAT IT WAS SO IN MAGENDIE.\" This is the\nlanguage of the final report of the Commission, to which was affixed\nthe name of Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, the most brilliant\nscientific writer of the last century.\n\n[2] Wilson's \"Life of Reid,\" p. 165.\n[3] \"Human Physiology,\" p. 428.\n[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Question 371.\n\nMagendie left us a singularly truthful estimate of his own character\nand of his scientific accomplishments when he declared himself to be\nsimply \"a street scavenger (un chiffonier) of science.  With my hook\nin my hand and my basket on my back, I ramble about the streets of\nscience and gather up whatever I can find.\" The comparison was\nsingular, but it was apt; he was, indeed, the ragpicker of\nphysiology.  With a scavenger's sense of honour he endeavored to rob\nSir Charles Bell of the credit for his discovery concerning the\nfunctions of the spinal nerves, by a prodigality of torment, from\nwhich the nobler nature of the English scientist instinctively\nrecoiled.  When there came to him an opportunity of experimenting on\nman, he embraced it with avidity, and again and again, while operating\nfor cataract, plunged his needle to the bottom of the patient's eye,\nthat he might learn the effect of mechanical irritation of the\ndelicate organ of sight.[1] Some rags and tatters of physiology he\nbought--at the price of immeasurable torment--and held them up for the\nadmiration of his contemporaries; but in the great conflict with\ndisease and death it may be questioned whether he added a single fact\nthat has increased the potency of medical art, the length of human\nlife, or the sum of human happiness.\n\n[1] Magendie naturally had no hesitancy in telling of these\nexperiments made upon his patients \"at the clinique of my hospital.\"\nSee his \"Elementary Treatise on Physiology\" (translated by Dr. John\nRevere). New York, 1844, p. 64.\n\nSuch was Franc,ois Magendie, physiologist and torturer, judged by\nscientific men and physiologists of a higher race, to whom compassion\nwas not unknown.  For undisguised contempt of pity, for delight in\ncruelty, for the infliction of refined and ingenious torment, he may\nhave been equally by some who followed and imitated him, but certainly\nhe was never surpassed.\n\nAnother distinguished French chiffonier in the slum-districts of\nscientific exploration was Dr. L. J. Brachet, a contemporary of\nMagendie.  In his day he was a man of extended reputation as a\nvivisector of animals.  His principal work is entitled: \"Recherches\nExpe'rimentales de Syste`me Nerveux...par J. L. Brachet, Membre de\nl'Acade'mie Royale de Me'decine\" and member of similar academies at\nBerlin, Copenhagen, and elsewhere; member of various medical societies\nof Paris, Lyons, Bordeaux, and Marseilles--the title-page of his book\nrecords his fame.  It will be of interest to study the character of\nthe experimentation, recorded by himself, upon which rests his\neminence as a scientific man.\n\nHis first great \"discovery\" unfortunately has not yet been accorded\nscientific acceptance. \"It is little,\" he says, \"to have proven the\nexistence of sensibility in animals; I have proven that sensation\npertains not merely to animals, but that it also is the property of\nvegetables--in a word, OF EVERYTHING THAT LIVES.  Everywhere it acts\nin the same manner, through the nerves.  The entire vegetable kingdom\npossesses the sense of feeling\" (tous les vegetaux possedent la\nfaculte de sentier).[1]\n\n[1] \"Recherches,\" etc., p. 13.\n\nHad Brachet confined himself solely to experiments on the sensibility\nof plants, we should have little to criticize.  Unfortunately,\nhowever, his scientific tastes led him in another direction.  He\nbelonged to a class of men who cannot permit the most apparent fact to\nbe taken for granted, when, at the cost of torment, it may be\ndemonstrated--men like Magendie, who insisted on proving to his\nstudents that an animal could really feel pain by stabbing it with his\nknife before commencing his experiment.  Brachet's problem was a\nsimple one.  We all know, for instance, that an animal--a dog--may\nfeel an intense dislike to some particular person.  Why? Because of\nimpressions conveyed to the brain of the animal by the senses of sight\nand hearing.  Outside an asylum for idiots, it is probable that no one\never questioned the fact.  Brachet, however, would not permit his\nreaders to accept any statement merely upon the general experience of\nmankind, when it might be proven scientifically, and he has described\nin his book the experiments by which he claims to have demonstrated\nhis theory.\n\n\"EXPERIMENT 162.--I inspired a dog with the strongest possible hatred\nfor me by teasing it and inflicting upon it some pain every time I saw\nit.  When this feeling had reached its height, so that the animal\nbecame furious whenever it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes [je\nlui fis crever les yeux].  I could then appear before it without its\nmanifesting any aversion.  I spoke, and immediately its barkings and\nfurious movements permitted no doubt of the rage which animated it.\n\n\"I then destroyed the drum of the ears, and disorganized as much as I\ncould of the inner ear.  When the intense inflammation thus excited\nhad rendered it almost deaf, I filled its ears with wax, and it could\nhear me no longer.  Then I could stand by its side, speak to it in a\nloud voice, and even caress it, without awakening its anger; indeed,\nit appeared sensible of my caresses! There is no need to describe\nanother experiment of the same kind, made upon another dog, since the\nresults were the same.\"\n\nBy this great experiment, what valuable knowledge was conveyed? Simply\nthat a dog, deprived of sight and hearing, will not manifest antipathy\nto a man it can neither see nor hear!\n\nA true vivisector is never at a loss to invent excuse or occasion for\nan experiment.  Dr. Brachet had made it clear that a dog will not\nmanifest antipathy toward an enemy whose presence it cannot perceive;\nbut suppose such a mutilated creature, in its darkness and silence,\nwere subjected to some sharp and continuous physical pain, what then\nwould happen? He proceeded to ascertain:\n\n\"EXPERIMENT 163.--I began the experiment on another dog by putting out\nits eyes [par crever les yeux], and breaking up the internal ears.\nTen days later, THE SUFFERING OF THE ANIMAL HAVING APPARENTLY CEASED,\nafter assuring myself that it could no longer see nor hear, I made a\nsore in the middle of its back.  EVERY MOMENT I IRRITATED THIS WOULD\nBY PICKING IT WITH A NEEDLE [a chaque instant j'irritai sa plaie en la\npiquant avec un aiguillon].  At first the dog did nothing but yelp and\ntry to escape, but the impossibility of this FORCED HIM UNCEASINGLY TO\nRECEIVE EXCRUCIATING PAIN; and finally the dog passed into a state of\nfrenzy so violent, that at last it could be induced by touching any\npart of its body.... The dog had no reason of hatred against any\nindividual; ... both sight and hearing had been destroyed; and many\npersons the animal had never seen, provoked its rage by irritating the\nwound.\"\n\nOf such an abominable experiment, however scientific it may appear, it\nis difficult to speak with restraint.  To the average man or woman it\nwill probably seem that nothing more fiendish or cruel can be found\nanywhere in the dark records of animal experimentation.  Dr. Brachet\nwas no obscure or unexperienced vivisector.  At one time he was the\nprofessor of physiology in a medical school; he was a member of many\nlearned societies at home and abroad.  But think of an educated man\nprocuring a little dog and deliberately putting out its eyes; then\nbreaking up the internal ear, so that for many days the animal must\nhave endured excruciating anguish from the inflammation thus induced;\nnext, when the pain had somewhat subsided, creating a sore on the back\nby removal of the skin; and then, after comfortably seating himself in\nhis physiological laboratory by the side of his victim, scientifically\npicking, and piercing, and pricking the wound, without respite--\nconstantly, without ceasing--until the blinded and deafened and\ntortured creature is driven into frenzy by torments which it felt\ncontinually, which it could not comprehend, and from which, by no\nexertion, it was able to defend itself! Think of the scientist asking\nmany other learned men to join him from time to time in the\nexperiment, and to take part in picking at the wound, in tormenting\nthe mutilated and blinded victim, and in driving it again and again to\nthe madness of despair! Does anyone say that such an experiment could\nnot be made to-day? In one of the largest laboratories of America, and\nwithin ten years, an experiment equally cruel, equally useless, has\nbeen performed.  The modern defender of unrestricted vivisection\ndistinctly insists that no legal impediment should hinder the\nperformance of any investigation desired by any experimenter.  It was\nthe editor of the British Medical Journal who once declared that\n\"whoever has not seen an animal under experiment CANNOT FORM AN IDEA\nOF THE HABITUAL PRACTICES OF THE VIVISECTORS.\"[1] This accords with\nthe statement of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, for forty years connected with\nHarvard Medical School, that, aside from motives, painful vivisection\ndiffered mainly from other phases of cruelty \"in being practised by an\neducated class, who, having once become callous to its objectionable\nfeatures, find the pursuit an interesting occupation, under the name\nof Science.\"\n\n[1] British Medical Journal, September 19, 1863 (leading editorial)\n\nAnd this was the case of Brachet.  HE HAD BECOME CALLOUS.  He found\ntorment \"an interesting occupation, under the name of Science.\" May\nthere not be others in our day to whom the same criticism is only too\napplicable?\n\nOne of the English critics of the abuses of vivisection a century ago\nwas Dr. John Abernethy of London, a Lecturer on Physiology at the\nRoyal College of Surgeons, the founder of the medical school attached\nto St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and the most distinguished surgeon in\nGreat Britain during the first quarter of the nineteenth century.\nAbernethy was by no means an antivivisectionist; he insisted upon the\nutility of certain demonstrations, but he was profoundly opposed to\nthose cruelties of research which, in our day, by the modern school of\nphysiologists, are either forgotten or condoned.  curiously enough,\none of his strongest utterances against such cruelty was made in one\nof his lectures on physiology.  Therein he said:\n\n\"There is one point I feel it a duty to advert to.  Mr. Hunter, whom I\nshould not have believed to have been very scrupulous about inflicting\nsuffering upon animals, nevertheless censures Spallanzani for the\nunmeaning repetition of similar experiments.  Having resolved publicly\nto express my own opinions with regard to the subject, I choose the\npresent opportunity, BECAUSE I BELIEVE SPALLANZANI TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF\nTHOSE WHO HAVE TORTURED AND DESTROYED ANIMALS IN VAIN.  I do not\nperceive that in the two principal subjects which he has sought to\nelucidate he has added any important fact to our stock of knowledge;\nand, besides, some of his experiments are of a nature that a good man\nwould blush to think of, and a wise man would have been ashamed to\npublish.\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Physiological Lectures,\" London, 1817, p. 164.\n\nThis is a unique expression.  One may be absolutely certain that no\nprofessor of physiology during the past forty years has thus openly\ncondemned in a physiology lecture any of his contemporaries for the\ncruelty of their experiments.\n\nIn his Life of Abernethy, his biographer, Dr. Macilwain, refers to\nexperiments upon living animals, \"WHICH ARE SO REVOLTING FROM THEIR\nCRUELTY, that the mind recoils from the contemplation of them.\" This,\ntoo, is a noteworthy utterance, coming from one who was a\ndistinguished London surgeon and a Fellow of the Royal Society.  In a\nsubsequent work entitled \"Remarks on Vivisection,\" published some\nseventeen years before the date ascribed by Professor Bowditch as that\nmarking the beginning of criticism, he refers again to the views of\nAbernethy:\n\n\"As for experiments on living animals involving suffering,\nMr. Abernethy disapproved of them, and seldom alluded to them but in\nterms of distrust, derision, or disgust.\"\n\nThat the criticism of experimental cruelty did not begin in 1864, as\nimagined by Professor Bowditch, the quotations here given sufficiently\ndemonstrate.\n\nBeyond this demonstration, does the history of these savage tormentors\nhave any lesson for us to-day? They belonged to another century.\nShould they not be forgiven, and their experiments condoned? Why not\nconfine attention solely to the laboratory of to-day? Why blame\nBrachet and Magendie and Spallanzani, to whom anaesthesia was unknown?\n\nThere is a false suggestion in this protest, which, in one form or\nanother, we hear often to-day.  It is the gratuitous assumption put\nforth in defence, that if anaesthetics had only been known to\nphysiologists before 1846, they would invariably have been used.  Any\nsuch suggestion is manifestly false.  If these experiments of Brachet\nand of others to be mentioned were to be made at all, it was necessary\nthat the animal should be conscious of the agony it experienced.  In\nthe most complete laboratory for vivisection of the present time--in\nthe Rockefeller Institute, for example--no scientist could drive a dog\nINTO A FRENZY while it lies absolutely unconscious under the influence\nof chloroform! We may say this of the experiments of Magendie on the\nnervous system, for aside from the preliminary cutting operation, such\nexperiments demanded the consciousness of the victim.  That which\nhumanity has a right to censure in these physiologists is the spirit\nof absolute indifference to animal suffering, the willingness to\nsubject a living creature to agony without adequate reason for the\ninfliction of pain.  The discovery of chloroform or ether made no\nchange in human nature.  Some of the worst of vivisections have been\nmade, not merely since anaesthetics were discovered, but within the\npresent century.  Over twenty-five years after the properties of ether\nhad been discovered, the most prominent vivisector in England told the\nRoyal Commission that, except for teaching purposes, \"I never use\nanaesthetics where it is not necessary for convenience, \" and that an\nexperimenter \"HAD NO TIME, SO TO SPEAK, FOR THINKING WHAT THE ANIMAL\nWILL FEEL OR SUFFER.\"[1]\n\n[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Questions 3,538, 3540.\n\nUnrestricted vivisection is the same to-day as a century ago.  In many\ncases its operations involve little or no pain; in many cases there\nseems to be the same absolute indifference to the agony inflicted that\nwas manifested by the vivisectors of a hundred years since.  Where the\nlaw does not interfere, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE.  Whether there is\ncruelty or consideration depends on the spirit of the vivisector.  It\nwas no ignorant layman, but the president of the American Academy of\nMedicine, who, in his annual address, declared that there were\nAmerican vivisectors who \"seem, seeking useless knowledge, to be blind\nto the writhing agony and deaf to the cry of pain of their victims,\nAND WHO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THE MOST DAMNABLE CRUELTIES, without the\ndenunciation of the public and the profession that their wickedness\ndeserves.\"[1] And that vivisector of to-day, who suggests that if\nanaesthetics had been known to Magendie or Brachet, they would\ninvariably have been used, is either ignorant or insincere.  Surely he\nmust know that the very nature of their experiments precluded the use\nof ether, and that in their time, as to-day, if the experiment were to\nbe tried at all, it was necessary that the pain be felt.\n\n[1] Address before American Academy of Medicine at Washington, D.C.,\nMay 4, 1891, by Theophilus Parvin, M.D., LL.D., professor in Jefferson\nMedical College of Philadelphia, Pa.\n\nThere are other reasons why we should not permit the past to be\nforgotten.  We are confronted by the challenge of the laboratory.\nBehind the locked and barred doors of the vivisection chamber, to\nwhich no man can gain admission unless known to be friendly to its\npractices, the vivisector of to-day challenges society to prove the\nexistence of cruelty or abuse.  The vivisector demands absolute\nfreedom of action, he demands the most complete privacy, he demands\ntotal independence of all legal supervision--and then challenges the\nproduction of proof that any criticism is justified! Within the sacred\nprecincts of the laboratory a Brachet, a Magendie, a Claude Be'rnard\nmay be experimenting to-day with a profusion of victims, protected by\ntheir seclusion from every possibility of complaint.  For in what\nrespect does the spirit that animates research to-day differ from that\nmanifested by experimenters of the past? In all the literature of\nadvocacy for unrestricted vivisection can one point out a word of\ncriticism of Magendie or Brachet or Be'rnard, or anything but\nexpressions of exculpation, of admiration, and of praise? An English\nwriter on animal experimentation, Mr. Stephen Paget, had occasion, in\na recent work, to refer to the experimentation of both Magendie and\nSir Charles Bell.  Does he criticize or condemn Magendie's cruelty?\nNo.  He tells us, incidentally, that Bell always had \"a great dislike\nto the school of Magendie,\" adding, with indifference, \"LET ALL THAT\nPASS.\" These words aptly express the sentiment and the wish.  Gladly,\nindeed, would the physiological laboratory hide the past from the\nmemory of mankind; I do not believe in acceding to that desire.  When\nthe leading physiologist of his day, addressing an audience of\nphysicians, refers to an early criticism of physiological cruelty as a\ncollection of \"blood-curdling stories,\" there is desire not to\ninvestigate, but to ridicule and discredit historic facts.  When men\nof science put forth what they claim to be, \"a plain statement of the\nwhole truth,\" without one word of reference to the abuses of the past,\nthey practically throw dust in the air to hide the truth from the\npublic eye.  That it may have been done ignorantly and without any\nwish to deceive is not sufficient to earn exculpation, for in either\ncase the evil is accomplished.\n\nOf one English physiologist of that period, Sir Charles Bell, it is\nimpossible to speak except in terms of admiration and esteem.  Born in\n1774, his long and useful life terminated in 1842, four years before\nthe discovery of anaesthesia.  No one can read his correspondence with\nhis brother, published many years after his death, without recognizing\nthe innate beauty and nobility of his character.  When news of the\nBattle of Waterloo reached England, he--the leading surgeon of his\nday--started for the battlefield.  The story of his experience is one\nof the most graphic pictures of the effects of war to be found in\nmodern literature.  It was Sir Charles Bell who made to physiology the\ngreatest contribution which had come to it since the discovery by\nHarvey of the circulation of the blood, and yet this discovery was\nmade by reasoning upon the facts of anatomy rather than by\nexperimenting upon animals.  An English physiologist, Sir Michael\nFoster, admits this:\n\n\"To Charles Bell is due the merit of having made the fundamental\ndiscovery of the distinction between motor and sensory fibres.  Led to\nthis view by reflecting on the distribution of the nerves, he\nexperimentally verified his conclusions....\"\n\nIn his lectures on the nervous system Bell himself states that his\ndiscoveries, so far from being the result of vivisections, were, \"on\nthe contrary, deductions from anatomy; and I have had recourse to\nexperiments, not to form my own opinions, but to impress them upon\nothers.\"\n\nThat which determines the judgment of the world upon human actions is\nthe spirit that animates them.  Sir Charles Bell was not an\nantivivisectionist.  When experiments on animals seemed to him\nabsolutely indispensable, he had recourse to them, but always with\nrepugnance, and with desire to avoid giving of pain.  In his lectures\non the nervous system he speaks thus of some of his work:\n\n\"After delaying long on account of the unpleasant nature of the\noperation, I opened the spinal canal.... I was deterred from repeating\nthe experiment by the protracted cruelty of the dissection.  I\nreflected that the experiment would be satisfactory if done on an\nanimal recently knocked down and insensible.\"\n\nAnd on another occasion, writing to his brother, he says:\n\n\"I should be writing a third paper on the nerves; but I cannot proceed\nwithout making some experiments, which are so unpleasant to make that\nI defer them.  You may think me silly, but I cannot perfectly convince\nmyself that I am authorized in Nature or Religion to do these\ncruelties .... And yet what are my experiments in comparison with\nthose which are daily done, and are done daily for nothing?\"\n\nSuch extreme sensibility, such sympathetic hesitancy to inflict great\nsuffering in an attempt to discover some fact, would be ridiculed at\nthe present day in every laboratory in Europe or America.  It is\ntypical, however, of a sentiment that once prevailed.  Are we any\nbetter because it has so largely disappeared?\n\nFor great cruelty was there ever great remorse? The cases are not\nmany; before the self-condemnation of a dying man and the final scene,\nfriendship may feel it best to draw the veil.  Yet one case of this\npoignant regret is worthy consideration, and shall have relation.\n\n\n                          CHAPTER V\n\n                   A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE\n\nAbout the middle of the last century there died in Scotland in the\nprime of life a physiologist, now almost forgotten, whose fate excited\nat the time an unusual degree of compassionate interest.  Born in\n1809, John Reid received his medical degree when but twenty-one years\nof age.  A part of the two years following he spent in Paris, where\nMagendie was at the height of his notoriety for the ruthless cruelty\nof his vivisections.  What attracted the young man we do not know, but\nReid seems to have become greatly interested in physiological\nproblems.  Returning to Scotland, he pursued his investigations with\nall the zeal of youth, and apparently with little or no regard for the\nanimal suffering he caused.  For instance, of experiments which he\nmade to prove a certain theory, he tells us:\n\n\"I have exposed the trunk of the par vagum in the neck of at least\nthirty animals, and in all of these the pinching, cutting, and even\nstretching of the nerve WERE ATTENDED BY INDICATIONS OF SEVERE\nSUFFERING.  It was frequently difficult to separate the nerve from the\nartery ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIOLENT STRUGGLES OF THE ANIMAL.\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Physiological Researches,\" by John Reid, p. 92. (In all\nquotations the italics are the compiler's.)\n\nRegarding the pain inflicted by him in certain other vivisections,\nReid is equally frank in his admissions:\n\n\"In repeated experiments upon the laryngeal nerves, we found in all\nanimals operated upon (except two dogs, which appeared CONSIDERABLY\nEXHAUSTED BY GREAT PREVIOUS SUFFERING) ample ground for dissenting\nfrom the statements of Dr. Alcock.... With the exceptions mentioned,\nVERY SEVERE INDICATIONS OF SUFFERING ... ATTENDED THE PINCHING AND\nCUTTING OF THE NERVE.\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Physiological Researches,\" p. 73.\n\nSome physiological observers have remarked that among the more highly\norganized species of animals the creature struggles against the\nligatures previous to a second operation more than it did at its first\nexperience.  It is evident that in such cases, in animals as well as\namong human beings, the memory of agony endured creates a mental\ncondition of terror and fear.  But what effect would the emotion of\nterror have upon the heart's action if certain nerves were first\nsevered?  Brachet relates an experiment wherein he tortured a dog in\nevery conceivable way, yet the heart's action was not notably\nquickened if such nerves were first divided.  Reid determined,\ntherefore, to experiment for himself upon this emotion of TERROR\ninduced by memory of previous pain, and six dogs were selected for his\npurpose.  The nerves were first \"cut in the middle of the neck, and  a\nportion of each removed.\" He then tells us the results:\n\n\"After the operation, the pulsations of the heart were reckoned when\nthe animal was lying or standing on the ground, and AFTER IT HAD BEEN\nCARESSED FOR SOME TIME TO CALM ITS FEARS.  It was then lifted up on\nthe table, on which it had been tied, and operated upon; and after\nhaving been spoken to HARSHLY, the pulsations were again reckoned.\"\n\nIn every case Reid noted that the heart's action increased from 20 to\n40 beats per minute on lifting the animal to the vivisection table,\nwhereon it had previously suffered torment.  He adds:\n\n\"In those experiments it was particularly observed that the animals\nmade no struggles in carrying them to and from the table, and\nconsequently the increased excitation of the heart MUST HAVE ARISEN\nFROM THE MENTAL EMOTION OF TERROR.  In a seventh dog this was\nconjoined with violent struggles.  The pulsations, eight hours after\nthe operation, were 130; WHEN PLACED ON THE TABLE AND MADE TO\nSTRUGGLE, the pulsations were about 220; when he had been SUBJECTED TO\nPAIN, and struggled more violently, they became so frequent that they\ncould not be accurately reckoned.  These experiments...prove that\nafter the section of the vagi the pulsations of the heart may not only\nbe quickened by muscular exertion, but also by MENTAL EMOTIONS.\"[1]\n\n[1] Reid, \"Physiological Researches,\" pp. 168-171.\n\nObjection is often made to the citation of vivisections which occurred\nbefore the discovery of ether or chloroform.  But in these experiments\nof Reid--as in those of Brachet--the use of anaesthetics, even had\nthey been known to him, would have been a hindrance.  HOW CAN ANYONE\nEXPERIMENT ON THE \"MENTAL EMOTIONS\" OF AN ANIMAL WHILE IT IS\nPROFOUNDLY INSENSIBLE TO ALL EXTERNAL INFLUENCES? The idea is an\nabsurdity.  The biography of Reid thus refers to this very point:\n\n\"Allusion has been made to the infliction of suffering on living\nanimals.... This suffering was not merely incidental to dissections,\nbut in many of the experiments recorded WAS DELIBERATELY INFLICTED.\nIn many of the experiments, EVEN IF ANAESTHETICS HAD BEEN KNOWN at the\nperiod of his observations, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED.... It\nwas essential to the settlement of the question that the animal should\nbe left TO EXHIBIT ALL THE PAIN IT FELT, AND SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY\nSUBJECTED TO TORTURE.\"[2]\n\n[2] \"Life of John Reid,\" by Geo. Wilson, M.D., 1852, p. 153.\n\nAnd precisely the same apology is put forward to-day.  More than once,\nby high scientific authority, the public has been comfortably assured\nthat nowadays \"anaesthetics are always employed,\" in severely painful\nexperiments, EXCEPT \"in those instances in which THE ANAESTHETIC WOULD\nINTERFERE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT.\" Truly it is a broad\nexception.  For all we know, it is the laboratory's excuse, even for\nthe present-day repetition of the experiments of Magendie, Brachet,\nand Reid. \"The anaesthetic would interfere.\" But what was the value of\nall this experimentation upon mind and body, this \"mental emotion of\nterror\" in a dog, and this calming of its fear by caresses, followed\nby the torment of the operation? There was no value so far as the\ntreatment of human ailments is concerned.  Reid's experiments led to\nno change whatever in medical practice.  Reading of certain\nexperiments, one is constantly reminded of the old peasant's reply to\nhis grandchild, who had found a skull on what once was a battlefield.\nHolding it in his hand, the old man told the story of the Battle of\nBlenheim, and the awful suffering it had caused:\n\n          \"`But what good came of it at last?'\n              Said little Peterkin;\n           `Why, that I cannot tell,' quoth he,\n              `BUT `TWAS A FAMOUS VICTORY!'\"\n\nAt the early age of thirty-eight the physiologist seemed to see before\nhim the bright prospect of a long and happy life.  He possessed\nunusual physical strength, robust health, and a resolute and\ncourageous spirit.  His home was happy.  No one considered him a cruel\nman; indeed, we are told, he was rather fond of animals.  \"In his own\nhouse he always had pet dogs and cats about him, and he was as ready\nas Sir Walter Scott to rise from any occupation to humour their\nwhims.\" In his profession he had made somewhat of a reputation, yet\nhigher honours and wider renown and increased financial prosperity\nseemed almost certain to await him in the not distant future.\n\nBut one day, in November, 1847, he noted in himself the symptom of a\ndisease that gave cause for alarm.  The pain at first was doubtless\ninsignificant, but the symptom occasioned anxiety because it would not\ndisappear.  Some of his friends were the best surgeons of Scotland,\nand he asked their advice.  They were careful not to add to his\ndiscouragement, and they suggested the old, old formula--\"rest and a\nchange of scene.\" A year passed.  The disease made constant progress,\nand there came a time when of its malignant character there could be\nno possible doubt.  Finally, the vivisector recognized that it was not\nmerely death which confronted him, but death by the most mysterious\nand agonizing of human ailments.  In June, 1848, he wrote to a friend:\n\"I have a strong conviction that my earthly career will soon come to a\nclose, and that I shall never lecture again.\"\n\nAnd then, gradually, to the ever-increasing agony of the body, came\nthe anguish of REMORSE.  He remembered the trembling little creatures\nwhich again and again he had lifted to their bed of torment, and \"made\nto struggle,\" that he might observe how the heart-beats of a mutilated\nanimal were quickened \"from the emotion of terror\"; and now, in the\ngloom of horrible imaginings, TERROR held HIM with a grasp that would\nnever loosen or lessen while his consciousness remained.  He\nremembered the the evidence of \"severe suffering\" he had so often\nevoked by the \"pinching and cutting and stretching\" of nerves; the\ncreatures he had first \"caressed to calm their fears\"--and then\nvivisected; the eyes that so often had appealed for respite from\nagony--and appealed in vain; and now, NATURA MALIGNA, to whom pity is\nunknown, was slowly torturing him to death.  He pointed to the seat of\nhis suffering as being \"THE SAME NERVES on which he had made so many\nexperiments, and added: `THIS IS A JUDGMENT UPON ME FOR THE SUFFERING\nI HAVE INFLICTED ON ANIMALS'\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Life of John Reid,\" by Dr. G. Wilson, p. 273.\n\nMore than once during the last months of his life he recurred to the\nsame subject.\n\nHis biographer says:\n\n\"He could not divest his mind of the feeling that there was a special\nProvidence in the way in which he had been afflicted.  He had devoted\npeculiar attention to the functions of certain nerves, and had\ninflicted suffering on many dumb creatures that he might discover the\noffice of those nerves; and HE COULD NOT BUT REGARD THE CANCER WHICH\nPREYED UPON THEM--IN HIS OWN BODY--AS A SIGNIFICANT MESSAGE FROM\nGOD.\"[2]\n\n[2] Ibid., p. 250.\n\nAgain and again he repeated the conviction to which his mind\ncontinually reverted in the midst of his torment.  To him conscience\nbrought no message of Divine approbation, but only a sentence of\ncondemnation upon his past pursuits.  Nor was Reid alone in this\nfeeling of apprehension and questioning.  We are told by his medical\nfriend and biographer that many of his brother physicians were\nstartled by learning\n\n\"that Dr. Reid is doomed to die by a disease WHICH REPEATS UPON HIS\nOWN BODY NOT IN ONE, BUT IN MANY WAYS, the pains which he had imposed\nupon the lower animals.\"[1]\n\n[1] Reid's \"Life,\" p. 252.\n\nUndoubtedly, friends of the tormented vivisector attempted to comfort\nhim with the assurance--so often repeated in our day--that his\nexperiments on living animals had been carried on \"for the benefit of\nsick and suffering humanity.\" But Reid was too honest a man to permit\nhimself to be thus deluded while under the very shadow of death.  For\nhim the time had come when the specious apologies for the infliction\nof torture--so current in our day--could be of no avail in lessening\nthe poignant feeling of Remorse.  In the dying hour men speak the\ntruth about their actions.  It was so with Reid.\n\n\"He confessed to having thought much of Scientific FAME in his\nlabours, and IT WOULD BE UNTRUE TO SAY THAT THE ALLEVIATION OF HUMAN\nSUFFERING was the motive always before him when he inflicted pain on\nthe lower animals.\"[2]\n\n[2] Ibid., p. 65.\n\nAn operation seemed to hold out hope of relief from his terrible\nagony.  It was deemed best to perform it--as Reid had experimented--\nwithout anaesthetics, \"that the sufferer, with every sensation and\nfaculty alive, might literally become an operator upon himself.\" In\nthe course of a second operation, Dr. Wilson tells us: \"THE SAME\nNERVES and bloodvessels which had been the subject of Dr. Reid's most\nimportant inquiries WERE LAID BARE IN HIMSELF, BY THE SURGEON'S\nKNIFE.\" But all remedial measures were in vain.  The two years of\napprehension, suspense, recognition, despair, of slowly increasing\nphysical torment and the agony of remorse, came at last to an end.\nIn July, 1849, he found the long-wished-for peace.\n\nSeventy years ago the religious sentiment of Scotland easily favoured\nthat doctrine of Divine displeasure which seemed probable to Reid and\nhis friends.  In our day, however, we are less certain of being able\nto interpret the \"judgments of God\"; and if we regard it as a\nremarkable coincidence, it is as far as we may safely go.\nCoincidences of some kind are a universal experience.\n\nThat notorious vivisector, Dr. Brown-Se'quard, devoted many years of\nhis life to experiments on the seat of all that is concentrated and\nexquisite in agony--the spinal cord.  It was a curious coincidence\ncertainly, that in his last days the vivisector was affected by a\ndisease of the spinal cord, which at one time compelled him to go on\nall-fours like a beast.  Even the remorse of Reid finds a parallel,\nfor toward the end of his life, Haller, one of the greatest\nphysiologists that ever lived, is said to have expressed in letters\ndeep regret for the suffering he had inflicted upon living animals.\n\nWe cannot doubt, however, that the experience of excruciating agony\naffecting the very nerves upon which he had so often experimented must\nhave brought to the dying man a deeper realization of the pain he had\ncaused than he could otherwise have known.  A noted surgeon, whose\nfinger was the seat of a felon, asked his hospital assistant to lance\nit, at the same time cautioning him to be particularly careful to\ncause as little pain as possible. \"Why, I've often heard you tell\npatients coming to the hospital not to mind the lancing--that the pain\nto be felt was really nothing at all,\" replied the assistant.\n\n\"Ah, yes,\" rejoined the surgical sufferer, \"but then, remember, I was\nAT THE OTHER END OF THE KNIFE!\" In watching the phenomena elicited by\nexperiments upon animals, there have been vivisectors who forget what\nwas felt \"at the other end of the knife,\" and so became utterly\noblivious to the suffering they caused.  A leading physiologist of\nEngland once declared that he \"HAD NO REGARD AT ALL\" for the pain of\nan animal vivisected, and that \"he had no time, so to speak, for\nthinking what the animal would feel or suffer\"; that he never used\nanaesthetics, \"except for convenience' sake.\" Can such a man realize\nthe meaning of the word \"PAIN\"? Without sharp personal experience, can\nanyone, adequately comprehend what it signifies?\n\nRemorse may be evidence, not so much of exceptional delinquency as of\nexceptional sensitiveness to ethical considerations.  By the baser and\nmore degraded souls it is rarely experienced.  The greatest criminals\nusually meet their doom, untouched by any feeling of remorse.  Perhaps\nit does not greatly matter how this infinite regret is occasioned.\nSometimes--\n\n                                \"... pain in man\n        Has the high purpose of the flail and fan.\"\n\nIt separates and purifies.  To one whose great suffering from disease\nis long continued, there must come a clearer vision of the infinite\nlittleness of all transitory ambitions.  Such supreme regret as that\nwhich came to Reid has great value.  The poor soul once so longed for\n\"fame\"--which means only a little wider recognition to-day, and a\nlittle more enduring remembrance by posterity than that which is\ngained by the generality of mankind.  Of that horde of torturers, avid\nalso for \"fame,\" whose causation of unreckonable anguish brings into\ntheir ignoble natures no thought of pity, no emotion of regret,\neveryone comes at last to rest in that deep forgetfulness which he\ndeserves.  Here, however, is the story of one whose penitence gives\nreason for longer remembrance, who greatly erred and greatly\nsuffered, whose contrition atoned, whose example admonishes--JOHN\nREID, physiologist.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER VI\n\n                IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY?\n\nAt every point in the discussion of vivisection we are confronted by\nthe plea of utility.  If, to some extent, we may admit the\nreasonableness of the argument, yet such admission must be with\ncertain definite reservations.  The infliction of extreme pain either\nupon human beings or on animals for objects other than their own\nbenefit--how far is it to be justified if some useful end is thereby\nachieved? The subject is worth of study.\n\nThe utility of judicial torture as a method of securing the confession\nof criminals does not seem to have been questioned for hundreds of\nyears.  The Romans often put all their slaves to torture as soon as\nany crime occurred, of which some of their servants could have been\naware.  That sometimes the innocent suffered beyond endurance and\nfalsely confessed seemed to our forefathers no reason whatever for\nchanging an ancient custom, so often productive of useful ends.\nMysterious crimes, which under our modern methods of investigation\nescape detection, were frequently brought to light in earlier times\nsimply by the threat of torment and the sight of the executioner.\nThere can be no question that in innumerable cases the torture of\naccused criminals whose guilt was almost certain, yet not absolutely\nproven, served to further the ends of Justice.  If modern civilization\ncondemns the torture of suspected lawbreakers, it is upon other\ngrounds than that Justice finds it useless in every case.\n\nThe public punishment of great offences against the state--punishment\naccompanied with ignominy and extreme torment--seemed to our ancestors\nequally justified by utility.  If an old woman were convicted of\nwitchcraft--and nobody questioned the actuality of the offence two\nhundred and fifty years ago--her punishment by burning at the stake\ncertainly might be expected to deter others from entering into\ncompacts with the Evil One.  If heresy and unbelief lead not only the\nsceptic himself, but all who follow his teaching, into eternal\ndarkness, there seemed to our forefathers no surer method of checking\nthe first tendencies toward intellectual revolt, and saving\ninnumerable souls, than by delivering the heretic to the flames, and\naccompanying his execution by everything calculated to excite popular\nderision and execration.  The public punishment of treason, and\nparticularly of attempted or achieved assassination of the sovereign\nor head of the State, was made as excruciating and terrible as\npossible, in order THAT THE EXAMPLE MIGHT DETER.\n\nWe speak somewhat vaguely to-day of such tortures and their\natrociously horrible accompaniments.  It may be worth while to see\njust what they were.  two or three centuries ago civilized nations\nconsidered that IF TORMENT WAS USEFUL IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE.  There are\nthree cases which stand out in history with especial distinctness, the\ndetails of which are little known, and I propose to cite them simply\nas evidence of the extent to which judicial torment was carried, but a\nlittle while ago, among some of the most enlightened and progressive\nnations of modern times.\n\nIf ever the assassination of a Prince deserved the severest\npunishment, it was the murder in July, 1584, of William the Silent, the\nleader of the Protestants of Holland in their struggle for\nindependence from Spanish dominion.  The sentence pronounced upon the\nmurderer, Balthazar Gerard, a mere hired assassin, was carried out\nwithin ten days after commission of the crime.  A contemporary writer,\napparently an eyewitness of his execution, speaks of Gerard as one\n\"whose death was not of a sufficient sharpness for such a caitiff, and\nyet too sore for any Christian.\"  His description of the murderer'\nexecution is as follows:\n\n\"The order of the torment was four days.  He had the first day the\nstrappado openly, in the market; the second day, whipped and salted,\nand his right hand cut off; the third day, his breasts cut out, and\nsalt thrown in, and then his left hand cut off.  The last day of his\ntorment, which was the 10th of July, he was bound to two stakes,\nstanding upright, in such order that he could not shrink down nor stir\nany way.  Thus standing, naked, there was a great fire placed some\nsmall distance from him wherein heated pincers of iron, with which\npincers two men did pinch and pull his flesh in small pieces from his\nbones throughout most parts of his body.  Then was he unbound from the\nstakes and laid upon the earth, and again fastened to four posts; then\nthey ripped him up, at which time he had life and PERFECT MEMORY.\"[1]\n\n[1] Harl. Misc., vol. iii., p. 200. \"Printed at Middleborough, Anno\n1584.\" The above account is taken from a rare publication, in the\nBritish Museum Library.  Motley's account of Gerard's torment includes\nelements of horror not mentioned by this writer.\n\nThus did Holland, a leading civilized nation, attempt to deter\nassassins from assaulting her rulers.\n\nThree centuries ago in May, 1610, Henry IV., King of France, was\nstruck down by the dagger of Francis Ravilliac; and France, the\nleading civilized nation of Europe, determined that the punishment of\nthe crime should be so horrible that it might be expected for ever to\ndeter others from imitating his offence.  Standing in a tumbril, naked\nin his shirt, with the knife wherewith he had stabbed the King chained\nto his right hand, Ravilliac was carried to the doors of the Church of\nNotre Dame, where he was made to descend, and to do penance for his\ncrime.\n\n\"After this was he carried to the Greve, where was builded a very\nsubstantial scaffold of strong timber, whereupon he was to be\ntormented to death.  By the executioners, he was bound to an engine of\nwood and iron, made like to a St. Andrew's Cross; and then the hand,\nwith the knife chained to it, wherewith he slew the king, and half the\narm, was put into an artificial furnace, then flaming with fire and\nbrimstone...yet nothing at all would he confess, but yelled out with\nsuch horrible cries, even as it had been a Divill or some tormented\nsoul in hell...and though he deserved ten times more, yet humane\nnature might inforce us to pity his distress.  After this with tongs\nand iron pincers made extreme hot in the same furnace, the\nexecutioners pinched and seared his breasts, his arms, and thighs and\nother fleshy parts of his body, cutting out collops of flesh and\nburned them before his face; afterward into the same wounds thus made,\nthey poured scalding oil, rosen, pitch and brimstone...yet he would\nreveal nothing but that he did it of himself...because the King\ntolerated two religions in his kingdom...but cried out with most\nhorrible roars, even like the dying man tormented in the brazen bull\nof Philaris.\"\n\nFinally, his body was torn to pieces by four strong horses, the\nremains gathered and burnt, and the ashes scattered to the winds.\n\"God in His justice,\" piously observes the narrator, \"will, I hope, in\nlike manner reward all such as desperately attempt to lift their hands\nagainst the Lord's Anointed.\"[1]\n\n[1] Harl. Misc., vol. vi., p. 607. \"The Terrible and deserved death of\nFrancis Ravilliac, showing the manner of his strange torments at his\nexecution, the 25th of May last past, for the murther of the late\nFrench King, Henry IV.\"\n\nAlmost a century and a half passed before the Place de Greve, in\nParis, again witnessed the torment of a fanatic for an attack upon the\nsacred person of a King.  On January 5, 1757, Louis XV. was slightly\nwounded by a young Frenchman, Robert Franc,ois Damiens.  The injury\nwas not severe, and the King's recovery was soon complete.  Such an\nattack, however, was a capital offence, and it was determined that the\ncriminal should not only lose his life, but that he should be made to\nundergo every possible addition of torment and agony.  On the morning\nof March 28, 1757, Damiens was subjected to torture, in order to\ninduce him to reveal the names of any accomplices.  In the extremity\nof his agony he appeared at one time to lose consciousness; but the\nsurgeon and the physician--\"qui font toujours pre'sent a` la\ntorture\"--declared him still conscious, and the torment continued,\naccompanied by \"terrible cries.\" When he had been for two hours and a\nquarter in the hands of the tormentors, the physician and surgeon gave\nit as their opinion that to continue might lead to an \"accident,\" and\nthe doomed wretch was taken to his dungeon, in order to recuperate.\n\nToward three o'clock of the afternoon the same day, Damiens was\nnotified that everything was in readiness for his execution.  Clothed\nin but a single garment, he was made to mount a tumbril, and was\ncarried to the doors of the Cathedral of Notre Dame.  Descending from\nthe cart, holding a lighted candle in his hands, he knelt and made\n\"l'amende honorable,\" after the form prescribed.,  It is but a short\ndistance from the Church of Notre Dame to the Place de Greve.  Here a\nvast crowd had gathered in order to witness the extremest agony of a\ndying man.  Members of the French aristocracy were present; ladies of\nquality paid vast sums for the occupancy of windows overlooking the\nsquare, and played cards to pass the time until the spectacle of\ntorment should begin.  A scaffold about 9 feet square received the\nexecutioners and their victim.  The tortures were of the same\ncharacter as those inflicted in the same place upon the assassin of\nHenry IV.  There was the burning of the right hand, the mutilation of\nthe body and limbs, the pouring of melted lead and other substances\ninto bleeding wounds.  Terrible cries, \"heard at a great distance,\"\nwere induced; there were shrieks for pity; there were prayers to God\nfor strength to endure: \"Mon Dieu, la force! la force! Seigneur mon\nDieu, ayez pitie de moi! Seigneur mon Dieu, donnez-moi la patience!\"\nPrayers for patience, for strength to suffer and endure--these his\nonly petitions in the supreme agony.\n\nAt last came the final act of the tragedy.  Four young and vigorous\nhorses were attached, each to a seared and lacerated limb, and the\nattempt was made to rend asunder the still living body.  The horrible\nspectacle lasted for more than an hour.  Finally the surgeon and the\nphysician in attendance gave it as their opinion that complete\ndismemberment could not be effected except afer a partial severance of\nthe limbs.  The operation was performed, the horses were again\nattached, and the fearful spectacle came to an end.  Damiens\napparently preserved consciousness even after both legs and an arm had\nbeen torn from his body.  The remains were gathered and burnt on the\nplace of torment, and the noble lords and ladies who had gloated over\nthe scene returned to their homes.  It is not at all improbable that\namong those who witnessed the torments of Damiens in 1757 for an\nassault upon a King's sacred person there were some who lived to see\nLouis XVI. mount the scaffold in 1793.[1]\n\n[1] See \"Pie`ces Originales des Process fait a Robert Franc,ois\nDamiens, Paris,\" 1757, vol. iii., pp. 379-409; and Perkin's \"France\nunder Louis XV.,\" vol. ii., p. 87.\n\nI have quoted at length three cases of judicial torture, occurring\namong Christian nations, which were then in the front rank of modern\ncivilization.  In Turkey and in Egypt, in India and in China, among\nthe savage Sioux and Iroquois of North America, the tragedies of\nprolonged torment were more frequent, but not more horrible.  But in\nwhat way do such records of torture concern the abuses of vivisection?\n\nFor two reasons they are suggestive.  Not infrequently it is intimated\nthat reports of cruelty by physiologists cannot be true: they are\nmerely \"blood-curdling stories\"; their horror makes the charge beyond\nthe possibility of belief.  A physiologist cannot have been so cruel,\nand yet have seemed so gentle, so benevolent, so mild.  Here are\npresented the records of torment inflicted upon human beings; torments\napproved by the highest legal authorities; torments to the supervision\nof which even medical science, in one case at least, lent its\nrepresentatives to assist the torturers, and if the facts were not so\nwell attested, they, too, would pass belief.  But we know they are not\nfictions; they were actualities.  To push them out of recollection\ninto forgetfulness is to unlearn one of the chief lessons that History\ncan teach us--the lesson of warning.  The atrocities of biological\nexperimentation can no more be dismissed with a shrug of incredulity\nthan one can sneer at the agonies of Gerard or Damiens because they,\ntoo, suggest a heartlessness in the men of that time which our finer\ncivilization can hardly conceive.\n\nBut the chief lesson of this black chapter of history concerns the\ngreat question of utility.  That these atrocious torments were\ninspired simply and solely by an intense passion for revenge is an\nimmeasurably dishonouring imputation.  For the statesmen not only, but\nthe religious leaders of that period, believed--and justly believed--in\nthe usefulness of public torture; they believed that the fear of an\nignominious and horrible death amid the jeering cries of the\nsurrounding populace would tend to hinder others from repeating the\noffence.  The utility of Terror as a deterrent they knew--as France\nknew it in '93, as the Spanish Inquisition knew it for nearly three\ncenturies, as every nation knew it in times of popular insurrection or\nforeign wars.  What Civilization came at last to recognize was that\nUTILITY OF TORTURE, NO MATTER HOW GREAT, COULD NOT JUSTIFY ITS USE.\nThis principle in its application to the punishment of human beings\nhas been universally recognized by every civilized nation in the\nworld.  It only remains for the future Civilization to recognize it so\nfar as concerns beings inferior to ourselves.  The repetition by\nstudents in a laboratory of an experiment upon the nervous system of a\ndog, simply to demonstrate well-known facts, tends, perhaps, to fix\nthem in memory; but that degree of utility does not justify the\ntorture. \"The time will come,\" said Dr. Bigelow of Harvard Medical\nSchool, \"when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the\nname of Science as it now does to burning at the stake in the name of\nReligion.\"\n\n\n                        CHAPTER VII\n\n                THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION\n\nThe student of history, attempting to trace the agitation for reform\nof vivisection, is early confronted by a curious fact.  It is the\nignorance which generally prevails concerning the part borne by the\nmedical profession in exciting public attention to the cruelties of\nexperimentation.  The present generation of scientific teachers, of\nmedical students and physicians, are as a rule profoundly ignorant of\nthe beginning of the controversy, and would be as surprised as\nProfessor Osler of Oxford University seems to have been surprised, to\nhear that medical journals first made known to the world the abuses of\nvivisection.  Remembering how vigorously the physiological laboratory\nof to-day resists and resents either investigation or criticism, one\nis forced to confess that rarely, if ever, in the history of the world\nhas a transformation of ideals been more completely attained.  If the\nfollowers of Wilberforce and Clarkson, to whom the world is indebted\nfor the great impulse against negro slavery, were to-day organized for\nthe exploitation of the negroes on the Congo, or the Indians on the\nAmazon, or for carrying on the slave-trade secretly, without\nrestriction or supervision, the condition of affairs could hardly be\nmore singular than the dominance obtained by the physiological\nlaboratory upon the medical conscience of to-day.  The facts\nconstitute a remarkable chapter of human experience; and though once\nbefore they have been stated by the present writer, it is evident, by\nthe evidence given before the Royal Commission, that a vast amount of\nignorance yet remains to be dispelled.\n\nUp to a period considerably beyond the middle of the last century, the\nsentiment of the medical profession in England was practically\nunanimous in condemning the methods of vivisection which prevailed on\nthe Continent of Europe.  In 1855 the science of bacteriology was\nunknown.  It is possible that not more than half a dozen English\nphysiologists at that time were making experiments on living animals.\nIt was not even regarded as an essential in the teaching of medical\nschools.  In 1875 some of the most distinguished surgeons and\nphysicians of Great Britain testified before the Royal Commission that\nas medical students they had never witnessed an experiment on a living\nanimal.\n\nThat the agitation against the cruelties of vivisectors which made\nitself evident during the last half of the previous century had no\norigin in ignorance is easily demonstrated.  It was the medical\njournals of England which first made known to the world the atrocities\nperpetrated in the name of Science in Continental laboratories.  In\nour own day, when some of the leading teachers in medical schools have\nonly scorn for those who denounce cruelty in the laboratory, it is\nworth while to study the sentiments of an earlier generation, when\nsympathy for animal suffering was not a subject for mockery.\n\nThe Medical Times and Gazette of London was one of the earlier of\nmedical journals to denounce the cruelties perpetrated by vivisection\nabroad.  In its issue of September 4, 1858, the editor says:\n\n\"In this country we are glad to think that experiments on animals are\nnever performed nowadays except upon some reasonable excuse for the\npain thus wilfully inflicted.  We are inclined to believe that the\nquestion will some day be asked, whether any excuse can make them\njustifiable? One cannot read without shuddering details like the\nfollowing.  It would appear from these that the practice of such\nbrutality is the everyday lesson taught in the veterinary schools of\nFrance.\n\n\"A small cow, very thin, and which had undergone numerous operations--\nthat is to say, WHICH HAD SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME\nTORTURE--was placed upon the table, and killed by insufflation of air\ninto the jugular vein.\"[1]\n\nThis fact is related by M. Sanson, of the veterinary school of\nToulouse, merely incidentally, when describing an experiment of his\nown upon the blood.  The wretched animal was actually cut to pieces by\nthe students! ... M. Sanson adds (merely wanting to prove that the\nnervous system of the animals upon which he operated was properly\nstirred up): `Those who have seen these wretched animals on their bed\nof suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of torture to which they\nare subjected; torture, in fact, under which they for the most part\nsuccumb!'\"\n\n[1] In all extracts italics are the compiler's.\n\nA little later the same medical journal again touched the subject of\nvivisection in its editorial columns.  In its issue of October 20,\n1860, the editor is even more emphatic in denunciation:\n\n\"Two years ago we called attention to the brutality practised at the\nveterinary schools in France, and gave a specimen of the kind of\ntorture there inflicted upon animals.  WE ARE VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT\nTHE PUBLIC ARE NOW OCCUPIED WITH THE SUBJECT, and we are sure that the\nProfession at large will fully agree with us IN CONDEMNING EXPERIMENTS\nWHICH ARE MADE SIMPLY TO DEMONSTRATE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR OTHER FACTS\nWHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS SETTLED POINTS AND ARE BEYOND\nCONTROVERSY.  We consider the question involved as one of extreme\ninterest to the Profession, and we shall gladly throw open our columns\nto any of our brethren who may wish to assist in framing some code by\nwhich we may decide under what circumstances experiments upon living\nanimals may be made with propriety.\"\n\nThe words italicized in the foregoing quotation are of special\nsignificance to-day.  The editor is \"very glad\" to note the interest\ntaken in the subject by the general public--a sentiment quite foreign\nto that of the present time.  One notes, too, the gratifying assurance\nthat the medical profession of England at that period would \"fully\nagree in condemning experiments,\" which nowadays are made not only in\nmedical schools but to some extent in every college of any standing in\nthe United States.  And this condemnation on the part of the medical\nprofession was voiced four years before the date assigned by Professor\nBowditch as that of \"the first serious attack upon biological research\nin England.\"\n\nA few months later the same medical periodical outlined the principles\nwhich it believed should govern the practice of animal\nexperimentation.  In the issue of this journal for March 2, 1861, the\neditor makes the following pronouncement:\n\n\"VIVISECTION.--We have been requested to pronounce a condemnation of\nvivisection....\n\n\"We believe that if anyone competent to the task desires to solve any\nquestion affecting human life or health, or to acquire such a\nknowledge of function as shall hereafter be available for the\npreservation of human life or health, by the mutilation of a living\nanimal, he is justified in so doing.  But we do not hesitate to\ncondemn the practice of operating on living animals for the mere\npurpose of acquiring coolness and dexterity, and WE THINK THAT THE\nREPETITION OF EXPERIMENTS BEFORE STUDENTS, MERELY IN ORDER TO EXHIBIT\nTHEM AS EXPERIMENTS, SHOWING WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN, IS EQUALLY TO BE\nCONDEMNED.\"\n\nAgain, on August 16, 1862, the Medical Times and Gazette gives an\nexpression of its views on the subject.  It condemns the cruelty of\nMagendie, concerning which one will seek vainly to-day in medical\nperiodicals for any similar expression of reprobation.  Referring to\nthe subject, the editor says:\n\n\"No person whose moral nature is raised above that of the savage would\ndefend the practices which lately disgraced the veterinary schools of\nFrance, or in past years the theatre of Magendie.[1] Professor\nSharpey, in his address to the British Medical Association, has\naccurately drawn the required limits, fully obtained and confirmed,\nITS REPETITION IS INDEFENSIBLE; and `as the art of operating may be\nlearned equally on the dead as on the living body, operations on the\nlatter for the purpose of surgical instruction are reprehensible and\nunnecessary.'\"\n\n[1] The lecture-room in which vivisections were publicly performed.\n\nTo the London Lancet the cause of humaneness to animals is also\nindebted, for its repeated condemnation of the cruelties of\nvivisection.  As the exponent and representative of British surgery,\nits words undoubtedly carried great weight among medical\npractitioners.  In its issue of August 11, 1860, after pointing out\nthe utility of certain physiological inquiries, the Lancet's editor\nthus defines what it regards as reprehensible cruelty:\n\n\"On the other hand, when at any moment the practice overpasses the\nrigorous bounds of utility, when its object is no longer the pursuit\nof new solutions of scientific problems, or the examination of\nhypotheses requiring a test; when vivisection is elevated into an art,\nand this art becomes a matter of public demonstration--then it is\ndegraded by the absence of a beneficent end, and becomes a cruelty.\nThe THE EXHIBITIONS OF EXPERIMENTS WHICH AIM ONLY AT A REPETITION OF\nINQUIRIES ALREADY SATISFACTORILY CONCLUDED, and the DEMONSTRATION OF\nFUNCTIONS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, appear to us to rank among the excesses\nwhich must be deplored, if not repressed.  The displays in these\namphitheatres are of the most painful kind, and it is to be deeply\nregretted that curiosity should silence feeling, and draw spectators to\nmortal suffering.... The Commission (of the Societies for Prevention\nof Cruelty) asks for nothing which the most zealous devotees of\nscience cannot--and ought not--to grant.  It demands only the\ncessation of experiments which are PURELY REPETITIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF\nKNOWN FACTS.\"\n\nThis is a remarkable utterance.  It is quite probable that it voiced\nan almost unanimous opinion among English physicians and surgeons of\nhalf a century ago.  How far have we strayed since then! The Lancet of\nto-day would doubtless earnestly oppose any legal prohibition of\nexperiments which it once ranked among the \"excesses which must be\ndeplored, IF NOT REPRESSED.\"\n\nTwo or three months afterward the Lancet again expressed its\ncondemnation of experiments made for the demonstration of known\nfacts.  In its issue of October 20, 1860, the Lancet editor says:\n\n\"The moment that it [vivisection] overpasses the bounds of necessity;\nwhen it ceases to aim at the solution of problems in which humanity is\ninterested, and becomes a new means of public demonstration, having no\nbenevolent end--then it is degraded to the level of A PURPOSELESS\nCRUELTY.  The repetitive demonstration of known facts, by public or\nprivate vivisections, is an abuse that we deplore, and have more than\nonce condemned.\"\n\nOn January 12, 1861, the Lancet opens its columns to a correspondent,\nwho invites attention of its readers to the views of Professor Owen,\nafterward Sir Richard Owen, and the most distinguished anatomist of\nhis time:\n\n\"Professor Owen, one of the first physiological authorities of the\npresent day, observes: `That no teacher of physiology is justified in\nrepeating any vivisectional experiment, merely to show its known\nresults to his class or to others.  IT IS THE PRACTICE OF VIVISECTION,\nin place of physiological induction, pursued for the same end, AGAINST\nWHICH HUMANITY, CHRISTIANITY, AND CIVILIZATION SHOULD ALIKE PROTEST.'\"\n\nIt is probable that no stronger denunciation of the cruelty of\nvivisection ever appeared than that contained in the leading editorial\nof the London Lancet of August 22, 1863.  The writer was certainly not\nan opponent of all experiments upon animals; he admits that \"if\npressed for a categoric answer whether such a practice as vivisection\nwere permissible under proper restrictions for the purpose of\nadvancing science and lessening human suffering, the answer would be\nin the affirmative.\" But the practice is evidently spreading.  It is\nasserted that experiments upon animals \"are a common mode of lecture\nillustration,\" and that such investigations \"have spread from the hand\nof the retired and sober man of matured science into those of everyday\nlecturers and their pupils.\" Against such extension of vivisection the\neditor of the Lancet enters an emphatic protest:\n\n\"If we were pressed simply for a categoric answer to the question\nwhether such a practice [as vivisection] were permissible under proper\nrestrictions and for the purpose of advancing science and lessening\nhuman suffering, we need hardly say that the answer would be in the\naffirmative.  It is asserted, however, that the practice of\nvivisection and such investigations as are implied by this term, `have\nspread from the hands of the retired and sober man of matured science\ninto those of everyday lecturers and their pupils,' and that such\nexperiments `are a common mode of lecture illustration....'\n\n\"We will state our belief that there is too much of it everywhere, and\nthat there are daily occurring practices in the schools of France\nwhich cry aloud in the name both of honour and humanity for their\nimmediate cessation.  About two years ago, our Royal Society for\nPrevention of Cruelty to Animals became possessed of the knowledge\nthat it was still the practice in the schools of Anatomy and\nPhysiology in France for lecturers and demonstrators to tie down cats,\ndogs, rabbits, etc., before the class; to perform upon them operations\nof great pain, and to pursue investigations accompanied by the most\nterrible torture.  THIS, TOO, FOR THE PURPOSE ONLY OF DEMONSTRATING\nCERTAIN FACTS WHICH HAD BEEN FOR LONG UNHESITATINGLY ADMITTED, and\nfor giving a sort of meretricious air to a popular series of lectures.\nIt learned, moreover, that at the veterinary schools of Lyons and\nAlfort, live horses were periodically given up to a group of students\nfor anatomical and surgical purposes, often exercised with ... extra\nrefinements of cruelty....\"\n\nIt appeared that at Paris the whole neighborhood adjoining the medical\nschool--including patients in a maternity hospital--\"were constantly\ndisturbed, when the course of physiology was proceeding at the school,\nby the howling and barking of the dogs, both night and day.\" The dogs\nwere silenced. \"The fact was, the poor animals were now subjected to\nthe painful operation of dividing the laryngeal nerves as preliminary\nto the performance of other mutilations! And what were these dogs for?\nSimply for the vain repetition of clap-trap experiments, by way of\nillustrations of lectures for first-year students! These facts\nbecoming known, the general public has at length interfered, and, we\nthink, with very great propriety.  THE ENTIRE PICTURE OF VIVISECTIONAL\nILLUSTRATION OF ORDINARY LECTURES IS TO US PERSONALLY REPULSIVE IN THE\nEXTREME.  Look, for example, at the animal before us, stolen (to begin\nwith) from his master; the poor creature hungry, tied up for days and\nnights, pining for his home, is at length brought into the theatre.\nAs his crouching and feeble form is strapped upon the table, HE\nLICKS THE VERY HAND THAT TIES HIM! He struggles, but in vain, and\nuselessly expresses his fear and suffering until a muzzle is buckled\non his jaws to stifle every sound.  The scalpel penetrates his\nquivering flesh.  One effort only is now natural until his powers are\nexhausted--a vain, instinctive resistance to the cruel form that\nstands over him, the impersonation of Magendie and his class. `I\nrecall to mind,' says Dr. Latour, `a poor dog, the roots of whose\nvertebral nerves Magendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's\ntheory, which he claimed for his own.  The dog, already mutilated and\nbleeding, twice escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw his\nfront paws around Magendie's neck, licking, as if to soften his\nmurderer, and ask for mercy! Vivisectors may laugh, but I confess I\nwas unable to endure that heartrending spectacle.' But the whole thing\nis too horrible to dwell upon.  Heaven forbid that any description of\nstudents in this country should be witness to such deeds as these! We\nrepudiate the whole of this class of procedure.  Science will refuse\nto recognize it as its offspring, and humanity shudders as it gazes on\nits face.\"\n\nIn all the literature of what is known as \"antivivisection\" is it\npossible to find a more emphatic condemnation of scientific cruelty\nthan this? The decadence of humane sentiment in the laboratory can\nhardly be more strikingly illustrated than by a comparison of this\neditorial utterance of the Lancet with some of the present-day\nexpressions of opinion in medical journals.  When a quotation from\nthis editorial was brought to the attention of a professor in\nCambridge University not long since, it seemed to him so incredible\nthat he made \"a special inquiry,\" and then felt safe in publishing a\ndoubt of its authenticity.  If, as one may perhaps imagine without\nundue violence to probability, this \"special inquiry\" was made in the\neditorial rooms of the journal in question, the incredulity which even\nthere found expression only illustrates the gulf that lies between the\npresent and the past.  It is a marvel, indeed, that the human\nsentiment of that earlier period, before the dominance of Continental\nideals became an accomplished fact in America and England, can be so\nutterly forgotten by the medical journals and medical teachers of the\npresent time.\n\nA week later the Lancet again discusses the subject always, it should\nbe remembered, as the advocate of vivisection, provided the practice\nbe carried on under humane restrictions.  A few sentences of the\neditorial of August 29 are specially significant:\n\n\"... As a general rule, neither our [British] students nor teachers\nare wont to carry on experiments upon living animals even in a private\nway.  The utmost that can be said is that perhaps some two or three--\nat the most six--scientific men in London are known to be pursuing\ncertain lines of investigation which require them occasionally during\nthe year to employ living animals.... Whilst the schools of medicine\nin this country are as a rule not liable to the charge of\nvivisectional abuses as regards the higher animals, we cannot\naltogether acquit them from a rather reckless expenditure of the lives\nand feelings of cold-blooded creatures.... The reckless way in which\nwe have sometimes seen this poor creature [the frog] cut, thrown and\nkicked about, has been sometimes sickening.... We cannot help feeling\nthere is both A BAD MORAL DISCIPLINE FOR THE MAN, as well as an amount\nof probable pain to the creature, in such a practice.\"\n\nHow strange such criticism as this appears to-day! Can one imagine a\nmedical journal in America or England expressing in our time any\nsympathy for the suffering of frogs in a physiological laboratory? Can\none fancy on the part of its editor a suggestion of \"bad moral\ndiscipline\" which the ruthless vivisection of animals of the highest\norganization or grade of intelligence might induce? To-day such\ncriticism is unthinkable.  Yet the capacity of animal suffering has\nnot diminished.  The number of victims is vastly larger.  What change\nhas occurred which makes it impossible to conceive on the part of a\nmedical journal of the present time the expression of such a sentiment\nof pity for one of the lower forms of animal life?\n\nThe Lancet was not alone in such condemnations.  No periodical of that\nday, devoted entirely to the problems of medicine, occupied a position\nof influence equal to that of the British Medical Journal.  One of its\nearlier editorial utterances concerning vivisection appeared in its\nissue of May 11, 1861, three years before the date given by\nDr. Bowditch as that of \"the first serious attack.\"\n\n\"The Emperor of the French has received a deputation from the Royal\nSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  We sincerely trust\nthat this interview may be the means of putting an end to the\nunjustifiable brutalities too often inflicted on the lower animals\nunder the guise of scientific experimentation.  IT HAS NEVER APPEARED\nCLEAR TO US THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN DESTROYING ANIMALS FOR MERE\nEXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES; but now that we possess\nthe means of removing sensation during experiments, the man who puts\nan animal to torture ought, in our opinion, to be prosecuted.\"\n\nReferring to the experiment upon a cow mentioned in\nDr. Brown-Se'quard's Journal of Physiology, and already described, the\neditor adds:\n\n\"We are not disposed, in a question of this kind, in which some of the\nhighest considerations are concerned, to allow our opinion to be\nswayed by the opinions or the proceedings of even the greatest\nsurgeons and the greatest physiologists.  That such authorities\nperformed vivisection is a fact; but it does not satisfy us that the\nproceeding is justifiable.  Under any circumstances, this much, we\nthink, is evident enough: that IF VIVISECTIONS BE PERMISSIBLE, THEY\nCAN ONLY BE SO UNDER CERTAIN LIMITED AND DEFINED CONDITIONS.  We need\nhardly add that these conditions have not yet been laid down.\nAltogether, the subject is one well worthy of serious discussion, and\ngladly would we see the interests of medical science in the matter\nproperly reconciled with the dictates of the moral sense.\"\n\nNothing could be more clearly stated.  One reads almost with a feeling\nof amazement the sentences we have italicized in the foregoing\nquotation.  Here, in the editorial columns of the principal medical\njournal in the world, is expressed doubt of the justification of any\ndestruction of animals whatever, \"for mere experimental research.\"\nWhat magnificent independence of the opinions and experimentation \"of\neven the greatest surgeons and the greatest physiologists\" is here\ndisplayed!\n\nFive months later the British Medical Journal in its editorial columns\nagain refers to the peculiarly atrocious vivisection which it had once\nbefore denounced; it is evident that the journal intends that such\nactions shall not be forgotten.  In the issue of October 19, 1861, it\nsays:\n\n\"The brutalities which have been so long inflicted upon horses, etc.,\nin the veterinary schools of France under the name of Science are\nperfectly horrible.  Some idea of what has been daily going on in\nthose schools during many past years may be obtained from such a\nstatement as the following, taken from a paper by M. Sanson, in the\nJournal of Physiology [edited by Dr. C. E. Brown-Se'quard].  M. Sanson\nis speaking incidentally of the condition of animals upon whose blood\nhe was himself experimenting: `A small cow,' he writes, `very thin,\nand which had undergone numerous operations--that is to saw, WHICH HAD\nSUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME TORTURE--was placed upon the\ntable,' etc.  M. Sanson adds `...Those who have seen these wretched\nanimals on their bed of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of\ntorture to which they are subjected; torture, in fact, under which\nthey for the most part succumb!' THE POOR BRUTES ARE ACTUALLY SLICED\nAND CHOPPED, PIECEMEAL, TO DEATH, in order that the e'le`ves\n(students) may become skilful operators!\"\n\nAlmost a year passes, and on September 6, 1862, we again find the\neditor of the British Medical Journal discussing the ethics of animal\nexperimentation.  He admits that there is useless vivisection and\nunnecessary infliction of pain.  Significant, indeed, it will seem to\nthe physician of to-day to find one of the leading exponents of\nmedical opinion condemning as \"unjustifiable\" demonstrations of\nwell-known facts, which are now considered as essential to medical\neducation.  After stating that some restrictions should be imposed,\nthe editor adds:\n\n\"We will venture to suggest that these restrictions should be well and\nclearly defined; that some high authority like Dr. Sharpey himself\nshould lay down certain rules on the subject, and for the purpose of\npreventing, if possible, any needless suffering from being inflicted\nexperimentally on the lower animals.  All of us must be well aware\nthat many needless experiments are actually performed, and until some\nclearly defined rules on this head are laid down, we venture to think\nsuch needless suffering will still continue to be inflicted on\nanimals.  If, for example, it were publicly stated by authorities in\nthe profession that experiments of this nature, made for the mere\npurpose of demonstrating admitted physiological facts, are\nunjustifiable, a great step would be gained, and a great ground of\ncomplaint cut from under the feet of the enthusiastic antivivisection\nsocieties.  The very fact of an authoritative sanction to the\nlegitimate performance of such experiments....\"\n\nThe denunciations of cruel vivisection by the British Medical Journal\nextend over a considerable period.  Occasionally the Journal quotes\nthe opinions of some of its medical contemporaries in Paris, admitting\nthe need for reform.  For instance, in its issue of May 2, 1863, in\nits editorial columns, the Journal presents us with a quotation from\nL'Union Me'dicale of Paris, suggesting distinctions that should be\nmade in the selection of vivisection material:\n\n\"Vivisection is often useful and sometimes necessary, and therefore\nnot to be absolutely proscribed; but I would gladly petition the\nSenate to forbid its performance on every animal which is useful to,\nand a friend of, man.  The mutilations and tortures inflicted upon\ndogs are horrible.  The King of Dahomey is less barbarous than these\nmerciless vivisectors.  HE cuts his victims' throats, but without\ntorturing them; while THEY tear and cut to pieces these wretched dogs\nin their most sensitive parts.  Let them operate on rats, foxes,\nsharks, vipers, and reptiles.  But no; our vivisectors object to the\nteeth, the claws, the beaks of these repulsive animals; they must have\ngentle animals; and so, like cowards, they seize upon the dog--that\ncaressing animal, which licks the hand, armed with the scalpel!\"\n\nThink of a such quotation in the columns of the British Medical\nJournal--a periodical which to-day rarely ventures to criticize any\nphase of animal experimentation.\n\nThe following summer, on August 22, 1863, the Journal find space in\nits editorial pages for yet other quotations from French medical\nperiodicals concerning the \"enormous abuses\" of vivisection.\n\n\"We are very glad to find that the French medical journals are\nentering protests against the cruel abuse which is made of vivisection\nin France.  L'Abeille Me'dicale says:\n\n\"`I am quite of you opinion as to the enormous abuses practised at the\npresent day in the matter of vivisection.... In the laboratories of\nthe College of France, in the E'cole de Me'decine, eminent professors,\nplaced at the head of instruction, are forced to the painful sacrifice\nof destroying animals in order to widen the field of science.  In doing\nso they act legitimately, and suffering humanity demands it of them.\nThose experiments are performed in the silence of private study, and\nthe results obtained are then explained to the pupils, or treated of\nin publications.... But to repeat the experiments before the public,\nto descend from the professional chair in order to practise the part\nof a butcher or of an executioner, is painful to the feelings and\ndisgusting to the sentiments of the student.... Such public\nexhibitions are ignoble, and of a kind which pervert the generous\nsentiments of youth.  An end should be put to them.  Ought we to allow\nthe e'lite of our French youths to feed their eyes with the sight of\nthe flowing blood of living animals, and to have their ears stunned\nwith their groans, at this time when society is calling for the doing\naway of public executions? Let no one tell us that vivisections are\nnecessary for a knowledge of physiology.... If the present ways,\nhabits, and customs are continued, the future physician will become\nmarked by his cold and implacable insensibility.  Let there be no\nmistake about it: THE MAN WHO HABITUATES HIMSELF TO THE SHEDDING OF\nBLOOD, AND WHO IS INSENSIBLE TO THE SUFFERINGS OF ANIMALS, IS LED ON\nINTO THE PATH OF BASENESS.'\n\n\"So writes L'Abeille Me'dicale.  But here L'Union Me'dicale takes up\nand comments on the tale:\n\n\"`This is all excellently said; but we must correct a few errors.\nMagendie, alas! performed experiments in public, and sadly too often\nat the Colle`ge de France.  I remember once, among other instances,\nthe case of a poor dog, the roots of whose spinal nerves he was about\nto expose.  Twice did the dog, all bloody and mutilated, escape from\nhis implacable knife, and twice did I see him put his forepaws around\nMagendie's neck and lick his face! I confess--laugh, Messieurs les\nVivisecteurs, if you please--that I could not bear the sight.... It is\ntrue that Dr. P. H. Be'rard, Professor of Physiology, never performed\na single vivisection in his lectures, which were brilliant, elegant,\nand animated.  but Be'rard was an example of a singular psychological\nphenomenon.  Toward the close of his life, so painful to him was the\nsight of blood and the exhibition of pain, that he gave up the\npractice of surgery, and would never allow his students to witness a\nvivisection.  But Be'rard was attacked by cerebral haemorrhage, and\nthe whole tone of his character was thereby afterward changed.  The\nbenevolent man became aggressive; the tolerant man, irritable.... He\nbecame an experimenter, and passed whole days in practising\nvivisections, TAKING PLEASURE IN THE CRIES, THE BLOOD, AND THE\nTORTURES OF THE POOR ANIMALS.'\"\n\nThe following week the Journal again refers to the subject, the\n\"ATROCITIES OF VIVISECTION.\" It is a noteworthy phrase, proceeding\nfrom a medical journal, and should not be forgotten.  Concerning the\ntruth of the charges, the absolute heartlessness exhibited, there can\nbe no possible doubt, for the evidence is cumulative.  Has the phrase\n\"atrocities of vivisection\" appeared in the editorial columns of any\nmedical journal during the past twenty years, unless in the way of\nridicule or contempt? It may be doubted.\n\n\"The atrocities of vivisection continue to occupy the attention of the\nParis papers.  The Opinion Nationale says: `The poor brutes' cries of\npain sadden the wards of the clinic, rendering the sojourn there\ninsupportable both to patients and nurses.  Only imagine that, when a\ndog has not been killed at one sitting, and that enough life remains\nin him to experiment upon him in the following one, they put him back\nin the kennel, all throbbing and palpitating! There the unhappy\ncreatures, already torn by the scalpel, howl until the next day, in\ntones rendered hoarse and faint by another operation intended to\ndeprive them of voice.'\"\n\nAgain, only three weeks later, in its issue of September 19, 1863, the\nBritish Medical Journal presents in an editorial an account of the\ndebate on Vivisection in the French Academy of Medicine.  It is of\ninterest, not only as an indication of English opinion at that day,\nbut also as evidence of what was being done by vivisectors over\nfifteen years after the discovery of chloroform.\n\n\"Our readers are aware that the French Minister of Commerce submitted\nto the Academy of Medicine documents supplied to him by a London\nsociety.... A committee of the Academy examined these questions and\nissued a report, but they did not answer the simple questions put to\nit.  A discussion on the report has naturally taken place in the\nAcademy itself, and has given rise to some very interesting remarks.\nM. Dubois ... refused to draw up the report because he differed\nsomewhat in opinion on the subject of vivisections from many of his\nassociates.  He therefore reserved the liberty of speaking his mind\nfreely on the subject before the Academy.  His conclusions are well\nworthy serious attention.  They seem to us to contain all that can be\nrightly said in favour of vivisection, and to put the matter on its\ntrue and proper footing.  The greatest praise is due to M. Dubois for\nhaving had the courage to express his opinion so boldly and openly....\n\n\"In the first part of his speech, M. Dubois demolished the work of the\nreport, showing that it did not answer the questions of the\nGovernment, and left things exactly in their previous state.  He then\nproceeded to give his opinion as to what reforms should be made in the\npractice of vivisection.  The greatest physiologists, he remarked,\nsuch as Harvey, Asselli, Haller, were parsimonious and discreet in\ntheir use of vivisection.  To-day we have before our eyes a very\ndifferent spectacle.  Under pretence of experimentally demonstrating\nphysiology, the professor no longer ascends the rostrum; he places\nhimself before a vivisecting-table, has live animals brought to him,\nand experiments.  The habitual spectators at the School of Medicine,\nthe College of France, and the Faculty of Sciences, know how\nexperiments are made on the living flesh, how muscles are divided and\ncut, the nerves wrenched or dilacerated, the bones broken or\nmethodically opened with gouge, mallet, saw, and pincers.  Among other\ntortures there is that horrible one of the opening of the vertebral\ncanal or of the spinal column to lay bare membranes and the substance\nof the marrow; IT IS THE SUBLIME OF HORROR.  One needs to have\nwitnessed that sight thoroughly to comprehend the real sense of the\nword `vivisection.' Whoever has not seen an animal under experiment\nCANNOT FORM AN IDEA OF THE HABITUAL PRACTICES OF THE VIVISECTORS.\nM. Dubois drew an eloquent picture of these practices, become usual in\nthe physiological amphitheatres in the midst of blood and of howls of\npain, and he showed that under the dominant influence of the\nvivisectors, physiological instruction has gone out of its natural\nroad.  Himself an eminent pathologist, he treated without ceremony the\nunjustifiable pretensions of those innovators, who, regardless at once\nof the principles of physiology and those of pathology, try to\ntransport clinical surgery to the table of vivisection.\n\n\"M. Dubois, indeed, was so pungent in his censures that some of the\nAcademicians left the hall without awaiting the end of his discourse.\nThe veterinary part of his audience heard him to the end, and, it is\nto be hoped, profited by the picture he drew of the sight that met his\neyes on his first visit to Alfort.  M. Renault, the director of the\nestablishment, took M. Dubois into a vast hall, where five or six\nhorses were thrown down, each one surrounded by a group of pupils,\neither operating or waiting their turn to do so.  Each group was of\neight students, and matters were so arranged that each student could\nperform eight operations, so well graduated that, although the sixty-\nfour operations lasted ten hours, a horse could endure them all before\nbeing put to death.  Although unwilling to hurt the feelings of his\nhost, M. Dubois could not help letting slip the word `ATROCITY.'\n`Atrocities, if you please,' replied M. Renault, `but they are\nnecessary.' `What!' exclaimed M. Dubois; `SIXTY-FOUR OPERATIONS, AND\nTEN HOURS OF SUFFERING?' M. Renault explained to him that this was a\nquestion of finance; that if more money were allowed, the horses might\nbe kept only three or four hours under the knife.  M. Dubois stated\nthat it was true fewer operations are now performed, and that horses\nare kept less time under the hands of experimenting students.  But, he\ndeclared, he should never forget the sight he witnessed at Alfort.\nSome of the horses were just begun upon; others were already horribly\nmutilated; they did not cry out, but gave utterance to hollow moans.\nM. Dubois, supported by the authority of many veterinary surgeons,\ndemands that these practices should be discontinued.  Dr. Parchappe,\nwho spoke afterward, agreed with M. Dubois.  He said: `... Experiments\non animals are in no way indispensable to completely efficacious\ninstruction in physiology.'\"\n\nIt could hardly be expected by anyone but the most sanguine of mortals\nthat the French Academy of Medicine would agree to censure or condemn\ncertain of its own members at the instance of English humanitarians,\neven though supported by men of their own nationality.  When the\nmatter came to a vote, the opponents of change passed a resolution\ndeclaring that complaints had no basis, and that the question of\nperforming experiments or surgical operations in the veterinary\nschools \"SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF MEN, OF SCIENCE.\" This is\nprecisely the position taken to-day both in England and America by\nthose who contend that the practice should not be restricted by law.\nThe Journal, however, adds:\n\n\"Everyone who has followed this debate must be aware that the\nresolution is ... entirely opposed to the facts elicited in the\ndiscussion.  Almost every speaker, except the veterinaries, put in a\nprotest more or less strong against the practice of surgical\noperations in veterinary schools, and again and again was the word\nATROCIOUS applied to them.  We learn, moreover, that this mode of\ninstruction was adopted in 1761, so that for more than a century these\natrocious operations have been practiced on animals in French\nveterinary schools.  Yet the Academy decides that complaints on this\nscore are without foundation, and that men of science in this matter\nNEED NO INTERFERENCE! We may be sure that, however much the\nAcademicians may snub the affair, the discussion cannot fail to have\nbeneficial results.\"\n\nTwo or three weeks later, on October 10, the Journal again touches the\nsubject of physiological demonstrations, and denounces them--when\nconducted as in Paris--as a scandal to humanity.  The Journal says:\n\n\"M. Dubois has published a discourse ... on the subject of vivisection\nin answer to objections made to the amendments proposed by him.  It is\na brilliant summary of the whole subject, and utterly condemnative of\nthe amendments carried by the Academy.  M. Dubois showed to\ndemonstration that ... physiological demonstrations on living animals\nin the public [Medical] schools ARE UTTERLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, AND A\nSCANDAL TO HUMANITY.  IN ALL THIS WE MOST THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH HIM.\nHe said:\n\n\"`If we are to carry out the wishes of certain savants, we shall make\neveryone of our professional chairs a scene of blood.... Let us tell\nthe Minister that vivisections are necessary for the advancement of\nscience, and that to suppress them would be to arrest the progress of\nphysiology; but let us also say that THEY ARE UNNECESSARY IN THE\nTEACHING OF THIS SCIENCE, AND THAT RECOURSE OUGHT NOT TO BE HAD TO\nTHEM, EITHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LECTURE.'\"\n\nUnder what restrictions would the British Medical Journal of that day\npermit animal experimentation?\n\nIn two editorial utterances the Journal briefly defines its position.\nIn the issue of January 16, 1864, we have the following expression of\nits views:\n\n\"The conditions under which--and under which alone--vivisections may\nbe justifiably performed seem to us to be clear and easily stated....\nWe would say, then, in the first place, that those experiments on\nliving animals, and those alone, are justifiable which are performed\nfor the purpose of elucidating obscure or unknown questions in\nphysiology or pathology; that whenever any physiological or\npathological fact has been distinctly and satisfactorily cleared up\nand settled, all further repetition of the experiments which were\noriginally performed for its demonstration are unjustifiable; that\nthey are needless torture inflicted on animals, being, in fact,\nperformed not for the purpose of eliciting unknown facts, BUT TO\nSATISFY MAN'S CURIOUSITY....\n\n\"And in the second place, we would say that only those persons are\njustified in experimenting upon living animals who are capable\nexperimentalists.... All experiments made by inexperienced and\nincapable observers are unjustifiable, and for an obvious reason.  The\npain in such case, suffered by the animal, is suffered in\nvain.... Pain so inflicted is manifest CRUELTY.\"\n\nIf we compare this statement with any recent expression of the\nJournal's views, we shall see how far this organ of medical opinion\nhas strayed in fifty years from the conservatism of Sir Charles Bell\ntoward the unrestricted freedom demanded by the apologists of Magendie\nand Brachet.  Six months later, another pronouncement appears in its\neditorial columns.  In the issue of June 11, 1864, we read:\n\n\"Far be it from us to patronize or palliate the infamous practices,\nthe unjustifiable practices, committed in French veterinary schools,\nand in many French Medical schools, in the matter of vivisection.  We\nrepudiate as brutal and cruel all surgical operations performed on\nliving animals.  WE REPUDIATE THE REPETITION OF ALL EXPERIMENTS ON\nANIMALS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION OF ANY ALREADY WELL-DETERMINED\nPHYSIOLOGICAL QUESTION.  We hold that no man except a skilled\nanatomist and a well-informed physiologist has a right to perform\nexperiments on animals.\"\n\nIt is unnecessary to state that these excerpts from the editorial\ncolumns of medical journals are not quoted by way of criticism.  On\nthe contrary, they seem in the highest degree creditable to the\nmedical periodicals in which they appeared.  They voiced a\ncondemnation of scientific cruelty which then found a universal\nresponse.  In the awakening of public apprehension regarding the\ngrowing abuses incident to vivisection, their influence cannot be too\nhighly esteemed.  There can be no question that these exposures of\nphysiological methods, these repeated and emphatic denunciations of\ncruelty, proceeding from the leading medical journals of England,\ncontributed more than anything else to arouse the general public to\nthe acknowledged existence of abuse, and to the necessity of some\nlegislation regarding the vivisection of animals.  AND YET NO ADVOCATE\nOF UNRESTRICTED VIVISECTION IN OUR DAY EVER REFERS TO THEM.  Sir\nWilliam Osler tells the Royal Commission that \"it is news to him.\"\nProfessor Bowditch, the leading physiologist of Harvard Medical\nSchool, refers with contempt to \"blood-curdling stories\" in the\npamphlet of Dr. Fleming as the \"first serious attack\" upon\nvivisection--without the slightest reference to all this earlier\ncriticism, this exposure of infamous cruelty by the leading journals\nof the medical profession! But the worst and most regrettable result\nof such ignorance on the part of those who teach is its effect upon\nthose who, as students, follow their guidance, accept their\nprejudices, and, unconscious of their ignorance, give to their\nstatements implicit trust.\n\nWe shall perhaps be told that although the facts are as stated, yet\nthese medical condemnations of cruelty are the outgrown opinions of\nthe Past.  Are the foundations of morals so unstable? Can lapse of\nyears transmute cruelty into benevolence and righteousness? Are we now\nto be asked to approve the conduct of Magendie and of Mantegazza and\nBe'rnard, and send to the lumber room of \"past opinions\" the\nexpressions of horror and repulsion which their acts once excited\nthroughout the English-speaking world? The science of the modern\nschool of physiologists gives that implication: \"LET ALL THAT PASS,\"\nis their cry to-day.  With this we cannot for a moment agree.  Rather\nlet us believe that in the whirl and conflict of opinions that marks\nthe social evolution of Humanity, there are some principles which are\nstable and some landmarks that cannot be altered.  Cruelty is a vice\nthat should never be condoned.  What was regarded as infamous in the\nlaboratory of fifty years ago should be considered equally infamous\nto-day.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER VIII\n\n                THE ATTAINMENT OF LEGAL REGULATION\n\nThe awakening of a nation to the existence of a great evil is only\naccomplished after years of persistent agitation.  We have seen that\nsome of the strongest denunciations of cruelty in biological\nexperimentation were due to that large element in the medical\nprofession which refused to condone cruelty under the guise of\nutility.  Gradually public opinion began to be thoroughly aroused.  In\nthe year 1864 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to\nAnimals offered a prize for the best essay on these questions:\n\n\"Is vivisection necessary or justifiable for purposes of giving\ndexterity to the operator (as in veterinary schools)?\n\n\"Is it necessary or justifiable for the general purposes of science,\nand, if so, under what limitations?\"\n\nThe committee which decided the merits of the essays submitted\nincluded some of the most distinguished scientists of England, among\nthem Professor Owen (better known as Sir Richard Owen), and Professor\nCarpenter, physiologists of eminence and experience.  The first prize\nwas accorded to Dr. George Fleming, the leading veterinary authority\nin Great Britain for many years, and a second prize was given to\nDr. W. O. Markham, F.R.C.P., one of the physicians to St. Mary's\nHospital of London, and formerly lecturer on Physiology at St. Mary's\nHospital Medical School.\n\nDr. Fleming's essay was undoubtedly of great utility in calling\nattention to the abuses pertaining to Continental physiological\nteaching.  That which makes his essay of chief value is not so much\nthe presentation of arguments, as the long array of unquestionable\nfacts for which the authorities are given.  There is hardly a\nphysiological writer of distinction from whose works he did not quote\nto illustrate the excesses he condemns.\n\nIt is Dr. Markham's essay, however, which for us, at the present\nmoment, has principal significance.  It is the argument of a\nprofessional physiologist, defending the right of scientific research\nwithin limits which then seemed just and right to the entire medical\nprofession of the United Kingdom.  Every physiologist or physician\nupon that committee which examined the essays is said to have marked\nwith approval this presentation of their views; and Professor Owen--\nprobably then the most distinguished man of science in Great Britain--\nappended a note significant of his especial agreement.  And yet\nDr. Markham's essay is never quoted at present by any advocate of free\nvivisection; even Professor Bowditch in that address to which\nreference has been made left unmentioned the work of his professional\nbrother, one of the earliest defenders of animal experimentation.\n\nThe reader of Dr. Markham's essay will not find it difficult to\ncomprehend the cause of this significant silence.  Although the essay\nwas in no way sympathetic with antivivisection, it represented the\nAnglo-Saxon ideal, in marked distinction from the doctrines which then\nprevailed in the laboratories of Continental Europe, and which since\nhave become dominant throughout the United States.  Defending the\npractice of vivisection as a scientific method, Dr. Markham freely\nadmitted the prevalence of abuses to which it was liable when carried\non without regulation or restraint.  Under proper limitations it was\nat present necessary that some vivisection should be allowed; but with\nthe advance of knowledge, he believed that this necessity would\ndecrease, and the practice of animal experimentation gradually tend to\ndisappear.  Some quotations from this essay will be of interest.\n\n\"The proper and only object of all justifiable experiments on animals\nis to determine unknown facts in physiology, pathology, and\ntherapeutics, whereby medical science may be directly or indirectly\nadvanced.  When, therefore, any fact of this kind has been once\ndetermined and positively acquired to science, all repetition of\nexperiments for its further demonstration are unnecessary, and\ntherefore unjustifiable.\n\n\"All experiments, therefore, performed before students, in classes or\notherwise, for the purpose of demonstrating known facts in physiology\nor therapeutics, are unjustifiable.  And they are especially\nunjustifiable because they are performed before those who, being mere\nstudents, are incapable of fully comprehending their value and\nmeaning.  THEY ARE NEEDLESS AND CRUEL: needless, because they\ndemonstrate what is already acquired to science; and especially cruel,\nbecause if admitted as a recognized part of students' instruction,\nTHEIR CONSTANT AND CONTINUED REPETITION, THROUGH ALL TIME, WOULD BE\nREQUIRED.  I need hardly say that courses of experimental physiology\nare nowhere given in this country, and that these remarks apply only\nto those schools i France and elsewhere where demonstrations of this\nkind are delivered.\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Experiments and Surgical Operations on Living Animals: One of Two\nPrize Essays.\" London: Robert Hardwick, 1866.\n\n\"ESPECIALLY CRUEL!\" Little could Dr. Markham have imagined that this\n\"especial cruelty\" which he thus so emphatically denounced in 1864\nwould spread from the Continent of Europe and become, within the short\nspace of a single generation, the accepted method of physiological\ninstruction in every leading college or university in the United\nStates!\n\nDr. Markham evidently fancied that with the larger acquirement of\nfacts the vivisection method would gradually become obsolete.\nHe says:\n\n\"A consideration of the conditions here proposed as requisite for the\nrightful performance of experiments on living animals shows that\nexperiments of this kind must ever be very limited, because those\npersons who are fitted for the due performance of them are of\nnecessity few in number; and that in proportion as new facts are added\nby them to our knowledge, THE EXPERIMENTS MUST DIMINISH IN NUMBER....\"\n\n\"Thus, then, we have seen that in the case of experiments legitimately\nperformed on living animals, ... such experiments must always, from\ntheir nature, be comparatively few; that they must gradually diminish\nwith the advance of scientific knowledge, so that A TIME MAY COME WHEN\nEXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS WILL CEASE TO BE JUSTIFIABLE.\n\n\"... Very different, on the other hand, is the character and objects\nof physiological demonstrations performed in French Schools of\nMedicine.... These most painful practices are unjustifiable because\nthey are unnecessary.... They afford no instruction to the student\nwhich may not be equally well obtained in another way.  The pain,\nmoreover, attendant on such proceedings is unlimited and unceasing.  If\nthey are to be accepted as a necessary part of the systemic\ninstruction of the student, then must every veterinary student\npractice these experimental surgical operations, AND EVERY MEDICAL\nSTUDENT BE MADE A WITNESS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS ON LIVING\nANIMALS.  In all veterinary schools, under such conditions, an\nincalculable amount of pain inflicted on animals becomes a part of the\nregular instruction of students.  At such a conclusion Humanity\nrevolts.\n\n\"Experiments performed on living animals for the demonstration of\nfacts already positively acquired to science are unjustifiable, and\nespecially unjustifiable are such experiments when made a part of a\nsystemic course of instruction given to students.\"\n\nHere, then, we have a view of vivisection presented less than forty\nyears since by a professional teacher of physiology in a London\nmedical school.  That the author was mistaken in his outlook, that the\npractice of vivisection instead of diminishing has a thousand times\nincreased, and that operations then regarded as \"especially cruel\"\nhave become the prevalent methods of instruction, are matters evident\nto all.  Peculiarly significant is the fact that a creed, once almost\nuniversally held, may be so thoroughly obliterated by its antagonists\nwithin so brief a time.  One may safely assert that not a single\nrecent graduate from any Medical College in America, not a single\nstudent of physiology in any institution of learning in our land\nto-day, has ever been told that the practice of animal experimentation\nwas once thus regarded by a large majority of the English-speaking\nmembers of the medical profession.  So completely has the Continental\nview of the moral irresponsibility of science established itself in\nAmerican colleges that the former preponderance of other ideals has\npassed from the memory of the present generation of scientific men.\n\nThe subject of vivisection does not again appear to have engaged the\nattention of the English medical Press for several years.  The abuses\nand cruelties on the Continent, against which it had so vigorously\nprotested, continued as before.  In a brief editorial, the London\nLancet, on April 3, 1869, again referred to the subject:\n\n\"VIVISECTION.--The subject of vivisection has been again brought on\nthe tapis, owing to some remarks made by Professor (Claude) Be'rnard\n... at the Colle`ge de France.... He admits on one occasion having\noperated on an ape, but never repeated the experiment, THE CRIES AND\nGESTURES OF THE ANIMAL TOO CLOSELY RESEMBLING THOSE OF A MAN.\n\n\"As the Pall Mall Gazette remarks, M. (Claude) Be'rnard expatiates on\nthe subject with a complacency which reminds us of Peter the Great,\nwho, wishing, while at Stockholm, to see the WHEEL in action, quietly\noffered one of his suite as the patient to be broken on it....\n\n\"We consider that vivisection constitutes a legitimate mode of inquiry\nwhen it is adopted to obtain a satisfactory solution of a question\nthat has been fairly discussed, and can be solved by no other means....\n\n\"We hold that for mere purposes of curiosity, OR TO EXHIBIT TO A CLASS\nwhat may be rendered equally--if not more--intelligible by diagrams or\nmay be ascertained by anatomical investigation or induction,\nVIVISECTION IS WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE, and IS ALIKE ALIEN TO THE FEELINGS\nAND HUMANITY OF THE CHRISTIAN, THE GENTLEMAN, AND THE PHYSICIAN.\"\n\nIt is very probable that much of the criticism of foreign vivisection,\nwhich at this period appeared in the medical journals of England, was\ninspired by the abhorrence felt regarding the cruelty of certain\nFrench physiologists.  We now know that the worst and most cruel of\nthem all was Claude Be'rnard, Professor of Experimental Physiology at\nthe Colle`ge de France, and the fit successor of Magendie.  Just as\npirates and freebooters have added to geographical discoveries, so\nscience admits that regarding the functions of certain organs he added\nto accumulated facts.  But the peculiar infamy of Be'rnard was the\nindifference displayed toward animal suffering long after the\ndiscovery of chloroform and ether, and his practical contempt for any\nsentiment of compassion for vivisected animals.  Of this savagery one\nwill look in vain for criticism or condemnation in the writings of the\nopponents of vivisection reform at the present day.  Two physicians,\nhowever, have told us what they witnessed in the laboratory of\nBe'rnard.  On February 2, 1875, there appeared in the Morning Post a\nletter from a London physician, describing his personal experience in\nthe laboratory of this physiologist.\n\n\"SIR,\n\n\"If the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals intends to\ngive effect to the memorial presented to it on Monday, and do its\nutmost to put down the monstrous abuses which have sprung up of late\nyears in the practice of vivisection, it will probably find that the\ngreatest obstacle to success lies IN THE SECRECY WITH WHICH SUCH\nEXPERIMENTS ARE CONDUCTED, AND IT IS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THAT\nSECRECY that its best efforts should be directed.  So long as the\npresent privacy be maintained, it will be found impossible to convict,\nfor want of evidence.  No student can be expected to come forward as a\nwitness when he knows that he would be hooted from among his fellows\nfor doing so, and any rising medical man would only achieve\nprofessional ruin by following a similar course.  The result is that,\nalthough hundreds of such abuses are being constantly perpetrated\namong us, the public knows no more about them than what the distant\necho reflected from some handbook of the laboratory affords.  I\nventure to record a little of my own experience in the matter, part of\nwhich was gained as an assistant in the laboratory of one of the\ngreatest living experimental physiologists.\n\n\"In that laboratory we sacrificed daily from one to three dogs,\nbesides rabbits and other animals, and after four months' experience I\nam of opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was\njustified or necessary.  The idea of the good of Humanity was simply\nout of the question, and would have been laughed at; THE GREAT AIM\nBEING TO KEEP UP WITH, OR GET AHEAD OF, ONE'S CONTEMPORARIES IN\nSCIENCE, even at the price of incalculable amount of torture\nneedlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals.  During\nthree campaigns I have witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the\nsaddest sight I ever witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from\nthe cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice.  Instead of appearing\npleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized\nwith horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, divining,\napparently, their approaching fate.  They would make friendly advances\nto each of three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears,\nand tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in\nvain.  Even when roughly grasped and thrown on the torture-trough, a\nlow complaining whine at such treatment would be all the protest made,\nand they would continue to lick the hand which bound them, till their\nmouths were fixed in the gag, and they could only flap their tails in\nthe trough as the last means of exciting compassion.  Often when\nconvulsed by the pain of their torture this would be renewed, and they\nwould be soothed instantly on receiving a few gentle pats.  It was all\nthe aid and comfort I could give them, and I gave it often.  They\nseemed to take it as an earnest of fellow-feeling that would cause\ntheir torture to come to an end--an end only brought by death.\n\n\"Were the feelings of experimental physiologists not blunted, they\ncould not long continue the practice of vivisection.  They are always\nready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say\nthat they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they\nfrequently show the reverse.  Hundreds of times I have seen, when an\nanimal writhed with pain and thereby deranged the tissues during a\ndelicate dissection, instead of being soothed, it would receive a slap\nand an angry order to be quiet and behave itself.  At other times,\nwhen an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or\ngiving more than an occasional whine, instead of letting the poor\nmangled wretch loose to crawl about the place in reserve for another\nday's torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be said to\nhave behaved well enough to merit death, and as a reward would be\nkilled at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle, or `pithing,'\nas this operation is called.  I have often heard the professor say,\nwhen one side of an animal had been so mangled and the tissues so\nobscured by clotted blood that it was difficult to find the part\nsearched for, `Why don't you begin on the other side?' or `WHY DON'T\nYOU TAKE ANOTHER DOG? WHAT IS THE USE OF BEING SO ECONOMICAL?' One of\nthe most revolting features in the laboratory was the custom of giving\nan animal, on which the professor had completed his experiment, and\nwhich had still some life left, to the assistants to practise the\nfinding of arteries, nerves, etc., in the living animal, or for\nperforming what are called `fundamental experiments' upon it--in other\nwords, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory\nhandbooks.\n\n\"I am inclined to look upon anaesthetics as the greatest curse to\nvivisectible animals.  They alter too much the normal conditions of\nlife to give accurate results, and they are therefore little depended\nupon.  THEY, INDEED, PROVE FAR MORE EFFICACIOUS IN LULLING PUBLIC\nFEELING TOWARDS THE VIVISECTORS THAN PAIN IN THE VIVISECTED.\nConnected with this there is a horrible proceeding that the public\nprobably knows little about.  An animal is sometimes kept quiet by the\nadministration of a poison called `curare,' which paralyzes voluntary\nmotion while it heightens sensation, the animal being kept alive by\nmeans of artificial respiration.\n\n\"I hope that we shall soon have a Government inquiry into the subject,\nin which experimental physiologists shall be only witnesses, not\njudges.  LET ALL PRIVATE VIVISECTION BE MADE CRIMINAL, AND ALL\nEXPERIMENTS BE PLACED UNDER GOVERNMENT INSPECTION, and we may have the\nsame clearing away of abuses that the Anatomy Act caused in similar\ncircumstances.\n\n                                \"I am, sir, your obedient servant,\n                                        \"George Hoggan, M.B. and C.M.\n\n        \"13, Granville Place, Portman Square, W.\"\n\nOne of the oldest members of the medical profession in Massachusetts\nhas also written of his experience in Be'rnard's laboratory, and his\naccount of the cruelty there practised entirely accords with that of\nthe English physician:\n\n\"When I was studying medicine in Paris, it was the custom of a\ndistinguished physiologist to illustrate his lectures by operations on\ndogs.  Some of his dissections were not very painful, but others were\nattended with excruciating, long-continued agony; and when the piteous\ncries of these poor brutes would interrupt his remarks, with a look of\nsuppressed indignation he would artistically slit their windpipes, and\nthus prevent their howling! Curiousity prompted me to inquire of the\njanitor whether, after this period of torment, these creatures were\nmercifully put out of misery; and I ascertained that such animals as\ndid not succumb to the immediate effects of their mutilations were\nconsigned to a cellar, to be kept, unattended and unfed, until wanted\nfor the following lectures, which occurred on alternate days.  I\nnever noticed the slightest demonstration of sympathy on their behalf,\nexcept on the part of a few American students.  These dogs were\nsubjected to needless torture, for the mere purpose of illustrating\nwell-known facts, capable of being taught satisfactorily by drawings,\ncharts, and models; and hence this cruelty, being unattended by any\npossible benefit to either students or mankind, was illegitimate and\nunjustifiable.  But when it is considered that these same experiments\nmight have been conducted under the influence of an anaesthetic, so\nas to minimize, if not remove, this needless suffering, this\ncold-blooded, heartless torture can only be characterized as\ncontemptible and monstrous.\n\n\"From detailed accounts communicated to me by eye-witnesses of the\nincidents related, I entertain no doubt that barbarous cruelty was\npractised at that time in all the Parisian laboratories, though it is\nprobable that, for novel and horrible experiments, none could rival\nthe infernal ingenuity in this business of that master-demon, Claude\nBe'rnard.\"[1]\n\n[1] Extracts from letter to Boston Medical and Surgical Journal,\nApril, 1895.\n\nSuch is the memory which Be'rnard has left for posterity.  It was by\nuseless cruelty that he impressed.  And no American physiologist,\nsounding the praises of free and unrestricted vivisection, has ever\nyet ventured to criticize or to condemn either the man or his work.\n\nLet us go back a little.  By the year 1871, the agitation had gone so\nfar as to be deemed worthy of consideration by the leading scientific\nbody in Great Britain.  At the meeting of the British Association in\nLiverpool of that year, a committee was appointed to consider the\nsubject of animal experimentation, and the result of their\ndeliberations appears in the annual report.  Regarding the practice,\nthey suggest four recommendations or rules:\n\n\"1. No experiment which can be done under the influence of an\nanaesthetic ought to be done without it.\n\n\"2. No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of\nillustrating a law or fact already determined; in other words,\nexperimentation without the employment of anaesthetics is not a\nfitting exhibition for teaching purposes.\"\n\nA third rule suggested that painful experiments should only be made in\nlaboratories under proper regulation; and a fourth rule condemned\nveterinary operations for the purpose of obtaining manual dexterity.\nIt was evidently an attempt to allay agitation--there were no means of\nenforcing the recommendations concerning practices which the law did\nnot touch.\n\nOne of the signers was Dr. Burdon Sanderson, a Lecturer on Physiology.\nEarly the following year he began the delivery of a course of lectures\nin the physiological laboratory of University College in London,\nillustrated by vivisections.  During one of these discourses, the\nlecturer made the following statement of his views:\n\n\"With respect to what are called `vivisections,' I assure you that I\nhave as great a horror of them as any members of the Society for the\nPrevention of Cruelty to Animals.  The rules in respect to them are\nthese: First, no experiment that can be done under the influence of an\nanaesthetic ought to be done without it.  Secondly, no PAINFUL\nexperiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law\nor fact already demonstrated.  Thirdly, whenever for the investigation\nof new truth, it is necessary to make a painful experiment, every\neffort should be made to insure success, in order that the suffering\ninflicted may not be wasted.  For the question of cruelty depends not\non the amount of suffering, but on its relation to the good to be\nattained by it.\"[1]\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette, February 25, 1871.\n\nThe lecturer contended that no experiment should be performed by an\nunskilled person with insufficient instruments, and argued, therefore,\nin favour of the establishment of Physiological Laboratories, equipped\nwith all modern devices and instruments for vivisection.\n\nSome of his demonstrations were doubtless unproductive of pain, but in\nview of the fact that in other experiments no anaesthetic was\nemployed, it may be questioned whether his second \"rule\" was always\nvery strictly observed.  In one lecture he referred to his\ndemonstration \"as the first time that we have applied electrical\nstimulus to a nerve,\" and explains that when the experiment is made on\nan animal paralyzed with curare, the effect is more complicated when a\nsensory nerve is irritated, since then \"the arteries all over the body\ncontract, because the brain is in action.\"[1] No plainer confession of\nthe existence of sensibility could be made, yet for obvious reasons\nthe lecturer carefully avoids admitting the presence of pain.  During\nthe following year there appeared articles describing \"the teaching of\npractical physiology in the London schools.\" At King's College in\nLondon, for example, demonstrations were made by the lecturer, but\n\"experiments on animals are never given to the ordinary student to do;\nProfessor Rutherford's experience on this point is that such attempts\nresult only in total failure.\"[2] On the other hand, at University\nCollege, the Continental method of teaching was to be found. \"Student\nperform experiments on animals.  Frogs, curarized or chloroformed, are\ngiven them, and the experiment which has been fully explained and\ndemonstrated by the professor, is performed by them as far as\npracticable.\"[3] Here, then, we find introduced into England (and\nperhaps there existing in secret for some time before), that\nvivisection of animals in illustration of well-known facts, which, but\na few years earlier, every leading medical journal of Great Britain\nhad so emphatically reprobated and denounced.\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette, June 17, 1871.\n[2] Ibid., July 20, 1872.\n[3] Medical Times and Gazette, July 27, 1872.\n\nThe Continental school of English physiologists seemed confident of\nvictory.  But the leading exponents of English ideals in medicine were\nnot inclined to surrender at once; now and then we find them\nvigorously maintaining their ground, and disposed to contrast the\nscience gained in the laboratory with that gathered by experience and\nfortified by reflection.  Some extracts from a leading editorial in\nthe Medical Times and Gazette are extremely suggestive of the conflict\nof opinions:\n\n\"The relation of physiology to practical medicine is a subject which\nhas been brought prominently into notice by the address of Dr. Burdon\nSanderson ... at the recent meeting of the British Association.  That\naddress may be considered as the first authoritative and public\nannouncement made in this country that IT IS THE AIM AND INTENTION OF\nTHE PHYSIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT and work to separate themselves\nmore and more from the school of practical medicine; no longer to\nconsider themselves auxiliary to it except as other sciences--for\ninstance, chemistry and botany--may be considered auxiliary to it, but\nto win a place in the public estimation for their science as one which\nshall be cultivated FOR ITS OWN SAKE...\n\n\"The teaching of experience is more reliable than physiological\ntheories and opinions.... The history of the advance of the cure of\ndisease is in the history of empiricism, in the best sense of that\nmuch-abused word.  The history of retrogression in the art of curing\ndisease is that of the so-called Physiological Schools of\nMedicine... Physiological theory, based on experiments on dogs, wishes\nus to believe that mercury does not excite a flow of bile; but here\nthe common sense of the Profession, educated by experience, has\nrefused to be led by physiological theory.... Modern physiological\nscience has taught us little more than the necessity of pure air,\nwater, and food, good clothing and shelter, moderation in eating and\ndrinking, and regulation of the passions--things, in fact, which are\nas old as the Pentateuch.  We may safely assert that all the\nexperiments made on luckless animals since the time of Magendie to the\npresent, in France, America, Germany, and England, have not prolonged\none tithe of human life, or diminished one tithe of the human\nsuffering that have been prolonged and diminished by the discovery and\nuse of Jesuits' bark and cod-liver oil.\"[1]\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), September 7, 1872.\n\nEarly the next year (1873) was published the \"Handbook of the\nPhysiological Laboratory,\" compiled by leading men of the\nphysiological party, among whom were Professors Sanderson, Foster, and\nKlein.  Describing the method of performing various experiments upon\nanimals, it included a particular account of some of the most\nexcruciatingly painful of the vivisections practised abroad.  So\natrocious was one of the experiments thus described in this handbook\nfor students that Professor Michael Foster, who wrote the description,\nafterward confessed that he had never seen or performed the experiment\nhimself, partly \"from horror of the pain.\" Reviewing the work, a\nmedical journal justly declared that \"the publication of this book\nmarks an era in the history of physiology in England.... It shows THE\nPREDOMINANT INFLUENCE WHICH GERMANY NOW EXERCISES IN THIS DEPARTMENT\nOF SCIENCE.\"[1] A professor of physiology, Dr. Gamgee, about the same\ntime, refers to the physiological laboratories of Edinburgh,\nCambridge, and London, and the part they sustained \"in what I may call\nthe Revival of the study of experimental physiology in England.\"[2]\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette, London, March 29, 1873.\n[2] Ibid., October 18, 1873.\n\nEmboldened by continuing success, the advocates of Continental\nvivisection in England determined to advance yet another step.  The\nannual meeting of the British Medical Association for 1874 was to be\nheld that year in August in the city of Norwich.  A French vivisector,\nDr. Magnan, was invited to be present, and to perform in the presence\nof English medical men certain experiments upon dogs.  On this\noccasion, however, the public demonstration of French methods of\nvivisection did not pass without protest; there was a scene; some of\nthe physicians present--among them Dr. Tufnell, the President of the\nRoyal College of Surgeons of Ireland, and Dr. Haughton of the medical\nschool in Dublin, denounced the experiments at the time they were made\nas unjustifiably cruel.  Public attention was beginning to be aroused;\nit was decided to test the question, whether such exhibitions were\nprotected by English law, and a prosecution was instituted against\nsome who had assisted in performing the experiments.  Dr. Tufnell\nappeared to testify in regard to the cruelty of the exhibition, and\nSir William Fergusson, surgeon to the Queen, who had only just retired\nfrom the presidency of the British Medical Association, not only\nstigmatized one of the experiments as \"an act of cruelty,\" but\ndeclared that \"such experiments would not be of the smallest possible\nbenefit.\"[1] The magistrates decided that while the case was a very\nproper one to prosecute, yet the gentlemen named as defendants were\nnot sufficiently proven to have taken part in the experiment.  The\ndecision was not unjust; the real offender was safe in his native\nland.\n\n[1] British Medical Journal, December 12, 1874.\n\nIt is not my purpose to trace the course of the English agitation\nagainst vivisection, except as it may be seen in the medical\nliterature of the time; but one cannot refer to this period without\nmention of the name of Frances Power Cobbe.  In 1863, while in Italy,\nshe had protested, and not in vain, against the cruelties of Professor\nSchiff in Florence.  Taking up the question again in 1874, she devoted\nthe remainder of her life to the advancement of her ideals of reform.\nIt was to her zeal that in 1875 was founded the \"Society for the\nProtection of Animals liable to Vivisection.\" At this period, then,\nthree phases of opinion opposed one another; first, the\nantivivisectionists, who desired the total suppression by law of all\nanimal experimentation; second, the physiological enthusiasts, few in\nnumber, but favourable to the introduction of the Continental\nirresponsibility, and eager to free vivisection from every semblance\nof restraint; and, thirdly, the great body of Englishmen and of the\nmedical profession, whose views we have seen reflected in medical\njournals of the day.  The popular attack upon all animal\nexperimentation became so pressing that for a time the entire medical\nprofession seemed to unite in its defence; and editorial space once\nfilled with denunciation of vivisection in France was now given over\nto criticism of the antivivisectionists of England.  Yet, even at this\nperiod, there appeared no repudiation of those humane principles, so\nlong professed by English medical men.  One leading journal, the\nMedical Times and Gazette, thus suggests that very oversight of\nvivisection which we are told is impossible:\n\n\"Just as the law demands that a teacher of anatomy should take out a\nlicence, and be responsible for the bodies entrusted to him, so a\nteacher of physiology might be required to take out some such licence\nas regards the teaching of practical physiology.  We have never been\nof those who advocate the wholesale performance of experiments by\nstudents, especially on the higher animals, if they are of such a kind\nas to require any degree of skill for their performance.  When the\nmedical public seemed bitten with what was called `practical\nphysiology,' many were ready to advocate the performance of all kinds\nof experiments on living animals by uninstructed students.  Against\nthis notion we were first to protest, as being at once cruel and worse\nthan useless; for an experiment performed by bungling fingers is no\nexperiment at all, but wanton cruelty.\"\n\nAfter explaining his position in favour of scientific research, the\neditor refers to a recent discussion on vivisection in London:\n\n\"Dr. Walker declared that his desire was not to stop scientific\nresearch, but the abuses which were connected with it.  In the first\nplace, he would not allow vivisection to be practised by incompetent\nstudents.  This was nothing but wanton and unrighteous cruelty.\nTHEREFORE HE WOULD OBLIGE EACH VIVISECTOR TO OBTAIN LEGAL PERMISSION\nFROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY.  Another abuse related to operations\nperformed merely to demonstrate physiological phenomena already\nverified and established.  Again, the number of animals vivisected was\nshamefully high.  Persons unacquainted with physiological laboratories\ncould form no idea of the lavish way in which animals were made to\nsuffer days and weeks of anguish and acute pain.  If the people knew\nof these sufferings, they would insist that the number of animals\nannually vivisected should be limited, and that no animal rearing its\nyoung should be experimented upon.  Nor should it be allowable to\noperate on an animal more than once.... Lastly, every licensed\nvivisector should be obliged to send in an annual return, showing the\nnumber of vivisections performed, and the scientific results attained,\nwhich would prevent repeated operations with the same object.  Nothing\nin any of these proposals, urged Dr. Walker, would interfere with the\nprogress of science; they would simply stop the abuses which\nexisted.\"[1]\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), June 27, 1874.\n\nIn January, 1875, we find the London Lancet also suggesting legal\nsupervision and restriction:\n\n\"We are utterly opposed to all repetition of experiments for the\npurpose of demonstrating established doctrines.... We believe an\nattempt might be made to institute something in the way of regulation\nand supervision.  IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO IMPOSE\nSUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRACTICE OF THESE EXPERIMENTS as would\neffectually guard against their being undertaken by any but skilled\npersons, for adequate scientific objects.\"[2]\n\n[2] The London Lancet (Editorial), January 2, 1875.\n\nA month later the Lancet devotes its leading editorial to a discussion\nof the ethics of vivisection.  After criticizing the position taken\nby the antivivisectionists, the writer says:\n\n\"On the other side, the discussion has been conducted as if it\nconcerned physiologists alone, who were to be a law unto themselves,\nand each to do what might seem right in his own eyes; that the matter\nwas one into which outsiders had no right whatever to intrude; in\nfact, that `WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT,' and so unquestionably right as to\nstand in no need of investigation or restriction.  We have, from the\nfirst, striven to take a middle course, not because it was safe, but\nbecause it seemed to us the sound and true one.  Without disguising\nthe difficulties, we have nevertheless expressed our conviction that\nthe subject was one about which it was impossible not to feel a sense\nof responsibility, and a desire to ascertain whether the line between\nnecessary and unnecessary could be defined; and whether any attempt\ncould be made to institute something in the way of regulation,\nsupervision, or restriction, so as to secure that, while the ends of\nscience were not defeated, the broad principles of Humanity and duty to\nthe lower animals were observed.  Animals have their rights every bit\nas much as man has his....\"\n\nAdmitting the probable necessity of some repetition of experiments in\nresearch, the writer continues:\n\n\"It is for the purposes of instruction, however, that it becomes\nquestionable whether and to what extent experiments of this kind\nshould be performed.  A chemical lecturer teaches well, in proportion\nto the clearness with which he can demonstrate the correctness of his\nstatements by experiment, and there is no doubt it is the same with a\nLecturer on Physiology.  Some persons seem to regard the advance of\nknowledge as the whole duty of man, and they would perhaps consider\nexperimentation as justifiable in the one case as in the other.  We\ncannot so regard it, for the simple and sufficient reason (as it seems\nto us) that the element of Life and Sensibility being present in the\none case and not in the other, carries a responsibility with it.  We\ncontend that in any case where certain phenomena are known to follow a\ngiven experiment, when the fact has been established by the separate\nand independent observation of many different persons, a lecturer is\nnot justified in resorting to it FOR THE PURPOSE OF MERE DEMONSTRATION\nWHERE ITS PERFORMANCE INVOLVES SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL.\"[1]\n\n[1] The London Lancet, February 6, 1875.\n\nIt is an instructive and interesting fact that one of the first steps\ntoward the legal regulation of vivisection in England was taken by\nscientific men.  The Lancet of May 8, 1875, contains the following\nparagraph:\n\n\"Some eminent naturalists and physiologists, including Mr. Charles\nDarwin, Professor Huxley, Dr. Sharpey, and others, have been in\ncommunication with Members of both Houses of Parliament to arrange\nterms of a Bill which would prevent any unnecessary cruelty or abuse\nin experiments made on living animals for purposes of scientific\ndiscovery.  It is understood that these negotiations have been\nsuccessful, and that the Bill is likely to be taken charge of by Lord\nCardwell in the House of Lords, and by Dr. Lyon Playfair in the House\nof Commons.\"\n\nA week later, the Lancet gives an outline of the proposed Act:\n\n\"The Bill introduced by Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Spencer Walpole, and\nMr. Evelyn Ashley, `To Prevent Abuse and Cruelty in Experiments on\nAnimals, made for the Purpose of Scientific Discovery,' has been\nprinted.  It proposes to enact that painful experiments on living\nanimals for scientific purposes shall be permissible on the following\nconditions:\n\n\"`That the animal shall first have been made insensible by the\nadministration of anaesthetics or otherwise, during the whole course\nof such experiment; and that if the nature of the experiment be such\nas to seriously injure the animal, so as to cause it after-suffering,\nthe animal shall be killed immediately on the termination of the\nexperiment.\n\n\"`Experiments without the use of anaesthetics are also to be\npermissible provided the following conditions are complied with: That\nthe experiment is made for the purpose of new scientific discovery and\nfor no other purpose; and that insensibility cannot be produced\nwithout necessarily frustrating the object of the experiment; and that\nthe animal should not be subject to any pain which is not necessary\nfor the purpose of the experiment; and that the experiment be brought\nto an end as soon as practicable; and that if the nature of the\nexperiment be such as to seriously injure the animal so as to cause it\nafter-suffering, the animal shall be killed immediately on the\ntermination of the experiment.\n\n\"`That a register of all experiments made without the use of\nanaesthetics shall be duly kept, and be returned in such form and at\nsuch times as one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State may\ndirect.\n\n\"`The Secretary of State is to be empowered to grant licences to\npersons provided with certificates signed by at least one of the\nfollowing persons: the President of the Royal Society, the President\nof the Royal College of Surgeons or of the College of Physicians in\nLondon, Edinburgh, or Dublin; and also by a recognized Professor of\nPhysiology, Medicine, or Anatomy.'\"[1]\n\n[1] Lancet, May 15, 1875.\n\nThe Bill, though introduced in Parliament, was not pressed.  Another\nand more stringent measure for the regulation of vivisection had been\nintroduced a few days earlier through the efforts of Miss Frances\nPower Cobbe and the Earl of Shaftesbury.  In the conflict of opposing\nstatements and opinions, the Government wisely concluded that more\nlight on the subject was necessary, and a Royal Commission was\nappointed to investigate and report.\n\nBut if the Continental party was to conquer in England, its members\nundoubtedly felt that it must be through audacity quite as much by\nsilence and secrecy.  At the annual meeting of the British Medical\nAssociation, therefore, Professor William Rutherford delivered an\naddress, wherein for the second time an English physiologist openly\nadvocated the vivisection of animals as a method of teaching well-\nknown facts.  Commenting upon this address, the editor of the Lancet\nremarks:\n\n\"We confess that we think Dr. Rutherford presses his principle too far\nwhen he argues that, teaching by demonstration being the most\nsuccessful method, we are thereby always warranted in having recourse\nto it.  Physiology and chemistry are both experimental sciences.  The\nchemical lecturer can have no hesitation in employing any number of\nexperiments, or repeating them indefinitely to illustrate every step\nhe takes; but we may fairly assume that the physiologist would be\nrestrained by the thought that the materials with which he has to deal\nare not so much inert, lifeless matter, but sentient, living things.\nWe hold, therefore, that it would be both unnecessary and cruel to\ndemonstrate every physiological truth by experiment, or to repeat\nindefinitely the same experiment, simply because by such\ndemonstrations the lecturer could make his teaching more definite,\nprecise, and valuable.\"[1]\n\n[1] The London Lancet, (Editorial) August 21, 1875.\n\nAgain, somewhat later the same journal brings into prominence one of\nthe greatest difficulties attending all discussion of vivisection--the\nlack of agreement upon the meaning of words:\n\n\"It is extremely difficult to get at the exact meaning of the terms\nused.  The physiologist would be ready to declare his utter abhorrence\nof all `cruelty,' BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HIS OWN DEFINITION OF THE\nWORD.  We hope Sir William Thompson was not justified in stating that\nrevolting cruelties are sometimes practised in this country, in the\nname of vivisection, although we may concur with him in reprehending\nthe performance of experiments on animals in illustration of truths\nalready ascertained.... When the Cardinal (Manning) laid it down as\nthe expression of a great moral obligation that we had no right to\ninflict NEEDLESS pain, he begged the whole question.  By all means lay\ndown and enforce any restriction that will prevent the infliction of\nNEEDLESS pain.\"[1]\n\n[1] The London Lancet (Editorial), March 25, 1876.\n\nWe see how valueless, therefore, is the assertion so frequently made\nin this country that \"no NEEDLESS pain is ever inflicted.\" The\nphysiologist has his own interpretation of the word.\n\nThe testimony given before the Royal Commission was of utmost value.\nLeading members of the medical profession, such as Sir Thomas Watson,\nphysician to the Queen, and Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the\nQueen, gave evidence against the unrestricted practice of animal\nexperimentation.  Physiologists after the Continental school stated\ntheir side of the controversy, usually with significant caution; but\none of them, Dr. Emanuel Klein, with an honest frankness of confession\nthat astounded his friends, made himself for ever famous in the\nhistory of the vivisection controversy.  It is hardly accurate to say\nthat no cruelty was uncovered by the Royal Commission.  Everything\ndepends on the meaning of words, but the evidence of one of the most\nnoted of English physiologists as to his own personal practices in\nvivisection was quite sufficient to justify the legislation that\nensued.  How seriously this evidence was regarded at the time is\nclearly shown in an extract from a confidential letter of Professor\nHuxley to Mr. Darwin, dated October 30, 1875:\n\n\"This Commission is playing the deuce with me.  I have felt it my duty\nto act as counsel for Science, and was well satisfied with the way\nthings are going.  But on Thursday, when I was absent, --- was\nexamined; and if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he\ngave, I might as well throw up my brief.  I am told he openly\nprofessed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and he\nonly gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet!\n\n\"I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an\nunmitigated, cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles,\nand I would willingly agree to any law that would send him to the\ntreadmill.\n\n\"The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster is profound,\nand I am powerless (even if I desire, which I have not) to combat\nit.\"[1]\n\n[1] Huxley's \"Life and Letters,\" vol i., p. 473.  This\ncharacterization seems by no means fair, and probably it would have\nbeen so regarded by the writer in calmer moments.  Is indignation\nchiefly directed to the \"indifference to animal suffering,\" or to the\n\"OPEN PROFESSION\" of the feeling? For men, perfectly familiar with\nContinental indifference, to condemn with holy horror a young\nphysiologist because he \"openly professes\" the generally prevalent\nsentiment of his class, is very suggestive.\n\nThe result of the Commission's report was the introduction by the\nGovernment of a Bill placing animal experimentation in Greta Britain\nunder legal supervision and control.  As first drawn up, it appears to\nhave been regarded by the medical profession as unduly stringent and\nunfair.  Protests were made, amendments of certain of its provisions\nwere requested, concessions were granted, and at the close of the\nParliamentary session, August 15, 1876, the practice of vivisection,\nlike the study of human anatomy by dissection, came under the\nsupervision of English law.\n\nIt is curious to observe how those who had vehemently opposed the Act\nwere able to approve it when once the law was in operation, and\ncriticism could no longer serve any purpose of delay.  The British\nMedical Journal of August 19, 1876, announcing to its readers the\npassage of the Bill, says:\n\n\"Taking the measure altogether, we think the profession may be\ncongratulated on its having passed.... So far, the Act facilitates the\nprosecution of science by competent persons, while it protects animals\nfrom the cruelty which might be inflicted by ignorant and unskilful\nhands.  THE ACT IS A GREAT STEP IN ADVANCE TOWARD PROMOTING KINDNESS\nTO ANIMALS GENERALLY....\"\n\nThe Medical Times and Gazette also regained its equanimity, and an\neditorial referring to the Act admits that \"the profession may regard\nit without much dissatisfaction.\"[1] There are even advantages to be\ndiscerned:\n\n\"It gives scientific inquirers the protection of the law; it protects\nanimals from cruelties which might be inflicted by unscientific and\nunskilled persons, and it satisfies to a great extent a demand made by\na hypersensitive ... portion of the public.\"\n\n[1] December 30, 1876.\n\nNor did further experience with the working of the Act appear greatly\nto disturb this favourable impression.  For instance, after the law\nhad been in operation nearly three years, the London Lancet in its\nissue of July 19, 1879, editorially remarked:\n\n\"There is no reason to regret the Act of 1876 which limits vivisection,\nexcept on the ground that it places the interests of science at the\narbitration of a lay authority.... MEANWHILE, THE ACT WORKS WELL, AND\nFULFILLS ITS PURPOSE.\"\n\nThere can be no doubt, however, that the law has always been regarded\nwith marked disfavour by the extreme vivisectionists of Great\nBritain.  They had planned, as we can see, to introduce in the United\nKingdom the freedom of vivisection which obtained on the Continent.\nThey had failed, and instead of liberty to imitate Be'rnard, Magendie,\nand Brown-Se'quard, they saw between them and the absolute power they\nhad craved and dreamed of obtaining, the majesty of English law.\nAmong American representatives of the same school--the strenuous\nopponents of all legal supervision--it has been the fashion on every\npossible occasion to cast discredit upon this Act.  For obvious\nreasons they have sought to represent it to the American public as\nhaving proven a serious detriment to medical science and an\nobstruction to medical advancement.  The idea is absurd.  English\nphysicians and surgeons are as well educated and equipped in every\nrespect as are the graduates of American schools.  The complete\nrefutation of all such misstatements regarding the effect of the\nEnglish law will be found elsewhere.  The Act is far from being an\nideal law--it is capable of amendment in many respects--but it is an\nevidence of the acceptance by the English people of the principle of\nState regulation, and of their wish that between the will of the\nvivisector and the irresponsible and unlimited torment of the victim,\nthere hall be some power capable, if it so desires, of making\neffective intervention.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER IX\n\n        THE GREAT PROTESTANT AGAINST VIVISECTION CRUELTY\n\nAmong the critics of unlimited vivisection one American name of the\npresent century stands pre-eminently above all others, not only for\nemphasis of denunciation, for vigour of condemnation, for clear\ndistinctions between right and wrong, but also for the distinguished\nposition which the writer held.  Forty years ago in the medical\nprofession of the United States no name stood higher than that of\nDr. Henry J. Bigelow, the professor of surgery in Harvard University.\nTo estimate the value of his criticism it is necessary to outline his\ncareer.\n\nHe was born in Boston, March 11, 1818, his father being Dr. Jacob\nBigelow, one of the leading physicians of his day.  After completing\nhis medical education in America, young Bigelow went abroad, and spent\nnearly three years studying in the great hospitals of Paris.  It was\nat a period when the cruel vivisections of Magendie and his\ncontemporaries had become the scandal of civilization, and there can\nbe no doubt that Dr. Bigelow witnessed every phase of vivisection that\nhis sensibilities permitted him to observe.\n\nReturning to Boston in 1844, the young surgeon rapidly attained a\nprominent position.  In January, 1846, before he had completed his\ntwenty-eighth year, he was appointed visiting surgeon of the\nMassachusetts General Hospital.  Here on November 7, 1846, there\noccurred one of the greatest historic events--the first surgical\noperation in which insensibility to pain was secured by the inhalation\nof ether.  Dr. Bigelow's enthusiasm for the new discovery was very\ngreat, and it has been said that to him \"the world was indebted for\nthe introduction of anaesthesia in surgery at the exact time in which\nit occurred.\"\n\nDr. Bigelow was surgeon to the Massachusetts General Hospital from\n1846 to 1886--a period of forty years.  He was professor of surgery in\nHarvard University from 1849 to 1882, or a third of a century.  When\nhe resigned the latter position, President Eliot in his annual report\nreferred to him as \"a discoverer and inventor of world-wide\nreputation, a brilliant surgical operator, a natural leader of men.\"\nThe faculty of Harvard Medical School also spoke of him as one \"who\nhad done so much to render this school conspicuous and to make\nAmerican surgery illustrious throughout the world.\" This is high\npraise.  Let it be remembered in reading his opinions concerning\nvivisection.\n\nAn abhorrence of pain was a marked trait in Dr. Bigelow's character.\nEven to the infliction of necessary suffering he had an extreme\ndislike.  His gentleness to animals was akin to his tenderness for\nchildren.  He had a great respect for their intelligence, their\naffection, their confidence in mankind.  Toward the close of life he\nhad among his pets a number of the little animals most closely related\nto human beings, and therefore the most-prized \"material\" of the\nvivisector.  But such was Dr. Bigelow's sympathy with his little\nfriends that he disliked to take visitors into their presence, and\nwhen he did, always cautioned them to assume a smiling face.  He was\nunwilling to give his pets even the mental suffering of anxiety or\nfear.\n\nHe died October 30, 1890, at the ripe age of seventy-two.  It was\nDr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself illustrious in science and in\nliterature, who referred to the name of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow as \"one\nof the brightest in the annals of American surgery, not to claim for\nit A STILL HIGHER PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE HEALING ART.\"\n\nSuch a tribute was well deserved.  His was the most eminent name in\nthe annals of American surgery.  It was from this man, occupying such\na position in the medical profession, that we have one of the\nstrongest protests, one of the clearest, most discriminating, and\nemphatic criticisms of unregulated and unrestricted vivisection that\nthe world has known.  It is particularly valuable, because Dr. Bigelow\nwas never an antivivisectionist, if by that term we mean one who is\nopposed to all experiments upon animals.  But there are things done in\nthe name of Science which he utterly repudiated and condemned as\ncruelty, and against which he made a protest that should never be\nforgotten until the evil shall be condemned by the universal judgment\nof mankind.\n\nIt is probable that Dr. Bigelow's first protest against the abuses of\nvivisection was in course of an address delivered before the\nMassachusetts Medical Society in 1871.  It is not difficult, perhaps,\nto detect the reason for its utterance.  Dr. H. P. Bowditch, for very\nmany years afterward the professor of physiology in Harvard Medical\nSchool, graduated in 1868 from that institution, and went abroad to\nstudy physiology in Europe.  There he remained about three years, and\non his return in 1871 he was given the opportunity of introducing\nlaboratory methods and all the newer processes of experimentation into\nHarvard Medical School.  Now, the address from which the following\nextracts are taken was delivered on May 7, 1871.  Perhaps the\ninference is not an unreasonable one that Dr. Bigelow was here\nprotesting, and protesting in vain, against the introduction in\nAmerica of those methods of vivisection which he always regarded with\nabhorrence and detestation.\n\nIn this address he says:\n\n\"The teacher of the art of healing has no more right to employ the\ntime of the ignorant student disproportionately in the pleasant and\nseductive paths of laboratory experimentation--because some of these\nmay one day lead to pathology or therapeutics--than a guardian has to\ninvest the money of his ward in stocks or securities of equally\nuncertain prospective value to him.\n\n\"How few facts of immediate considerable value to our race have of\nlate years been extorted from the dreadful sufferings of dumb animals,\nthe cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practised under the\nauthority of science!\n\n\"The horrors of vivisection have supplanted the solemnity, the\nthrilling fascination of the old unetherized operation upon the human\nsufferer.  Their recorded phenomena, stored away by the physiological\ninquisitor on dusty shelves, are mostly of as little present value to\nman as the knowledge of a new comet or of a tungstate of zirconium,\nperhaps to be confuted the next year, perhaps to remain a fixed truth\nof immediate value,-- ... CONTEMPTIBLY SMALL COMPARED WITH THE PRICE\nPAID FOR IT IN AGONY AND TORTURE.\n\n\"For every inch cut by one of these experimenters in the quivering\ntissues of the helpless dog or rabbit or guinea-pig, let him insert a\nlancet one-eighth of an inch into his own skin, and for every inch\nmore he cuts let him advance the lancet another one-eight of an inch;\nand whenever he seizes, with ragged forceps, a nerve or spinal marrow,\nthe seat of all that is concentrated and exquisite in agony, or\nliterally tears out nerves by their roots, let him cut only one-eight\nof an inch farther--and he may have some faint suggestion of the\natrocity he is perpetrating when the guinea-pig shrieks, the poor dog\nyells, the noble horse groans and strains--the heartless vivisector\nperhaps resenting the struggle which annoys him.\n\n\"My heart sickens as I recall the spectacle at Alfort in former times,\nof a wretched horse--one of many hundreds, broken with age and disease\nresulting from life-long and honest devotion to man's service--bound\nupon the floor, his skin scored with a knife like a gridiron, his eyes\nand ears cut out, his arteries laid bare, his nerves exposed and\npinched and severed, his hoofs pared to the quick, and every\nconceivable and fiendish torture inflicted upon him, while he groaned\nand gasped, his life carefully preserved under this continued and\nhellish torment from early morning until afternoon, for the purpose,\nas was avowed, of familiarizing the pupil with the frenzied motions of\nthe animal.  This was surgical vivisection on a little larger scale,\nAND TRANSCENDED BUT LITTLE THE SCENES IN A PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY.\nI have heard it said that somebody must do it.  I say it is needless.\nNOBODY SHOULD DO IT.  WATCH THE STUDENTS AT A VIVISECTION; IT IS THE\nBLOOD AND SUFFERING, not the science, that rivet their breathless\nattention.  If hospital service makes young students less tender of\nsuffering, vivisection deadens their humanity, and begets indifference\nto it.\"\n\nLet us pause for a moment.  These are words of great import.  They are\nas true to-day as when first uttered.  Who was the speaker? The most\neminent surgeon in America in his day.  He was professor of surgery in\nHarvard University, and the leading member of its faculty.  He was the\nsurgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital.  He had seen the first\nsurgical operation under complete anaesthesia that the world had\nknown.  Learned societies in Paris, in London, in other countries of\nEurope, were proud to number him among their members.  He had reached\nthe age of assured eminence, where all fear of opposing influences\nthat might disastrously affect the medical career of a younger man,\nhad no weight.  Surely, if any living man can speak with authority, he\nspeaks now.\n\nAnd before whom does he speak? He is not addressing a general\naudience.  It is a meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, an\nassociation of the physicians and surgeons of that Commonwealth.  Some\nof them had also seen vivisection as practised in Paris and Leipsic.\nHere was a man at the head of their profession protesting against the\nintroduction of the vivisection laboratory system in his own country.\n\nHe insists over and over again that we cannot tell the degree of agony\ninflicted by experiments upon the nervous system, nor measure its\nintensity:\n\n\"Who can say whether a guinea-pig, the pinching of whose carefully\nsensitized neck throws him into convulsions, attains this blessed\nmomentary respite of insensibility by an unexplained special machinery\nof the nervous currents, OR A SENSIBILITY TOO EXQUISITELY ACUTE FOR\nANIMAL ENDURANCE? Better that I or my friend should die than protract\nexistence through accumulated years of torture upon animals whose\nexquisite suffering we cannot fail to infer, even though they may have\nneither voice nor feature to express it.\"\n\nIt is not the fact of suffering, but the useless waste of suffering\nthat chiefly repels him:\n\n\"If a skilfully constructed hypothesis could be elaborated up to the\npoint of experimental test by the most accomplished and successful\nphilosopher, and if then a single experiment, though cruel, would\nforever settle it, we might reluctantly admit that it was justified.\nBut the instincts of our common humanity indignantly remonstrate\nagainst the testing of clumsy or unimportant hypotheses by prodigal\nexperimentation, or MAKING THE TORTURE OF ANIMALS AN EXHIBITION TO\nENLARGE A MEDICAL SCHOOL, or for the entertainment of students--not\none in fifty of whom can turn it to any profitable account.  The limit\nof such physiological experiment, in its utmost latitude, should be to\nestablish truth in the hands of a skilful experimenter, and not to\ndemonstrate it to ignorant classes and encourage them to repeat it.\"\n\nOne cannot but remark the clear distinction of views which these words\nindicate.  No antivivisectionist would accept the suggestion of a\nsingle experiment.  Dr. Bigelow is speaking as a restrictionist\nagainst the free and unlimited vivisection which he rightly foresaw\nwas about to be introduced into this country, and which has become the\npractice of the present day.  He realizes that if once the laboratory\nsystem gains a foothold in his own college, the system will spread\nthroughout America:\n\n\"The reaction which follows every excess will in time bear indignantly\nupon this.  Until then it is dreadful to think how many poor animals\nwill be subjected to excruciating agony as one medical college after\nanother becomes penetrated with the idea that vivisection is a part of\nmodern teaching, and that, to hold way with other institutions, they,\ntoo, must have their vivisector, their mutilated dogs, their guinea-\npigs, their rabbits, their chamber of torture and of horrors, to\nadvertise as a laboratory.\"\n\nNor this the only expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions.  In his work\non \"Surgical Anaesthesia,\" he left on record an even stronger\ncondemnation of the abuses of vivisection and the cruelties which\npertain to it.  As he quotes from Stanley's \"In Darkest Africa,\" which\nwas published in 1890, it is evident that it represents his mature and\nsettled judgment, down to the very close of his long and distinguished\ncareer.  In this work he says:\n\n\"There can be no question that the discussion of vivisection arouses\nantagonistic human instincts.  It is no common subject which enlists\nsuch earnest and opposite opinions.  That there is something wrong\nabout it is evident from the way in which the reputation of inflicting\nits torture is disclaimed.  That for some reason it is a fascinating\npursuit is equally evident from the bitter contest made for the right\nto practise it.\n\n\"There is little in the literature of what is called the `horrors of\nvivisection' which is not well grounded on truth.  For a description\nof the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature, only reiterating\nthat what it recounts is largely and simply fact, selected, it may be,\nbut rarely exaggerated.\n\n\"Vivisection is not an innocent study.  We may usefully popularize\nchemistry and electricity, their teaching and their experimentation,\neven if only as one way of cultivating human powers.  But not so with\npainful vivisection.  We may not move as freely in this direction, for\nthere are distinct reasons against it.  It can be indiscriminately\npursued only by torturing animals; and the word `torture' is here\nintentionally used to convey the idea of very severe pain--sometimes\nthe severest conceivable pain, of indefinite duration, often\nterminating, fortunately for the animal, with its life, but as often\nonly after hours or days of refined infliction, continuously or at\nintervals.\"\n\nIt is here that Dr. Bigelow differs radically from the advocates of\nfree vivisection.  To them there appears no reason why the science of\nphysiology should not \"move as freely\" in experimentation as the\nsciences pertaining to any other subject.  The closed laboratory\nevinces the desire and intention to \"move freely,\" without criticism\nor restraint.\n\nNo physician in America of Dr. Bigelow's eminence has ever stated so\ndistinctly the fact of torment in vivisection, and the reasons for its\ncondemnation:\n\n\"A man about to be burned under a railroad car begs somebody to kill\nhim; the Hindoo suttee has been abolished for its inhumanity; and yet\nit is a statement to be taken literally that a brief death by burning\nwould be considered a happy release by a human being undergoing the\nexperience of some of the animals who slowly die in a laboratory.\nScientific vivisection has all the engrossing fascination of other\nphysical sciences, BUT THE TRANSCENDENT TORTURE SOMETIMES INFLICTED\nHAS NO PARALLEL IN ANY OF THEM.  As to its extent, we read that in\ncourse of ten years seventeen thousand dogs were dissected alive in\none laboratory.\"\n\nWhy, then, does not a universal protest arise against such infamous\ncruelty? On this point Dr. Bigelow is very frank.  It is because of\nthe confidence which the general public places in the average\nscientist.  Is he deserving of that implicit faith? Dr. Bigelow does\nnot think so.  He says:\n\n\"The difficulty is that the community, for want of time or opportunity\nthemselves to investigate the subject, ARE WILLING TO RELY UPON THE\nDISCRETION OF SCIENTIFIC MEN.  This is an error....  A recent\ndistinguished writer, a good judge of men, makes the following\nobservation: `Who can say why the votaries of science, though\neminently kind in their social relations, are so angular of character?\nIn my analysis of the scientific nature, I am constrained to associate\nwith it (as compared with that of men who are more Christians than\nscientists) A CERTAIN HARDNESS, OR RATHER INDELICACY OF FEELING.  They\nstrike me as being ... coolly indifferent to the warmer human\nfeelings.'[1]\n\n[1] Sir Henry M. Stanley, \"In Darkest Africa.\"\n\n\"It should not for a moment be supposed that cultivation of the\nintellect leads a man to shrink from inflicting pain.  Many educated\nmen are no more humane--are, in fact, far less so--than many\ncomparatively uneducated people.... The more eminent the\nvivisectionist, the more indifferent he usually is to inflicting pain;\nhowever cultivated his intellect, he is sometimes absolutely\nindifferent to it....\n\n\"But in order to oppose vivisection to best advantage, and especially\nlest he should place himself in a false position, the anti-\nvivisectionist should bear clearly in mind that what he opposes is\nPAINFUL vivisection only.  For there have been wholly painless\nexperiments upon living animals which have led to useful results.\nSome of the greatest discoveries in medical science were made with no\npain whatever.... And yet they have been often and sophistically cited\nby the vivisector as plausible arguments for inflicting both excessive\nand useless pain.  The fact that a few able men have made discoveries\nby certain painless experiments upon animals is used to justify the\ndemonstration of torture to medical students (to whom it is as\nprofitless as any medical information can be), and its practice by\nthem.  The discovery of anaesthesia has been time and again quoted in\nfavour of vivisection.  THIS IS SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS.  In making that\ndiscovery, the experiments from the beginning were painless, and were\ntherefore wholly unobjectionable--as I happen to know, having seen the\nfirst of them.  The same is true of Jenner's vaccination, which was a\nwholly painless discovery.  Little pain was involved in all that was\nneeded to discover the circulation of the blood, which was inferred\nfrom the valvular construction of the veins, and then easily\nsubstantiated.... The greatest prizes in the lottery of physiological\nand pathological discovery have involved little or no pain.  But the\nusual and staple work of a so-called `laboratory of vivisection,\nphysiology or pathology,' for the education and practice of medical\nstudents in the unrestricted cutting of living animals, and for the\nindiscriminate and endless repetition of experiments already tried,\nwhere a live dog can be bought and its living nerves dissected, ... all\nthis is a very different affair.  A distinguished vivisector once\nremarked: `To us, pain is nothing.' When it is remembered that this\npain may be, and sometimes intentionally is, of the most excruciating\nnature possible for human science to invent, and that in a large\nmajority of instances it is to little or no purpose, the remark of\nthis vivisector covers the objectionable ground.\"\n\nIn view of the foregoing quotations, it would appear almost impossible\nfor Dr. Bigelow's position to be misrepresented or misunderstood.  He\ncannot be regarded as an antivivisectionist, for he repeatedly states\nthat to painless experiments upon animals no objection exists.  But of\nthe reality of the torment, and of the blunted sensibility of the\nprofessional tormenter, he seems to have no doubt.  How may reform be\npromoted? By legal supervision and regulation.  A few further extracts\nfrom Dr. Bigelow's writings will bring these points into prominence:\n\n\"There can be no question that the practice of vivisection HARDENS THE\nSENSIBILITY OF THE OPERATOR, and begets indifference to the infliction\nof pain, as well as great carelessness in judging of its severity.\n\n\"Indeed, vivisection will always be the better for vigilant\nsupervision, and for whatever outside pressure can be brought to bear\nagainst it.  Such pressure will never be too great, nor will it retard\nprogress a hair's-breadth in the hands of that very limited class who\nare likely materially to advance knowledge by its practice.\n\n\"The ground for public supervision is that vivisection, immeasurably\nbeyond any other pursuit, involves the infliction of torture to little\nor no purpose.  Motive apart, painful vivisection differs from that\nusual cruelty of which the law takes absolute cognizance mainly in\nbeing practised by an educated class, who having once become callous\nto its objectionable features, find its pursuit an interesting\noccupation under the name of science.  In short, though vivisection,\nlike slavery, may embrace within its practice what is unobjectionable,\nwhat is useful, what is humane, and even what is commendable, it may\nalso cover what is nothing less than hideous.  I use this word in no\nsensational sense, and appeal to those who are familiar with some of\nthe work in laboratories and out of them to endorse it as appropriate\nin this connection....\n\n\"`But burning was useless, while vivisection is profitable.' Here we\nreach the kernel of the argument of the pain-inflicting vivisector.\nThe reply is that by far the larger part of vivisection is as useless\nas was an auto da fe'.  It does not lead to discovery.  The character\nof the minds of most of those who usually practise it makes this\nhardly a possibility.  Real discoverers are of a different texture of\nmind, which you cannot create by schools; nor can you retard their\nprogress by restrictions, put on all you may.  But restrictions will\nand should cut off THE HORDE OF DULL TORTURERS WHO FOLLOW IN THE WAKE\nOF THE DISCOVERER, actuated by a dozen different motives, from a\ndesire for research down to the wish to gratify a teacher or to comply\nwith a school requisition.\"\n\nHow carefully and how clearly the writer has phrased his distinctions\nbetween what in vivisection is right and wrong! In all the literature\nof advocacy for free and unrestricted vivisection can we find anything\nresembling it? Certainly, I know no writer favourable to unlimited\nexperimentation who has been equally fair.  One surgical\nvivisectionist is fond of dividing the class interested in discussion\nof vivisection as \"Friends of Research,\" and \"Foes of Research,\"\nascribing to the first all the virtues of good sense, and to the\nlatter all the folly that belongs to ignorance.  In which class, we\nmay well wonder, would he place the first American surgeon of his time\nbecause he objected only to cruelty and abuse?\n\nTo Dr. Bigelow the legal supervision of the laboratory seemed the one\npractical method by which cruelty might be somewhat restrained,\nbecause in this way he believed the public would obtain some knowledge\nof the practice which is now withheld.  He says:\n\n\"In order that painful vivisection may be as nearly as possible\nsuppressed, not only by public opinion, but by law, IT IS ESSENTIAL\nTHAT PUBLIC OPINION SHOULD BE FREQUENTLY INFORMED OF WHAT IT IS AND\nMAY BE.  Here lies the work of the antivivisectionist.  Further, every\nlaboratory ought to be open to some supervising legal authority\ncompetent to determine that it is conducted from roof to cellar on the\nhumanest principles, in default of which it should be, as slavery has\nbeen, uncompromisingly prohibited wherever law can accomplish this\nresult.\"\n\nIs the cruelty of unrestricted and unregulated vivisection a reality\nor a myth? Of his own views on this question we can have no doubt.\nHe says:\n\n\"A TORTURE OF HELPLESS ANIMALS--MORE TERRIBLE BY REASON OF ITS\nREFINEMENT AND THE EFFORT TO PROLONG IT THAN BURNING AT THE STAKE,\nWHICH IS BRIEF--IS NOW BEING CARRIED ON IN ALL CIVILIZED NATIONS, NOT\nIN THE NAME OF RELIGION, BUT OF SCIENCE.\"\n\n                        -------------------\n\n\"The law should interfere.  There can be no doubt that in this\nrelation there exists a case of cruelty to animals far transcending in\nits refinement and in its horror anything that has been known in the\nhistory of Nations.\n\n\"There will come a time when the world will look back to modern\nvivisection in the name of Science, as they do now to burning at the\nstake in the name of Religion.\"\n\nConcerning vivisection, then, the views of one of the most eminent\nsurgeons that America has produced may be summed up as follows:\n\nFIRST.  He is not favourable to antivivisection, but to restriction.\n\"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain.\"\n\nSECOND.  The cruelties which pertain to certain vivisections and\nvivisectors are not myth, but realities.  For a description of these\ncruelties, Dr. Bigelow expressly refers to the literature of protest.\n\nTHIRD.  In defence of vivisection or of unrestricted experimentation,\nhe says that UNTRUTHFUL CLAIMS OF UTILITY have been made.\n\nFOURTH.  The reasons for inflicting prolonged torment upon animals are\nwholly inadequate for its justification.\n\nFIFTH.  Vivisection has a hardening tendency upon its practitioners.\nThe more eminent the vivisector, the more indifferent he may become to\nthe infliction of torment.\n\nSIXTH.  There is ample reason for the interference of the law.  Every\nlaboratory should be legally supervised.  Public opinion should be\nfrequently informed concerning vivisection, its objects, and its\nmethods.\n\nI have presented these opinions at length because they represent\nexactly the position which I have personally maintained for over\nthirty years.  And if the time shall come, foreseen by him, \"when the\nworld will look back to modern vivisection in the name of Science, as\nwe now do to burning at the stake in the name of Religion,\" then,\nsurely, it will be remembered that the first strong voice in America\nraised, not in condemnation of all experimentation upon animals, but\nsolely in protest against its cruelty and secrecy, and in appeal for\nits reform, was that of the leading American surgeon of his time,\nProfessor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER X\n\n        THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION\n\nIn the year 1906, a Royal Commission was appointed by King Edward to\ninvestigate the practice of animal experimentation.  Thirty years had\npassed since the appearance of the earlier inquiry, upon which was\nbased the English law regulating the practice of such experiments.  On\nthe one hand, it had been denounced as affording most inadequate\nprotection to animals liable to such exploitation; on the other hand,\nin the United States it had been condemned as a hindrance to\nscientific progress, and a warning against any similar legislation.  A\nnew Commission was therefore appointed to inquire into the practice,\nto take evidence, and to report what changes, if any, in the existing\nstatute might seem advisable.\n\nThe composition of the new Commission leaned heavily toward the\nlaboratory.  It included no opponent to all vivisection.  On the other\nhand, three of the Commissioners at one time or another had held a\nlicence to vivisect, and one of them seems to have held this\npermission for some fourteen years.  The Commission also included\namong its members the permanent Under-Secretary to the Government--an\nofficial whose acts had again and again been arraigned, and were soon\nto be challenged once more.  The unusual spectacle was therefore to be\npresented of men sitting in judgment upon themselves.  One of the\nCommissioners--Dr. George Wilson, well known for his work regarding\nthe public health--had at various times questioned the conclusions of\ncertain experimenters, but he was not opposed to all research upon\nanimal life.  From a Commission so constituted, we might have expected\nas the final result of their labours a report favourable to the\ninterests of the laboratory, to marked modifications of the existing\nlaw by a lessened stringency of inspection, to relaxation of\nrestrictions, and to an endorsement of every claim of utility which\nthe experimenters should put forth.\n\nSuch an outcome of the deliberations of the Royal Commission must have\nseemed to American vivisectors almost a certainty.  During the past\ntwenty years, repeated attempts have been made in New York, in\nMassachusetts, in Pennsylvania, and in the city of Washington, to\nobtain some legislation regulating the practice of animal\nexperimentation to the extent which obtains in England.  At \"hearings\"\nbefore various legislative and Senate Committees, all such attempts\nhave been vigorously combated by representatives and defenders of the\nphysiological laboratories, and their strongest argument has always\nbeen the exceedingly detrimental effect of the English Act of 1876\nboth upon medical education and upon the progress of medical science.\nProfessor Bowditch once said:\n\n\"The amount of mischief which may be produced by the English law\ndepends very much on the good judgment of the Home Secretary.... In\ngeneral, it may be said that the system of licensing and Government\ninspection is UNDER THE MOST FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS a source of serious\nannoyance to investigation.\"\n\nWe shall have reason hereafter to see the inaccuracy of this\nstatement, so far as may be evinced by the opinions of English\nphysiologists and teachers.\n\nUpon the secrecy now maintained in English laboratories, a vivid light\nis thrown by the evidence given before the Commission.  Quite as\nstrong as in America have been the precautions taken in England to\nprevent any knowledge of the methods of vivisection from coming before\nthe general public except through the assertions of the experimenters\nthemselves.  In America, where we have no legal limitations to\nexperimentation, such secrecy occasions no surprise; but that in\nEngland the laboratory had secured so complete a degree of security\nfrom criticism by concealment of that which we are told needs no\nconcealment gives reason for questionings.  One of the Government\ninspectors--a Dr. Thane--insists that although a physiological\nlaboratory is open to the visits of medical students at any time, it\nwould hardly be possible to permit a similar privilege to physicians\nnot in sympathy with experimentation. \"I see no way of doing it,\" he\ndeclares.  He does not seem to be certain that one of the Royal\nCommissioners before whom he was giving evidence could be admitted.\nDr. George Wilson asks him the question in regard to seeing the\nvarious operations which are open to medical students. \"I can go and\nsee them? I suppose I would have no difficulty?\" Dr. Thane's reply was\nby no means assuring. \"I do not see how it could be done,\" he replied.\nHe could not see how one of the most distinguished physicians of\nEngland could secure the legal right of admission to a physiological\nlaboratory!\n\nSome of the evidence given regarding this point seems a little\nsuggestive of a willingness to mislead a thoughtless questioner.  Was\nthere any wish to give an impression that the secrecy of the\nlaboratory did not exist? One of the Government inspectors--Sir James\nRussell--informed the Commissioners that HE never had any difficulty\nin getting into laboratories. \"I simply walk into them, and have\nalways found the doors open,\" as if that proved that there was nothing\nto be concealed.  The professor of physiology at University College\nwas particularly examined on this point. \"Would there be any\ndifficulty in a doctor who was very strongly opposed on all grounds to\nexperiments on animals presenting his card and being present?\" \"None\nwhatsoever,\" was the Professor's answer to his questioner, the\nChairman of the Commission. \"I want to see,\" added Lord Selby, \"what\nsort of check there is upon the neglect of the statute; ... whether\nany medical man who disagreed with the Act and disagreed with\nvivisection altogether would be able to attend?\" \"In these advanced\nlectures there is no means by which we can prevent him from\nattending,\" was the instant reply. \"In point of fact, are ANY steps\ntaken with a view of preventing it?\" \"None whatever,\" was the reply.\n\"There is NOTHING to prevent it?\" persisted Lord Selby; and the reply\nof the professor was reiterated: \"There is nothing to prevent the\nattendance of any medical man at these advanced lectures.\"\n\nThe distinguished jurist undoubtedly believed that by these repeated\ninterrogations he had reached a complete denial of the secrecy of\nexperimentation so far as the witness was concerned.\n\nOn the day following, the same professor of physiology continued his\nevidence, and another member of the Commission--A. J. Ram, Esq.--\"one\nof our counsel learned in the law,\" took part in the examination. \"One\nhears a good deal in lay papers and so forth about experiments\nconducted with closed doors.  IS THERE ANYTHING OF THAT SORT AT ALL?\"\nThe very form of his inquiry would seem to indicate his disbelief in\nthe practice of secret vivisection.  His question, however, admitted\nof two different replies.  The physiologist might assert the necessary\nseclusion of physiological experimentation, or he might construe the\nquestion in a literal sense as pertaining merely to the locking of his\ninner door.  He preferred the latter course. \"I have ever come across\na laboratory where there were any closed doors.  In my laboratory any\nstudent wanting to speak to me walks straight in.  The door of my\nlaboratory, where I do the chief part of my work, IS ALWAYS OPEN TO\nTHE PASSAGE.\"\n\nThis is very clever.  The two leading lawyers of the Commission have\nsought to get at the truth concerning the secrecy of vivisection, and\napparently are quite satisfied.  But some hours later another member\nof the Commission, a plain Member of Parliament, without skill of\nfence or experience in the examination of witnesses, asks a question\nor two. \"You have told us,\" said Mr. Tomkinson, \"that any medical man,\non presenting his card, can obtain admission at once to a laboratory?\"\n\nHere was an inquiry that could be answered but in one way. \"No,\"\nreplied the physiologist; \"to the advanced physiological lectures\nwhich are given in the University of London.\" \"NOT TO WITNESS ANY\nOPERATION?\" \"No; only to witness the demonstrations that are given in\nthose lectures.\" \"But might not the public be more satisfied if a\nlayman--a Member of Parliament, for example--had the right of entry on\npresenting his card?\" \"Do you mean to the advanced lectures or to the\nlaboratory?\" \"I mean to an operation IN THE LABORATORY: say a Member\nof Parliament or anyone whose position is assured?\" \"I should be only\ntoo pleased to see any Member of Parliament or any layman who had any\ndoubt about it if he presented his card, but I SHOULD HAVE TO BE\nSATISFIED OF HIS BONA FIDES.\"\n\nIt is a pity that no one thought to ask the physiologist how he\nexpected a Member of Parliament to prove his \"good faith\" before he\ncould enter precincts open to every student of the University.  Sir\nWilliam Church came to his assistance by suggesting that the professor\nwould admit anyone \"vouched for\" by a person whom you know, or whose\nposition you know; but the curt monosyllabic reply was not indicative\nof a welcome, and it was quite different from the conditions which had\njust been laid down.  The doors of the laboratory are \"open,\" but only\nto those in whose silence and discretion the vivisector may trust.\n\nA considerable amount of testimony was devoted to the alleged\npainfulness of vivisection.  It is the great problem.  If the absence\nof sensation were a certainty in all operations of the kind, there\nwould be no reasonable objection to them, no matter to what extent\nthey might be carried.  The physiologists of the present day occupy a\nsomewhat different attitude from those of half a century ago, or of\nyet later periods.  Thirty years ago, one of the leading experimenters\nin England declared that he had \"no regard at all\" for the pain\ninflicted upon a vivisected animal; that he never used anaesthetics\nexcept when necessary for personal convenience; and that he had \"no\ntime, so to speak, for thinking what the animal will suffer.\" We find\nno such profession of indifference in the testimony of modern\nphysiologists.  What seems to take its place is, in many cases, a\ndenial of the existence of pain in the experimentation of the present\nday.  Does anything here turn upon a definition of words? A professor\nat King's College, London, giving his testimony, affirmed that \"no\nstudent in England has EVER SEEN PAIN in an animal experiment\"--a\nstatement which in one sense everyone can accept, for who can say that\nhe ever SAW a pain anywhere? Professor Starling, of the University\nCollege in London, declared that during his seventeen years of\nexperimentation \"on no occasion HAVE I EVER SEEN PAIN inflicted in any\nexperiment on dog, cat, or rabbit in a physiological laboratory in\nthis country.\" The experimenter is undoubtedly correct.  Neither he\nnor anyone else in or out of a laboratory has ever \"SEEN PAIN.\"\n\nSome of Dr. Starling's testimony on the subject of pain is very\ncurious.  Pain, he tells the Commissioners, \"would spoil the\nexperiment,\" and \"A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT WHICH IS PAINFUL IS\nTHEREBY A BAD EXPERIMENT.\" He is asked whether \"there are any\noperations performed under circumstances in which the animal is\nnecessarily and intentionally sensitive to some pain?\" Without any\napparent hesitation he replied: \"NO, NEVER.\" Surely this is a\nremarkable assertion.  He is not speaking, so far as one can see, of\nhis own laboratory, but of all the laboratories of the world.  If,\nsince the discovery of anaesthesia over sixty years ago, there has\nbeen painful physiological experimentation in England, in America, or\non the Continent of Europe, IT HAS BEEN BAD EXPERIMENTATION.  THE PAIN\nINFLICTED HAS SPOILED THEIR WORK.  One may not be inclined to dispute\nthis opinion, and yet be quite certain that some very eminent\nvivisectors in Europe and America would question its accuracy so far\nas their own work is concerned.\n\nIt is interesting to compare these assertions with the testimony given\nby another physiologist--Dr. Pembrey, the lecturer on physiology at\nGuy's Hospital in London.  He tells the Commission that \"a common-\nsense view should be taken of the question,\" and then makes a definite\nadmission that by no means bears out the contention of the\nphysiologist of University College. \"I ADMIT,\" said Dr. Pembrey, \"THAT\nI HAVE DONE PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS, and I am not ashamed of admitting\nit.\" He goes yet further, declaring that if you caused an animal to\nsuffer extreme agony, the pain itself might be so severe as to render\nthe creature unconscious.  It is probable that the physiologist could\nnot have foreseen the results of his candid admissions.  When the\nCommission made their final report, they expressed unanimously the\nopinion that \"to grant a licence to any person holding such views as\nthose formerly expressed by Dr. Klein and as those entertained by\nDr. Pembrey is calculated to create serious misgiving in the mind of\nthe public.\"\n\nClosely allied to this question is the problem of anaesthesia.  Fifty\nyears ago ether and chloroform were administered to animals very much\nas they were given to human beings undergoing operations in surgery.\nAn animal returning to consciousness gave abundant evidence of its\nsensibility to suffering by its struggles and cries.  The experimenter\nmight try to believe that the pain was slight, but he never disputed\nits existence.  To-day, all this is changed.  As much or as little of\nthe anaesthetic may be given as the vivisector desires, and yet he may\ndeclare that \"ANAESTHETICS WERE USED,\" no matter how slight the degree\nof sensibility thus induced.  It is a known fact that a dog is very\nsusceptible to the action of chloroform, so that during its\nadministration death frequently occurs.  Sir Thornley Stoker, the\nPresident of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, and for many\nyears a teacher of science, testified before the Commission that a\ndog's heart is very weak and irregular, and susceptible to the\npoisonous influence of chloroform.  Over and over again he expresses\nthe doubts that arise concerning the administration of chloroform. \"I\nfear that, particularly in the case of dogs, ANAESTHESIA IS NOT ALWAYS\nPUSHED TO A SUFFICIENT EXTENT, as these animals often die from the\neffects of the anaesthetic if given to a full extent.... I am never\nsure, if I give a dog chloroform, that I will not kill it.... THE\nANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE if the dog lives as long as is\nnecessary for some of these experiments.\" Even for one hour he\nbelieves it would be generally impossible to keep a dog alive under\nfull anaesthesia.  On the other hand, Dr. Starling declared that\n\"there is no difficulty in keeping an animal alive as long as you\nlike,\"  and Sir Victor Horsley affirmed that one could keep a dog\nunder chloroform \"FOR A WEEK, if you only take the trouble.\"[1]\n\n[1] See Minutes of Evidence, November 13, 1907, Q. 15,649.\n\nThe discrepancy here would seem insurmountable.  May it not be more in\nappearance than in reality? One man tells me that arsenic is a poison,\nvery liable to cause death.  Another affirms that he has taken it for\ndays in succession, and has experienced no unpleasant results.  Both\nstatements can be true, for they need not refer to the same amount.\nIn the modern laboratory there is little danger that the animals will\nsuccumb to the effects of anaesthetic.  Assuredly we may question the\ncompleteness of that insensibility which Sir Victor Horsley apparently\ndeclares may be maintained for a week.\n\nThe use of the substance known as CURARE, either alone or in\nconnection with anaesthetics or narcotics, was naturally a subject of\npassing inquiry.  So slight is the knowledge afforded by certain\nphysiologists that it would almost seem that they were united in a\n\"conspiracy of silence\" regarding it; in neither of the last two\neditions of the \"Encyclopaedia Britannica\" is there more than a casual\nreference to the poison, and no reference to its origin. \"What is it?\"\nasked one of the Commissioners. \"Is it an herb?\" A brief account of\nthe poison, in view of an ignorance so widespread, is not out of\nplace.\n\nCurare is the arrow-poison of certain tribes of South American\nIndians.  It was first brought to the knowledge of Europeans by Sir\nWalter Raleigh on his return from a voyage to Guiana in 1595, over\nthree centuries ago.  Its actual composition, even at the present\ntime, is unknown; it is probable that different tribes of savages have\ntheir special methods of preparing it.  Some travellers claim that it\nconsists only of a decoction of poisonous plants; others believe that\nwith such substances are mixed the fangs of snakes, and certain\nspecies of poisonous ants, the whole compound being boiled down to the\nconsistency of tar.\n\nThe action of the poison thus made is exceedingly rapid.  Numerous\nexperiments by different observers have demonstrated that it swiftly\ndestroys the functions of the motor nerves of the body, leaving the\nsensory nerves unaffected to any extent.  Claude Be'rnard, who made\nmany experiments with curare, came to the same conclusion; it\nabolishes the power of motion, but has no effect upon the nerves of\nsensation.  An American physiologist, Dr. Isaac Ott, tells us that it\nis able to render animals immovable \"by a paralysis of motor nerves\n,LEAVING SENSORY NERVES INTACT.\" Be'rnard asserts as a result of\nnumerous experiments that in an animal poisoned with curare, \"its\nintelligence, sensibility and will-power are not affected, but they\nlose the power of moving;\" and that death, apparently so calm, \"is\naccompanied by sufferings the most atrocious that the human\nimagination can conceive.\" Although it may seem to be a corpse without\nmovement, and with every appearance of death, \"sensibility and\nintelligence exist ... it hears and comprehends whatever goes on, and\nfeels whatever painful impressions we may inflict.\" It is only within\nlate years, and since the employment of curare has been denounced,\nthat anyone has suggested any doubt of these physiological\nconclusions.\n\nIt has been found by physiologists that if the throat of a dog be\nsevered and the windpipe exposed and artificial respiration kept up,\nall the functions of life may be greatly prolonged; and if curare be\nused, the creature does not die, although it feels.  Supposing that\nmorphia or chloroform be administered at the same time--is the animal,\nnotwithstanding, conscious of pain? Professor Starling admitted in his\nevidence that if the anaesthetic passed off, the curarized animal\nwould be unable to move or to show any sign of suffering; there would\nbe no possibility of a dog whining or moaning; \"it could not, under\ncurare,\" he frankly admits.  Dr. Thane, one of the Government\ninspectors of laboratories, gave interesting evidence on this point,\nin reply to questions of one of the Commissioners.\n\n\"What is the object of giving curare when you are going to give an\nanaesthetic?\"\n\n\"The object of giving curare is to stop all reflex movements....\"\n\n\"It would stop all struggling, would it not?\"\n\n\"IT WOULD STOP ALL STRUGGLING.\"\n\n\"That is to say, it would put an end to the usual signs of the animal\nnot being properly under anaesthesia?\"\n\n\"That is so.\"\n\n\"And in that case the experimenter has to depend solely, not upon the\nattendant, but upon the accuracy of his apparatus? He cannot tell from\nlooking at the animal, which is perfectly still, whether it is\nsuffering or not?\"\n\n\"If his apparatus breaks down, the animal will die of suffocation; it\nwill not get air.\"\n\n\"Yes, it may die; but so long as it is alive, HE could not say, YOU\ncould not say, I could not say--if I were present--that the animal was\nproperly under anaesthesia, IF THERE WERE NO SIGNS BY WHICH YOU CAN\nTELL?\"\n\n\"We could say the animal is respiring air which is charged with\nanaesthetic in sufficient quantity to keep it anaesthetized before we\ngave it curare.\"\n\n\"That is all you could say?\"\n\n\"That is all we could say.\"[1]\n\n[1] Evidence taken November 21, 1906.\n\nAnd this pious opinion Dr. Thane reiterates to other questioners.  It\nfails to satisfy except where faith is strong. \"The curious thing to\nme,\" said Dr. George Wilson, \"is that you or anyone else can say\npositively that an animal which cannot, by moving, give any indication\nthat it is not completely anaesthetized during all this time that it\nis under a terribly severe operation does not suffer.... I cannot\nunderstand such a positive statement.\" And after Dr. Starling had\nadmitted the impossibility of a dog, under curare, making any cry,\nDr. Wilson rejoins: \"THEN HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT IT SUFFERS NO PAIN?\nYou may hope and believe, but how can you tell that during a prolonged\nand terrible experiment, the animal suffers no pain?\" The only reply\nthat the experimenter could give was a reiteration of faith in the\nworking of the apparatus.\n\nAnd here, for the present, the problem must be left.  Its only answer\nis a guess.  Yet it should be capable of a definite solution.  Every\nyear, in our great cities, it becomes necessary to put homeless dogs\nout of existence in some merciful way.  It should be possible, by use\nof chloroform, to determine which theory is true.  If, under proper\ncircumstances, a dozen animals were made absolutely unconscious by the\nuse of chloroform, as insensible as human being are made before a\ncapital operation, so that the corneal reflex is abolished, could this\ndegree of unconsciousness be maintained \"as long as any experimenter\ndesired\"? Would it even be possible as a rule to keep them alive a\nweek, yet completely anaesthetized? Or, on the contrary, would such\nanimals be peculiarly liable to sudden death from the effects of the\nchloroform? One cannot doubt the possibility of laboratory anaesthesia\nbeing maintained indefinitely; but how is it with complex and full\nsurgical anaesthesia? Until such appeal to science shall have been\nmade in the presence of those who doubt, and are able to judge, the\nquestion cannot be regarded as settled.  There are those who will\nbelieve that the older investigators were right; that the perfect\ninsensibility to pain is not invariably attained in these cases; and\nthat both in English and American laboratories the most hideous\ntorments are sometimes inflicted upon man's most faithful servant and\nfriend.  Even Dr. Thane, the Government inspector, admitted that in\nmaking reports the inspector \"never could determine which experiments\nwere painless and which were painful.\"\n\nThe evidence given by experimenters was frequently very curious, and\nsometimes suggestive.  Professor Starling, for example, testified that\ndogs exhibited no fright or fear at entering a vivisection chamber;\nthere are no signs \"that they have ANY IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO\nSUFFER,\" said the physiologist; \"that is a great consolation in\ndealing with animals, as compared with dealing with a man.\"[1]\n\"GOING TO SUFFER\" is a somewhat significant admission.  He is asked\nwhether the experimentation of to-day is more or less humanely\nconducted than it was before the Act of 1876; and instead of replying\nhe tells the Commissioners that \"there was very little work carried\nout before the Act; THERE WERE ONLY ONE OR TWO PHYSIOLOGISTS.\" Upon\nsuch ignorance of history comment is hardly necessary.  We have heard\nmuch concerning a \"wonderful discovery\" of a Dr. Crile, the giving of\nmorphia before a surgical operation, in order to quiet the\napprehensions of the patients and so to prevent the occurrence of\nshock.  Yet as long ago as 1906, Dr. Thane, a member of the Royal\nCollege of Surgeons, testified, upon the authority of a distinguished\nscientist, that such use of morphia before administration of\nanaesthetics \"is often done in surgical operations.\" The attention of\nSir Victor Horsley was called to the experiments of a Dr. Watson in\nAmerica.  Had he heard of them?\n\n[1] Minutes of Evidence, Q. 3,885.\n\n\"Yes, I know of those experiments,\" was the reply.\n\n\"Were they, in your opinion, valuable experiments?\"\n\n\"I cannot, at the moment, call to mind whether they revealed any new\nconditions.  I should have to look them up again.\"\n\n\"Were they justifiable, in your opinion?\"\n\n\"CERTAINLY,\" was Sir Victor Horsley's terse reply.\n\nYet, when the account of these experiments was first published, the\nBritish Medical Journal, in its editorial columns, thus commented upon\nthem:\n\n\"The present pamphlet calls for our strongest reprobation as a record\nof the most wanton and stupidest cruelty we have ever seen chronicled\nunder the guise of scientific experiments.... Apart from the utterly\nuseless nature of the observations, so far as regards human pathology,\nthere is a callous indifference shown in the description of the\nsuffering of the poor brutes which is positively revolting.... WE\nTRUST THAT NO ONE, IN THE PROFESSION OR OUT OF IT, will be tempted by\nthe fancy that these or such-like experiments are scientific or\njustifiable.\"\n\nIt will be seen that concerning Watson's most cruel vivisections Sir\nVictor Horsley was not in agreement with the British Medical Journal,\nthe official organ of the Association of which, before the Commission,\nhe appeared as the representative!\n\nThe final report of the Royal Commission occupies a volume.  The long\nperiod over which the inquiry extended, the generally apparent desire\nto permit every phase of opinion to have a hearing, all tended toward\nviews which, if not unanimous, at any rate indicated a desire to be\nfair.  Taken as a whole, the evidence and the final decisions of the\nCommission constitute an important contribution to the literature of\nanimal experimentation which has appeared during the present century.\n\nThe conclusions of the Commission are almost, yet not quite,\nunanimous.  All of the eight members signed the final report, three of\nthem, however, making their assent subject to a qualifying memorandum\nthat in certain respects indicated a considerable divergence of\nopinion.  The following are the conclusions of the Commission, the\nwords in italics and parentheses being the qualifying additions of one\nof their number, Dr. George Wilson.\n\n\"Altogether, apart from the moral and ethical questions involved in\nthe employment of experiments on living animals for scientific\npurposes, we are, after full consideration, inclined to think--\n\n\"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time have been proved\nby experiments upon living animals, and alleged to have been\nbeneficial in preventing and curing disease, have, upon further\ninvestigation, been found to be fallacious or useless.  (INDEED, THE\nFALLACIES AND FAILURES ARE, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN\nSUCCESSFUL RESULTS.)\n\n\"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge has been\nacquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of\ndisease, and that (SOME) methods for the prevention, cure, and\ntreatment of certain diseases (OTHER THAN BACTERIAL), have resulted\nfrom experimental investigations upon living animals.\n\n\"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that,\nwithout experiments made upon animals, mankind would by now have been\nin possession of such knowledge.\n\n\"4. That in so far as disease has been successfully prevented, or its\nmortality reduced, suffering has been diminished in man and the lower\nanimals.\n\n\"5. That there is ground for believing that similar methods of\ninvestigation, if pursued in the future, will be attended with similar\nresults.\" (FAILURES PLENTIFUL ENOUGH STILL, BUT SUCCESSFUL RESULTS\nFEWER AND FEWER AS THE FIELD OF LEGITIMATE RESEARCH MUST BECOME\nGRADUALLY MORE AND MORE RESTRICTED.)\n\nOther conclusions appear to be as follows:\n\n\"We strongly hold that limits should be placed to animal suffering in\nthe search for physiological or pathological knowledge.\"\n\nHow far interference with experimentation should extend appears to\nhave been a matter of divergent views.  Five of the Commissioners took\nthe following position:\n\n\"An Inspector should have the power to order the painless destruction\nof any animal which, having been the subject of any experiment, shows\nsigns of obvious suffering or considerable pain, even though the\nobject of the experiment may not have been obtained; and\n\n\"That in all cases in which, in the opinion of the experimenter, the\nanimal is suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, it shall be\nhis duty to cause painless death, even though the object of the\nexperiment has not been attained.\"\n\nThree of the Commissioners--Sir William J. Collins, M.D., Dr. George\nWilson, and Colonel Lockwood--do not agree with this clause.  They\ncannot approve of a rule which leaves to the discretion of the\nvivisector the right of keeping alive for an indefinite period, a\nsuffering creature.  They recommend that all observations, \"likely to\ncause pain and suffering shall be conducted under adequate\nanaesthetics, skilfully and humanely administered, or if the nature of\nthe investigation render this impracticable, then, that on the\nsupervention of real or obvious suffering the animal shall be\nforthwith painlessly killed.\"\n\nThe Commission recommended that, in certain cases, immediate or\nspecial records or reports of results should be furnished by the\nexperimenter.  The three members just named agree with this, but would\nhave such reports the rule, and not the exception.  With this view I\nam personally in emphatic accord.  Every experiment should have its\ncomplete record, available for publication if so desired.\n\nThat part of the final report which in certain respects is more\nvaluable than all the rest, is the reservation memorandum of\nDr. George Wilson, one of the Commissioners.  He is not an anti-\nvivisectionist, for he agrees with the unanimous conclusion of his\nassociates that \"experiments upon animals, adequately safeguarded by\nlaws faithfully administered, are morally justifiable.\" Regarding the\npractice as now carried on, he maintains the only scientific position,\nthat which more inclines to doubt than to credulity.  The assurances\nof witnesses, that in certain experimental operations no pain was\ninflicted, Dr. Wilson accepts \"as opinions to which the greatest\nweight should be attached, and not as statements of absolute fact, so\nfar as specific instances are concerned.\" That insensibility to pain\nis invariably maintained is by no means sure; \"however confident\nthe operator may be that he has abolished all pain, VIVISECTIONAL\nANAESTHESIA, WITH ALL ITS VARIETIES OF AGENTS AND METHODS OF\nINDUCTION, CAN NEVER BE DIVESTED OF AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY.\"\n\nWhat are we to say of the results, either to science or the art of\nhealing, which modern vivisection has contributed? It is regarding\nthis point that Dr. Wilson has brought together a mass of evidence of\nunquestionable value, in a field of inquiry peculiarly his own.  For\nmore than thirty years he had been a writer upon topics pertaining to\nthe Public Health.  One by one, in his memorandum, Dr. Wilson has\nexamined the claims of vivisection regarding the chief forms of\ndisease which have occupied the attention of experimenters--cancer,\nwhich still maintains its advance in fatality; tuberculosis, which\nbegan to decline in England more than forty years ago, before it was\nassociated with experimentation; hydrophobia, diphtheria, tetanus,\ntyphoid fever, snake-poison, sleeping-sickness, and certain animal\nailments of an infectious character.  What is his conclusion regarding\nall the claims of vastly increased potency of modern medicine over\nthese powers of darkness and death? That experiments have been utterly\nvalueless? No; some useful knowledge has been acquired, in certain\ndirections. \"But I still contend, and have endeavored to prove, that\nthe useful results which have been claimed, or may still be claimed,\nHAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY OVER-ESTIMATED.\" And the final conclusion of this\nkeen observer and lifelong student of medicine is this: \"That\nexperiments on animals, no matter with what prospective gain to\nhumanity, are repellant to the ethical sense; and that those who\npersistently advocate them as beneficial to human or animal life MUST\nJUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS BY RESULTS....  Even admitting that experiments on\nanimals have contributed to the relief of human suffering, such\nmeasure of relief is infinitesimal compared with the pain which has\nbeen inflicted to secure it.\"\n\nWhat changes to the existing law of England regarding animal\nexperimentation, or in the administration of the Act, did this\nCommission recommend?\n\nFIRST.  AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS. \"The inspectors\nshould be sufficiently numerous and should have at their command ample\ntime to afford to the public reasonable assurance that the law is\nfaithfully administered.\"\n\nSECOND.  RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF CURARE. \"We are all agreed, that\nif its use is to be permitted at all, an inspector, or some person\nnominated by the Secretary of State, should be present from the\ncommencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the\nanimal is throughout the whole experiment and UNTIL ITS DEATH IN A\nSTATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA.\"\n\nThis is a most remarkable recommendation.  Can it imply anything else\nthan distrust of the experimenter?\n\nTHIRD. \"STRICTER PROVISIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF PITHING.\" The\noperation must be complete; performed only under an adequate\nanaesthetic; and by a licensed person when made on a warm-blooded\nanimal.\n\nFOURTH. \"ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS REGULATING THE PAINLESS DESTRUCTION\nOF ANIMALS which show signs of suffering after the experiment.\"\n\nTo this recommendation and its suggested amendment by three of the\nCommissioners, reference has already been made.\n\nFIFTH. \"A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF SELECTING and in the constitution of\nthe Advisory body to the Secretary of State.\"\n\nSIXTH. \"SPECIAL RECORDS BY EXPERIMENTERS IN CERTAIN CASES.\" On this\npoint we have seen that three of the Commissioners went yet farther,\nand believed that in ALL cases of painful experiment--and, possibly,\nin all cases whatsoever, such reports should be made.\n\nIt is now upwards of thirty-five years since the Act regulating the\npractice of vivisection in England came into effect.  During all that\nperiod, in the United States, the law has never ceased to be an object\nof misrepresentation and attack.  Before Legislatures and Senate\nCommittees, on the platform and in the press, by men of good\nreputation but associated with laboratory interests, the English law\nhas been denounced as a hindrance to scientific progress and a warning\nagainst similar legislation in the United States.  And yet nothing can\nbe more evident that all these attacks were based upon ignorance and\nmisstatement.  We find a Royal Commission in England, composed almost\nentirely of scientific men, everyone of them favourable to animal\nexperimentation, devoting years to an inquiry concerning not\nvivisection only, but the working of the law by which it is\nregulated.  And the conclusions reached are in every respect opposed\nto the statements made by the laboratory interests here.  THEY FULLY\nENDORSE THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE REGULATION, WHICH EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA\nIS SO STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED.  But this is not all.  Every recommendation\nmade for modification of the Act is in the direction of animal\nprotection, and toward an increased stringency of the regulations\nrelating to animal experimentation.  In not a single instance was\nthere recommendation that the regulations should be less stringent;\nnot an instance in which it was suggested that privileges of the\nvivisector should be enlarged.  That this should be the result of an\ninquiry in this twentieth century, extending over five years, is\nremarkable indeed.  Perhaps there is no reason for surprise that all\nthese conclusions of the Royal Commission were never made known to the\nAmerican public by the periodicals of the day.  Is it possible for\nanyone to believe that such conclusions would ever have been attained\nif the denunciations of State regulation of vivisection, proceeding\nfrom the American laboratory, had been grounded in truth?\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XI\n\n                THE GREAT ANAESTHETIC DELUSION\n\nA popular delusion is often the basis of a great abuse.  If at one\ntime witches were burnt by countless thousands, it was at a period\nwhen implicit faith in the reality of diabolic conspiracy was\nundisturbed by sceptical questionings.  Human slavery existed for\ncenturies, not only because it was profitable, but because it came to\nbe regarded as the only conceivable permanent relation between the\nnegro and the white man.  The Spanish Inquisition existed for ages,\nbecause the pious Spaniard could not believe that the good men who\nupheld, encouraged, and promoted its activity could be liable to\nerror, or actuated by other than the loftiest principles.  Men find\nthemselves deluded not merely because of their faith in the integrity\nof their fellow-men, but because they have also extended that faith to\nthe accuracy of their opinions.\n\nThere can be no doubt of the fact that public apathy regarding the\nabuses of vivisection as now carried on without limitations or\nrestrictions is grounded upon the great anaesthetic delusion.  This\nmisinterpretation of facts, this misunderstanding of scientific\nstatements, constitutes the most singular delusion of the present\ntime.\n\nWhat is anaesthesia? It has been defined as a state of insensibility\nto external impressions, sometimes introduced by disease, but more\ngenerally in modern surgery by the inhalation of the vapours of ether\nor chloroform.  The discovery of the properties of these drugs\nconstitutes a very interesting chapter in the story of scientific\nachievement; but in this connection the chief point of interest lies\nin the fact that the most wonderful of all advances in medicine was\nmade without resort to the vivisection of animals.  Sir Benjamin Ward\nRichardson, an English scientist who had much to do with its various\nmethods, tells us that \"the instauration of general anaesthesia came\nfrom experiments on man alone; there is no suspicion of any experiment\non a lower animal in connection with it\"; and Professor Bigelow, of\nHarvard Medical School, as we have seen, makes the same statement.\n\nThe extent to which insensibility may be carried depends entirely on\nthe amount of the vapour inhaled.  Suppose the quantity to be very\nsmall.  Then the result will be a diminished sensibility, without\nentire loss of consciousness.  Let the quantity inhaled be\nconsiderably increase, and we may produce a profound stupor with\nmuscular relaxation, the eyes are fixed, and the eyelids do not\nrespond when the eyeball is touched.  There is now deep anaesthesia,\nand complete unconsciousness to the surgeon's knife.  The borderline\nbetween life and death is not distant; and if still more of the\nanaesthetic is administered, we may reach a condition from which there\nis no awakening.  The skill of the anaesthetist is not unlike that of\na pilot, who needs to know just how far the ship may be steered in a\ndifficult channel without running upon the rocks.\n\nFor a slight operation, a very little of the drug will often suffice.\nIn some hospitals abroad--and perhaps in America--it is the custom not\nto give anaesthetics to charity patients when the pain is not greater\nthan the extraction of a tooth.  Between a light anaesthesia and the\ndeep insensibility required for some capital operation, THERE IS EVERY\nCONCEIVABLE DEGREE.  We see the same thing in ordinary sleep.  The\ndeep unconsciousness of a thoroughly exhausted man is vastly different\nfrom the light slumber of an anxious mother, who is aroused by a word\nor touch.  Yet both conditions are what we call \"sleep.\"\n\nNow, one of the popular delusions regarding what is called\n\"anaesthesia\" arises from ignorance of its innumerable degrees.  We\nare told, for instance, \"anaesthetics were used\" in certain\nvivisections.  That assertion alone, in a majority of cases, will\nquiet any criticism.  If \"anaesthetics were used,\" then the average\nreader assumes that of course there was no pain.  The experimenter may\nknow better.  But if ignorance persists in misinterpreting statements\nof fact, it is possible that he may think he is not obliged to make\nthe truth plain, to his positive disadvantage.  If such method of\nreasoning ever obtains, it may explain very much.\n\nAnd yet it would seem that only very ignorant people could be so\nblinded by authority as not to perceive where the fallacy lies.  A\nslight amount of ether or chloroform may mean to a vivisected animal\nno protection whatever from extreme pain.  The fact has long been\nknown.  Many years ago Dr. George Hoggan declared that \"complete and\nconscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted, the animal getting\nat most a slight whiff of chloroform by way of satisfying the\nconscience of the operator, OR OF ENABLING HIM TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF A\nHUMANE CHARACTER.\" In other words, it enables him to say,\n\"Anaesthetics are always used.\" Shall we always be blind to the\ninsignificance of that phrase?\n\nThat chloroform or ether will suppress the consciousness of pain\nduring a surgical operation, every reader is aware.  But when we speak\nof certain vivisections, we are on different ground.  The pains to be\ninflicted are sometimes far more excruciating than any surgical\noperation.  In the stimulation of sensory nerves, and in various\noperations upon these nerves, there may be excited agonies so great\nthat they break through the limited unconsciousness induced by\nchloroform.  One of the most experienced vivisectors in America has\ngiven his testimony on this point.  Speaking of his experiments upon\nsome of the most exquisitely sensitive nerves, Dr. Flint says: \"WHEN\nwe have used anaesthetics\"--not the significance of the phrase--\"WE\nCOULD NEVER PUSH THE EFFECTS SUFFICIENTLY TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY\nOF THE ROOT OF THE NERVE.  If an animal, brought so fully under the\ninfluence of ether that the conjunctiva had become absolutely\ninsensible\" (the degree of insensibility required by the surgeon),\n\"the instant the instrument touched the root of the nerve in the\ncranium, THERE WERE EVIDENCES OF ACUTE PAIN.\"[1] Of other experiments\nupon the same nerves he tells us that \"in using anaesthetics, we have\nnever been able to bring an animal under their influence SO COMPLETELY\nAS TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY.... In cats that appear to be thoroughly\netherized, as soon as the instrument touches the nerve, there is more\nor less struggling.\"[2]\n\n[1] Flint's \"Physiology,\" vol. iv., p. 97.\n[2] Flint's \"Physiology,\" vol. iv., p. 193.\n\nThis statement needs to be remembered.  The agony may be so keen, so\nexquisite, so far beyond the pain of a surgical operation, that it\nmakes itself felt.  Pain, then, conquers the anaesthetic, exactly as\nthe anaesthetic usually conquers the pain.\n\nWhat, then, is the value of the phrase, \"ANAESTHETICS WERE USED\"?\nDr. Hoggan has told us.  It has no value whatever.\n\nSir Thornley Stoker, President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in\nIreland, and an inspector of laboratories under the Act, was\nquestioned about the pain endured by an animal in course of a\nprolonged vivisection, and he frankly admitted that a vivisector\n\"could do no more than give an opinion.  He could have no CERTAINTY as\nto the entire absence, the continuous absence, of pain.\"[2] Dr. Thane,\na professor at University Medical College, London, and a Government\ninspector, being asked whether one might not be able to distinguish\nbetween painful and painless experiments, replied that \"the inspector\nnever could distinguish exactly which experiments were painless and\nwhich were painful, AND THE EXPERIMENTERS AND OBSERVERS THEMSELVES\ncannot distinguish IN A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CASES.\"[3]\n\n[2] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 1,064.\n[3] Ibid., Question 1,335.\n\nThese are the opinions of experts.  This attitude of uncertainty is\nthe only ground possible for a scientific man who aims at stating the\nwhole truth.  When a professional vivisector gives us assurance that\nno pain was felt during the severest operations, he is only putting\nforth an opinion.  He is but mortal.  We are not obliged to assume his\ninfallibility in a region where experts are in doubt, and where there\nmay be a desire for concealment.\n\nDuring the last decade of the nineteenth century, a work was published\ndescribing in detail experiments upon surgical shock--so termed to\ndistinguish it from a similar condition arising from overwhelming\nemotions.  These experiments were almost exclusively made upon dogs,\nman's faithful friend and companion; and their number was so great and\ntheir character so horrible that their publication at first excited\ngeneral criticism and condemnation.  At one the suggestion was put\nforth that the experiments were painless, because \"anaesthetics were\nemployed.\" The vivisector had said:\n\n\"In all cases the animals were anaesthetized, usually by the use of\nether, occasionally by chloroform, either alone or with ether.  In a\nfew cases CURARE AND MORPHINE WERE USED.\"\n\nIn a number of succeeding volumes, the same assertion has been put\nforth; and as understood by the average reader, it has tended to\ndispel doubts regarding the character of the experiments.  It seems\nworth while to examine the account of these investigations a little\nclosely.  The question for us is not whether anaesthetics were\nemployed, but to what extent we may find ourselves assured regarding\ntheir efficiency in abolishing sensibility in every case.\n\nThe experiments in question were of a peculiar kind.  They differ in\ncertain respects from anything to be found in the records of American\nvivisection.  The number of dogs sacrificed--148--was far greater than\nseems necessary to establish any working hypothesis.  It would appear\nthat the methods of vivisection selected were generally designed for\nthe purpose of making the strongest possible impression, and, if\nconsciousness was present, the sharpest pangs that human ingenuity\ncould invent were repeatedly inflicted.  The most sensitive parts of\nthe body were crushed in various ways.  The lungs were stabbed, or\nshot through; the intestines were lifted from the body, and burned or\nplaced in boiling water; the nerves were exposed and scraped; loops of\nintestines were manipulated or crushed; the ear was penetrated; the\njaws were opened as far as \"the maximal normal separation,\" and then\nby extraordinary force separated still more; the paws were crushed,\nand sometimes burnt by the application of a Bunsen's flame; the\nstomach was dilated by pumping air and water into it till the stomach\nburst; one animal was subjected to \"all kinds of operations for a\nperiod of three hours more,\" including the cutting out of kidneys and\ndouble hip-joint amputations; another suffered the opening of the\nabdomen, the crushing of the kidneys, \"severe manipulation of the\neye,\" \"severe manipulation of the tongue, puncture, crushing,\" etc.,\nand lastly, a \"stimulation of the sciatic nerve\"; in one case, the paw\n\"was placed in boiling water for a considerable time\"; in another,\n\"boiling water was poured into the abdominal cavity\"; in yet another,\nflame was applied over the heart.  I am not quoting all this from\nmemory; the work describing all these experiments lies open before me\nas I write.  No Iroquois savage, no Spanish inquisitor, no\nprofessional tormentor of any age ever devised more exquisite\ntorments, more excruciating agonies, more lengthened tortures than\nthese 148 vivisections imply--UNLESS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT\nTHE COMPLETE INSENSIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS WAS SECURED BY RECOGNIZED\nANAESTHETICS, BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT.\n\nSuch assurance as this it is now impossible for anyone to give with\nscientific certainty.  The absolute insensibility of each and every\nanimal thus vivisected cannot be demonstrated.  On the contrary, there\nare reasons which compel belief that, in many instances, these\nvivisections implied the most horrible and prolonged torments that the\npractice of animal experimentation has ever been permitted to evoke.\n\nWhat are some of these reasons?\n\nFIRST.  In the work describing these experiments, the author has\nnowhere asserted that EACH ANIMAL SUBJECTED TO EXPERIMENT WAS FROM THE\nBEGINNING TO THE END SO DEEPLY AND PROFOUNDLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF\nETHER OR CHLOROFORM AS TO BE TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS OF PAIN.\n\nNow, the omission of this statement is peculiarly significant.  If it\nhad been possible, we may be quite sure that such a statement would\nhave been made.  Suppose, for example, that in place of vague\ngeneralities the experimenter had said:\n\n\"Before the commencement of each experiment, the animal was deeply\nanaesthetized by the inhalation of chloroform or ether, or both; and\nthe insensibility thus induced before the experiment began was\nmaintained until the death of the animal.  Curare was never used.  In\nno instance and at no time during any experiment was the anaesthesia\notherwise than profound; the corneal reflex was never to be obtained,\nnor was any other sign of sensibility to pain ever to be noted.\"\n\nA statement like this would have been definite.  But with due regard\nfor truth, it could not have been made.  Instead of an explicit\nstatement, we have merely the assertion--so easily misunderstood--\nthat \"in all cases the animals were anaesthetized.\" And this statement\nmay mean nothing whatever, so far as concerns the painlessness of\nthese vivisections.\n\nSECOND.  GREAT CARE WAS APPARENTLY TAKEN IN SOME CASES TO PREVENT DEEP\nANAESTHESIA.\n\nIt is a well-known fact that dogs are peculiarly susceptible to\nchloroform, and very likely to die while under its influence.  The\npresident of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, a teacher of\nscience for many years, Sir Thornley Stoker, stated in his testimony\nthat a dog's heart is very weak and irregular. \"I fear that in the\ncase of dogs, anaesthesia is not always pushed to a sufficient extent,\nas these animals often die from the effects of the anaesthetic if\ngiven to a full extent.... THE ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE, if the\ndog lives as long as is necessary for some of these experiments.\"[1]\n\n[1] Testimony before Royal Commission, Questions 761, 836.\n\nNow, one of these experiments lasted over three hours, and many of\nthem over an hour.  How many of the 148 animals died because the\nanaesthesia was TOO DEEP?\n\nOn this point the admissions of the experimenter seem especially\nsignificant. \"OVER-ANAESTHESIA rendered the animals subject to early\ncollapse, and decidedly less capable of enduring a protracted\nexperiment.\" During certain experiments, \"CONSIDERABLE CARE was\nnecessary to prevent excessive inhalation of the anaesthetic by the\nanimal.\" And yet all that could happen to the unfortunate victim would\nbe a painless death; to prevent that would require, doubtless,\nconsiderable care. \"If the animals were allowed PARTIALLY TO RECOVER\nFROM THE EFFECT OF THE ANAESTHETIC, care was necessary in reducing\nthem again to surgical anaesthesia, as an excess of the anaesthetic\nwas liable to be inhaled.\"[1] This admission is evidence complete,\nthat the insensibility was not always maintained from beginning to\nend; the creatures were in some cases--how many we can never know--\n\"ALLOWED PARTIALLY TO RECOVER.\"\n\nIn the detailed accounts of these vivisections, we find more than one\nproof of the sensibility of the animals.  Take the following:\n\nEXPERIMENT 126. \"The animal did not take the anaesthetic well, and\npart of the experiment was made under INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA.\" There\nwas noted, also, \"contraction of the abdominal muscles, on account of\nINCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 133. \"Bunsen's flame to the right paw.... In the control\nexperiments, as well as this, THE DOG WAS NOT UNDER FULL ANAESTHESIA\n... THE ANIMAL STRUGGLED ON APPLICATION OF THE FLAME.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 5. \"UNDER INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA, crushing of foot caused a\nvery sharp rise, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure.\nTHIS WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES.  Under full anaesthesia crushing of\npaws caused rise again.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 4. \"First, crushing of paw.... Second, crushed foot\nextensively, JUST BEFORE CORNEAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED.\"\n\nTo the average reader the last few words convey no definite meaning,\nbut their significance is plain.  Until the corneal reflex is\nabolished, the surgeon does not begin to operate, for sensibility\nremains.  It is needless to quote further; even a single instance of\nincomplete anaesthesia, admitted by the vivisector himself, suffices\nto overturn the claim that the insensibility was complete in every\ncase. \"Words,\" says Bishop Butler, \"mean what they do mean, and not\nother things\"; and no amount of literary juggling can prove that\nwhether the insensibility is complete or incomplete, the pain is\nprecisely the same.\n\nTHIRD. CURARE AND MORPHIA, NEITHER OF WHICH IS AN ANAESTHETIC, WERE\nSOMETIMES USED IN THESE EXPERIMENTS, APPARENTLY TO PREVENT THE ANIMALS\nUNDERGOING VIVISECTION FROM MAKING ANY MOVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT DISTURB\nTHE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED.\n\nThe use of CURARE rests upon the admission of the vivisector himself.\nAfter mentioning the employment of chloroform and ether, as before\nquoted, he adds: \"In a few cases, CURARE and MORPHIA were used.\" Now,\nthese drugs are not anaesthetics, and curare especially is only used\nwhen it is desired to keep the vivisected creature incapable of any\nmovement--no matter what degree of torment it may be suffering.  In\nhis textbook on physiology, Professor Holmgren calls curare the \"most\ncruel of poisons,\" because an animal under its influence \"it changes\ninstantly into a living corpse which hears and sees, and knows\neverything, but is unable to move a single muscle; and under its\ninfluence no creature can give the faintest indication of its hopeless\ncondition.\" Dr. Starling, the professor of physiology at University\nCollege, London, states that when an animal has had an anaesthetic\nadministered and also a dose of CURARE, if the anaesthetic passed off,\nthe animal would be unable to move, or to show any sign of suffering.\n\nNor is morphia an anaesthetic. \"So far from suppressing sensibility\ncompletely,\" says Claude Be'rnard in his lectures, \"morphine sometimes\nseems to exaggerate it.\" An animal under its influence \"FEELS THE\nPAIN, BUT HAS LOST THE IDEA OF DEFENDING HIMSELF.\"\n\nWe should have been very glad if the author had stated in his book the\nprecise experiments in which curare and morphia were employed.  We are\ntold that the number was \"few.\" But in comparison with the total\nnumber--146--how many may that phrase signify? Were there twenty?\nPossibly.  It would seem that in every case after the preliminary\nadministration of anaesthetics--the dog's throat was cut, so that\nartificial respiration could be easily maintained; \"tracheotomy was\nperformed,\" to use the scientific phraseology.  This is done when\ncurare is given, for then not the slightest movement of the tortured\nanimal can disturb the delicate instruments which are attached to it.\nWe may therefore assume that every case wherein only curare and\nmorphia were used--how many there were we do not know--implied torment\nfor the wretched victims.\n\nHuman beings are not submitted on the surgeons' table to operations of\nthis character, prolonged for hours.  If, in the interest of Science,\nsome experimenter would place himself in like condition to that of the\nanimals upon which he worked; if, under anaesthesia--complete or\nincomplete--he would permit a hand to be \"crushed,\" a nerve trunk\n\"stimulated,\" his feet placed in boiling water \"for a considerable\ntime,\" and a Bunsen's flame applied for two minutes to some part of\nhis body--we might possibly learn whether the acutest pains inflicted\ncould be absolutely suppressed.  Perhaps he would survive to tell us;\nbut the animal cannot speak.  No assurances suffice to clear our\ndoubts; assurances prove nothing.  It may be, to use the words of a\ngreat surgeon, that \"in this relation, there exists a case of cruelty\nto animals far transcending in its refinement and in its horror,\nanything that has been known in the history of nations.\"\n\nSuch are some of the reasons which induce doubt of the theory that all\nof the experiments of these vivisectors were conducted upon animals\nwholly insensible to painful impressions.  To become the victim of the\nanaesthetic delusion regarding them is to justify; and to justify is\nto share responsibility.  But this is not all.  There would seem to be\nother evidence of the most convincing character, that some of the\nanimals thus subjected for hours to the stimulation of nerves and to\nthe most frightful mutilations were not at all times in such state of\nunconsciousness as to prevent the occurrence of one most significant\nindication of pain.  It is proof to which the attention of the public,\nso far as known, has never yet been directed; and I propose to\nillustrate somewhat at length what has been done in the name of free\nand unlimited vivisection, not only during the closing years of the\npast century, but down almost to the present time.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XII\n\n                    VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY\n\nIf the reform of vivisection may only be hoped for, when the secrecy\nconcerning it shall have been dispelled, the beginning of the present\ncentury is not propitious of any changes.  Against all intrusion upon\nits rites, the physiological laboratory in England and America\nmaintains as successful an opposition as ever characterized the\nEleusinian mysteries of the pagan world.  No laboratory--so far as\nknown--dares to invite inspection at any hour, even from men of the\nhighest personal character, and leave them free to reveal or to\npublicly criticize whatever in the experiments upon animals there\nconducted seems worthy of caution or reproof.  Silence and\nconcealment, so far as the outer world is concerned--these are yet the\nstrange ideals of modern vivisection.\n\nWithin the realm of scientific literature, however, this reticence is\nnot maintained.  Experiments may be there described in terms so\nabstruse and technical, that, while clear enough to the professional\nreader, they convey little or no meaning to the man in the street.\nThere would seem to be a growing tendency to state certain facts in\ncarefully shrouded phraseology, in complete confidence that the full\nmeaning will not be discerned.  Within the past few years, therefore,\na large number of vivisections have been described in full--\nvivisections which half a century ago would have aroused the horror\nand execration of the English-speaking world--without exciting any\nvery general condemnation beyond the circle of those who ask for\nreform.  Experimentation of this kind, exhibiting the practice as it\nis carried on to-day, seems worth of a somewhat careful examination.\nIt will not be necessary to go beyond the work of a single vivisector\nwho has made his name a household word wherever experiments upon\nanimals are discussed in England or America.\n\nThe principal point toward which inquiry must be directed is the\nquestion of pain.  One reason why they have been partly condoned by\nthe public is not difficult to discover.  In language which seemed to\nhave no element of ambiguity, the experimenter apparently affirmed the\nentire absence of sensation on the part of the dogs which he and his\nassistants subjected to operations of various kinds and of an extreme\ncharacter.  It is true that, as a general rule, this affirmation was\nnot as explicit as might perhaps be desired.  He was writing for\nprofessional men only, not for the general public, and it is quite\nunlikely that any physiologist or medical reader could have been at\nany time misled in the slightest degree.  If the language used was\ncapable of more than one interpretation, if possibilities of\ninsensibility were exaggerated into definite assertions, nothing of\nthe kind was apparent to the general reader.  Glancing at the\nstatement that \"the animals were completely anaesthetized,\" his doubts\nwere abolished.  Indescribably disgusting and hideous as were some of\nthe vivisections, if they were absolutely painless, their performance\nwas a matter of taste.  Can we criticize the humaneness of one who, at\nthe butcher's bench, mutilates the body from which life has gone?\nComplete and perfect anaesthesia, maintained till death, is\npractically only premature death.  Deprived of sensibility--a\ndeprivation that is never to cease--a living creature is beyond the\ninfliction of cruelty.  But is it certain that all these various\nexperiments, made upon nearly five hundred dogs were without pain?\nReasons for doubt concerning some of them have been given.  Let us now\nlook into the question so far as concerns vivisection in its relation\nto the pressure of the blood.\n\nA little over two centuries ago the Rev. Stephen Hales, the rector of\nan obscure country parish in England, became interested in problems\npertaining to the circulation of sap in plants, and blood in the\nhigher animals.  By various experiments he discovered that the blood\nof a living animal is subject to a definite pressure, and with some\napproach to accuracy he succeeded in measuring it.  The subject seems\nto have attracted but little attention for over a century after the\ndiscovery of Hales; it was then again investigated by physiologists,\nand certain conclusions definitely reached.  Without going into the\nsubject at length, it suffices to state that this blood-pressure\nconstantly varies slightly, being somewhat influenced by every\ndisturbing condition, and probably by every physiological act.  Any\ninjury tending to lower the tone of the general system, or to induce\nthe condition of shock, tends to cause the blood-pressure to fall.  On\nthe other hand, if the animal is sensible to pain, the stimulation of\nsensory nerves, or any sharp or sudden pang, TEND TO CAUSE A RISE IN\nTHE PRESSURE OF THE BLOOD, unless the creature has become exhausted by\nthe experimentation to which it has been subjected.\n\nUpon this point the attention of the reader should be specially\ndirected.  What authorities support this conclusion? Only a few need\nbe named, for there would appear to be no difference of opinion among\nphysiologists regarding the fact.\n\nSir Thomas Lauder Brunton, one of the leading medical writers in\nEngland, in a contribution to the latest edition of the \"Encyclopaedia\nBritannica,\" tells us:\n\n\"IRRITATION OF SENSORY NERVES tends to cause contraction of the\nbloodvessels, AND TO RAISE THE BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"[1]\n\n[1] Enc. Brit., Art. \"Therapeutics,\" p. 800.\n\nDr. Isaac Ott, an American physiologist of distinction, states in a\ndescription of certain vivisections made by him:\n\n\"IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT IRRITATION OF A SENSORY NERVE causes an\nexcitation of the vasomotor centre, WHICH IS INDEXED BY A RISE OF\nPRESSURE.... As indirect irritation ALWAYS PRODUCES A RISE OF\nPRESSURE, the sensory nerves and the conductors of their impressions\nup to the (spinal) cord are not paralyzed.\"[2]\n\n[2] Ott, \"On Physiological Action of Thebain,\" pp. 11-12.\n\nDr. Leonard Hill, in an article contributed to Schafer's \"Textbook of\nPhysiology\" upon the circulation of the blood, says:\n\n\"Arterial pressure is affected reflexly BY STIMULATION OF ANY SENSORY\nNERVE IN THE BODY.... The usual result of stimulating a sensory nerve\nis A REFLEX RISE OF ARTERIAL PRESSURE.\"[3]\n\n[3] Schafer's \"Textbook of Physiology,\" vol. ii., pp. 166-167.\n\nThe writer goes on to explain that when the tone of the system in\nweakened \"after prolonged experiment OR DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF\nCHLOROFORM AND CHLORAL,\" then a fall of pressure may occur.\n\nThis phenomenon was known to physiologists many years ago.  For\ninstance, Dr. J. C. Dalton, professor of physiology at the College of\nPhysicians and Surgeons, in his well-known textbook on physiology,\nsays that the most frequent instance of reflex constriction of\narteries is that \"which follows irritation of the central extremity of\na sensitive nerve.\"\n\n\"This effect has been observed by many experimenters, and is regarded\nas nearly invariable.  Galvanization of the central extremity of the\nsciatic nerve causes general constriction of the bloodvessels\nthroughout other parts of the body, INDICATED BY INCREASED ARTERIAL\nPRESSURE.  A similar result is produced by the irritation of ... other\nsensitive nerves, or nerve roots.\"[1]\n\n[1] Dalton's \"Physiology,\" pp. 507-508.\n\nAnd, referring to another experimenter, Dr. Crile, puts the case\nclearly:\n\n\"PAIN INCREASES (BLOOD)-PRESSURE.  In four cases of trauma (injury), a\nrise of 20 to 40 was noted upon pressure upon a nerve.  Even in a\nhealthy person, pinching the integument was noted increase the\npressure.\"[2]\n\n[2] Crile \"On Blood-Pressure,\" p. 341.\n\nIt would seem unnecessary to accumulate evidence regarding a\nphysiological phenomenon so long and so firmly established.  We may\ntherefore take it for granted that in a living animal or in a human\nbeing, as a general rule, the irritation of a sensory nerve will cause\na rise of blood-pressure.\n\nLet us now suppose that an animal destined to be vivisected lies\nbefore us, \"stretched\" on the vivisection dog-board, so securely\nfastened that voluntary movement is almost impossible.  An incision\nhas been made in the neck, and in the principal artery has been\ninserted a part of a delicate instrument designed to indicate the\nfluctuations of the blood-pressure of the animal.  The sciatic nerve\nhas been laid bare; the animal is supposed to be under the influence\nof an anaaesthetic continuously administered, and if our imagination\nis vivid and our faith implicit, we may believe that no suffering will\nbe felt.  BUT HOW MAY WE BE CERTAIN? This question came up more than\nonce before the Royal Commission on Vivisection.  How can one tell\nthat an animal may not be insufficiently anaesthetized IF IT CAN MAKE\nNO SIGN, WHEN ALL THE ACTS BY WHICH IT MIGHT EVINCE ITS SUFFERING ARE\nCAREFULLY RESTRAINED? The animal which lies before us cannot move;\nevery physical movement is as far as possible totally suppressed.  It\ncannot use its voice, for the trachea is cut and otherwise used.  ARE\nTHERE NO MEANS WHEREBY WE CAN TELL WHETHER THE ANIMAL IS SUFFERING\nwhat one of the Royal Commission called \"a nightmare of suffering\"?\n\nThe answer to this question has been given by some of the leading\nphysiologists of England.\n\nDr. J. M. Langley, professor of physiology in the University of\nCambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society, gave explicit testimony on\nthis point.  His examiner was desirous of knowing upon what he would\ndepend, other than upon the dose of the anaesthetic and watchfulness,\nif in the animal he could see nothing that would satisfy him.\n\n\"There is the state of the blood-pressure, which would indicate to\nsome extent the reflexes on the vascular system,\" Professor Langley\nreplied.\n\n\"WOULD PAIN CAUSE AN INCREASE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE?\"\n\n\"IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE,\" replied the physiologist.\nOf course, he insisted upon the sufficiency of the anaesthesia, but he\nhad made the most important admission which his evidence affords.  IF\nPAIN WERE FELT, IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n\nDr. W. E. Dixon of King's College, London, representing one of the\nsections of the Royal Society of Medicine, gave evidence before the\nRoyal Commission on various matters pertaining to anaesthesia.  Dogs,\nhe asserted, \"very easily die of chloroform; but if one goes\nsufficiently slowly they never die.\" (18,677)[1]\n\n[1] Figures in parentheses refer to the questions or replies in the\nprinted evidence.\n\n\"Supposing you were giving chloroform with CURARE, then it might be\nsaid you were not giving enough chloroform.  BUT YOU CAN SEE WHETHER\nYOU ARE GIVING ENOUGH BY LOOKING AT THE BLOOD-PRESSURE.\" (18,690)\nProfessor Dixon tells us that one of the gauges used for determining\nwhether anaesthesia is present or not IS THE BLOOD-PRESSURE. \"The\nblood-pressure goes DOWN BECAUSE THE CHLOROFORM IS GIVEN.  The heart\nbeats more feebly; therefore the blood-pressure goes down.\" (18,742)\n\nAnother expert physiologist, whose testimony on this point is\nenlightening, was Dr. Eh. H. Starling, professor of physiology at\nUniversity College, London.\n\n\"Are there any means, other than the cries or struggles of the animal,\nby which you can tell whether the anaesthetic is passing off?\"\n\n\"YES, YOU CAN TELL IT BY THE BLOOD-PRESSURE,\" Dr. Starling\nreplied. \"When one is working without curare, one notices THAT THE\nPRESSURE GOES UP, and then, if one does not attend to it, after that\ncomes a little movement, AND YOU GIVE MORE ANAESTHETIC.\" (4,054)\n\nWe need not follow Professor Starling in his repeated assurances of\ncomplete anaesthesia in his vivisections; all this is merely an\nexpression of faith in the accurate and perfect working of his\ninstruments, a faith which some of the Commissioners did not share.\nWhat interests us is the statement that IF THE ANAESTHESIA IS\nIMPERFECT, THE BLOOD-PRESSURE WILL REVEAL IT. \"The pressure goes up\";\nthere is some slight motion on the part of the animal; IT FEELS, and\nthat returning sensibility to painful impressions is indicated by an\nincrease in the pressure of the blood.[1]\n\n[1] Sir Victor Horsley admitted that \"changes in the blood-pressure\"\nafford an indication whether anaesthesia is perfect or not\n(Ques. 16,057).\n\nBut how is the measurement of the blood-pressure to be ascertained?\nOne of the instruments in use is thus described:\n\n\"The pressure exerted upon the blood in the arterial system may be\nmeasured by attaching the carotid artery of a living animal to a\nreservoir of mercury, provided with an upright open tube or pressure-\ngauge.... Under pressure of the blood, the mercury rises in this tube,\nand the height of the mercurial column becomes an indication of the\npressure to which the blood itself is subjected within the artery.\nThe arterial pressure is found to be equal to the average of a column\nof mercury 150 millimetres, or 6 inches, in height.\"\n\nInstruments for ascertaining the blood-pressure in human beings record\nit merely for a moment or two.  In experimenting upon a living animal,\nan incision is made in the neck, the principal artery exposed and\nsevered, and connected with the recording instrument.\n\n\"Pain\" is a word which as a rule the modern physiologist prefers to\nexclude from his vocabulary. \"We know absolutely nothing about pain\nexcept that which we ourselves have suffered,\" says a leading\nexperimenter.  We are unable neither to see, hear, smell, taste, or\nfeel the pain of another being, and although the cries or struggles of\nan animal which is being vivisected may suggest that it is\nexperiencing intense agony, the physiologist insists that in reality\nwe know nothing about it, and we can only infer that it is\nexperiencing something which our reason suggests that we should feel\nin its place.  Of course we might say the same thing regarding agony\nundergone by another human being.  What the physiologist does is note\nthe phenomena following the stimulation of nerves, and to register it\nby appropriate instruments.\n\nTo stimulate a nerve is to excite its activity in some way.  When the\ndentist touches with his instrument the exposed nerve of a tooth,\nthere is immediate \"stimulation,\" as many of us have had reason to\nassert, even if the dentist can know nothing of our sensations, and\ncan only infer them by remembering his own.  One may stimulate the\nnerve of a vivisected animal by mechanical means, by pinching or\nscraping it when exposed; and although the movements of the animal may\nindicate an exquisite sensibility, yet other methods are more\neffective for the purposes of the experimenter. \"Electricity,\"\nProfessor Austin Flint tells us, \"is the best means we have of\nartificially exciting the nerves.  Using electricity, we can regulate\nwith exquisite nicety the degree of stimulation.  WE CAN EXCITE THE\nNERVES LONG AFTER THEY HAVE CEASED TO RESPOND TO MECHANICAL\nIRRITATION.\" A French vivisector, M. de Sine'ty, removed the breasts\nof a female guinea-pig, nursing its young, and laid bare the mammary\nnerve, and he tells us that \"the animal exhibits signs of acute pain,\nESPECIALLY WHEN THE NERVE IS STIMULATED BY AN ELECTRIC CURRENT.\"[1]\n\n[1] Gazette Me'dicale de Paris, 1879, p. 593.\n\nIn 1903 there was published in America an account of a large number of\nvivisections involving blood-pressure which a well-known experimenter\nhad made, either personally or by his assistants.  The number of dogs\nthus sacrificed was no less than 243; the experiments to which they\nwere subjected amounted to 251.  Ether alone was used in 107\nexperiments, or about 43 per cent. of the whole number; ether and\nmorphia were employed in 80 experiments, or 32 per cent. of the\ntotal.  Chloroform combined with ether was used but ONCE.  In no less\nthan 15 per cent. of the experiments no anaesthetic whatever is named,\nand CURARE was employed in nearly 10 per cent. of the investigations.\nWhy was curare used? We have seen that the professor of physiology in\nUpsaal University regards it as \"the most cruel of poisons.\" An animal\nunder its influence, Professor Holmgren tells us, \"changes instantly\ninto a living corpse, WHICH HEARS AND SEES AND KNOWS EVERYTHING, but\nis unable to move a single muscle, and under its influence no creature\ncan give the faintest indication of its hopeless condition.\" The\nFrench vivisector, Claude Be'rnard, tells us frankly that death under\nthe influence of this poison \"is accompanied by sufferings the most\natrocious that the imagination of man can conceive.\" Precisely the\nreason why this poison was employed in the investigations before us we\nhave no means of knowing by anything the vivisector has stated in his\nreport.  He tells us, indeed, that \"the animals were all reduced to\nfull surgical anaesthesia before the experiments began, a nd were\nkilled before recovery from the same.\" We see no reason for doubting\nwhy this may not have been true.  It is quite probably that as a rule\nthe preliminary cutting operations necessary were made while the\nanimal was deeply insensible.  But was this deep insensibility\nmaintained for hours? Was it so absolute that doubt is impossible?\nSince it is certain that the irritation produces a rise in blood-\npressure, was this phenomenon never witnessed during the terrible\noperations to which these dogs were subjected for hours at a time? If,\nas Professor Langley of the University of Cambridge explained, pain\n\"WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE,\" was this sign of agony ever\nevoked when the bare nerve was subjected to \"stimulation,\" or the paws\n\"slowly scorched\" one after another? Let us see.\n\nWe observe that as a rule each vivisection consisted of two\nprocedures, aside from the preliminary operation.  In the first place,\nthe normal pressure of the blood was reduced by various methods,\ncalculated to depress the vital powers of the animal, and to induce a\ncondition of collapse, and this was followed by such \"stimulation\" of\nnerves as would tend to cause the blood-pressure to rise in an animal\nnot perfectly anaesthetized.  The means taken to depress the vital\npowers were as varied as the ingenuity of the vivisectors could\ndevise.  Sometimes it was accomplished by skinning the animal alive, a\npar of the body at a time, and then roughly \"sponging\" the denuded\nsurface.  Sometimes it was secured by crushing the dog's paws, first\none and then the other.  Now and then the dog's feet were burnt, or\nthe intestines exposed and roughly manipulated; the tail was crushed,\nthe limbs amputated, the stomach cut out.  Then came the \"stimulation\"\nof the exposed nerve, carried on and repeated sometimes until Nature\nrefused longer to respond, and death came to the creature's relief.\nNo torments more exquisite were ever perpetrated unless absence of\nfeeling was completely secured.  Was it so secured? Let the\nexperimenter's own report give us the facts, remembering that if there\nwas pain, \"THE BLOOD-PRESSURE WOULD RISE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 42.  The material used was a little dog, weighing only 11\npounds.  How it was \"reduced to shock\"--whether by skinning or\ncrushing--we are not informed; all we know is that it was \"reduced to\nshock.\" The sciatic nerve was exposed, the artery in the neck laid\nbare, and the instrument for measuring the blood-pressure carefully\nadjusted.  Ether, we are told, was used.  Was all sensibility thereby\nwholly suppressed? Let us see what is revealed by the changes of the\nblood-pressure.[1]\n\n[1] In all experiments cited in this chapter the italics are not in\nthe original descriptions.\n\n\"10.30 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  SLOW RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 10.35 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 10.51 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 11.30 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\n              13 MILLIMETRES.\n 11.59 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\n              5 MILLIMETRES.\"\n\nNoon has come.  It is the hour when experimenters need their\naccustomed refreshment, and we note a long interval during which there\nwere no observations.  The victim lies stretched upon the rack.  After\nnearly two hours the pastime began again, or, we may say, \"the young\nscientists resumed their arduous labours.\"\n\n\"1.55 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  ABRUPT RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\n             17 millimetres.\n 3.3  p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF 14 MILLIMETRES.\n 4.44 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF 2 MILLIMETRES.\"\n\nThe little animal is growing weaker.  For more than six hours it has\nbeen on the rack.  The play upon its nervous system is about over. At\nfive o'clock the dog died.\n\nThe full details of this experiment do not here concern us, and are\nnot given.  Whether useful or not is another matter  Pain, said\nProfessor Langley, \"WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE.\" Did not the\nblood-pressure rise when this creature's nerve was stimulated?\n\nEXPERIMENT 114.  In this experiment four dogs were simultaneously\nvivisected.  Some of them lasted but a short time; but one--a young\ndog--was \"in splendid condition,\" and subserved the object of the\nvivisection for many hours.  The usual incisions were made in the\ntrachea and carotid artery, and the femoral vein and sciatic nerve was\nexposed.  At 10.59 a.m. the blood-pressure was found to be 125 milli-\nmetres; at 10.42 it had been reduced to 99 millimetres--by what means\nwe are not informed.  Further details are as follows:\n\n\"11.42 a.m.  Blood pressure 99 millimetres.\n 11.45 a.m.  Stimulated sciatic nerve.  PRESSURE ROSE TO 115\n               MILLIMETRES.\n 12 midday.  Blood-pressure 95.  Sciatic nerve stimulated:\n               BLOOD-PRESSURE 115.\n 12.19 p.m.  Blood-pressure 92.\n  1.23 p.m.  Blood-pressure 108; sciatic nerve stimulated.\n  1.26 p.m.  Blood-pressure 110; three minutes later.\"\n\nBetween 1.29 p.m. and 2.19 p.m. there is no record of any\nobservations.  Perhaps we may venture the hypothesis that during this\nperiod of nearly an hour's duration, the young experimenters went out\nto luncheon.  The dog, while stretched upon the rack, could have had\nno other refreshment than cessation from the stimulation of its\nnerves.\n\nBut after about an hour's intermission the young vivisectors would\nseem again to have begun their observations concerning the effect\nproduced by stimulating the sciatic nerve.  What was that effect? It\nappears to have been very uniform.\n\n\"2.28 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  ABRUPT RISE AND FALL IN\n              BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 3.32 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE AND FALL IN\n              BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 4.16 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE TO 120,\n              FALLING TO 105.\n 4.34 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  ABRUPT RISE AND FALL OF\n              BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 4.53 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  THE USUAL RISE AND FALL\n              FOLLOWED.\"\n\nDo we find in the last observation an indication of a growing distaste\nfor such work? One cannot tell.  Between 5.49 p.m. and 6.36 p.m. there\nare no observations recorded.  Perhaps this period of forty-seven\nminutes--three-quarters of an hour--were devoted by the young\nvivisectors to the conviviality of their evening repast.  Then the\nusual observations were renewed.  But at 7.10 p.m., while again\n\"stimulating the sciatic nerve,\" suddenly the dog's heart stopped.  At\n7.12 p.m. \"the dog died.\" During a period from eleven o'clock in the\nforenoon until after seven o'clock in the evening--EIGHT HOURS AND\nTHIRTEEN MINUTES--the little animal had been stretched upon the rack.\nIts \"splendid condition\" had enabled it to survive the tortures to\nwhich its three less vigorous companions in martyrdom had long before\nsuccumbed, and had made it possible for many hours to play upon\nexquisite sensibility.\n\n\"PAIN,\" said Professor Langley to the Royal Commissioners, :WOULD\nCAUSE A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nWAS THERE NOT REPEATEDLY A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE IN THIS EXPERIMENT?\nWe call attention to no other details.\n\nLet us study these vivisections further.  When animals were subjected\nto injuries calculated to make the strongest impression uppon their\nsensibility, was not the response A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE?\n\nEXPERIMENT 38.  A small female spaniel, weighing about 13 pounds.\nEther is said to have been used for anaesthesia.\n\n\"12.54 p.m.  Blood-pressure 98 millimetres.\n  1.11 p.m.  HIND-FOOT BURNED.  THE BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE RAPIDLY TO 118\n               MILLIMETRES.  A slow fall followed.\n  1.42 p.m.  THE FOOT WAS BURNED.  A SHARP RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE\n               FOLLOWED.\"\n\nThe dog died of heart failure, after an experience of nearly five\nhours in the hands of the vivisectors.\n\nEXPERIMENT 73.  A dog, weighing about 15 pounds.  Morphia and ether\nsaid to have been used.  Did they prevent sensation under such\n\"stimulation\" as follows:\n\n\"APPLICATION OF THE BUNSEN FLAME TO THE FOOT FOR FOUR SECONDS WAS\nFOLLOWED BY A DECIDED RISE IN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE.... The blood-\npressure was maintained higher BY REPEATED BURNINGS.\" These are the\nfinal words of the report of this experiment.  We do not know when the\ndog died, nor to how many burnings he was subjected.\n\nThe use of fire as a method of \"STIMULATION\" of nerves seems to have\nbeen very attractive.  For example:\n\nEXPERIMENT 74.  Dog. \"GRADUAL BURNING OF THE LEFT HIND-FOOT PRODUCED A\nVERY MARKED RISE (of blood-pressure).  THE RISE WAS MAINTAINED BY\nSLOWLY SCORCHING THE PAWS.  AFTER THE EFFECT BEGAN TO WEAR OUT IN ONE\nPAW, ANOTHER WAS STIMULATED IN A SIMILAR MANNER, SO THAT THE BLOOD-\nPRESSURE WAS MAINTAINED FOR TWENTY MINUTES.\"\n\nOf what possible value was such an experiment? Does any one believe\nthat in a human being blood-pressure will ever be maintained by slowly\nscorching the hands and feet of the patient?\n\nEXPERIMENT 75.  Small dog, weighing about 13 pounds.  Morphia and\nether said to have been used.  During this experiment the intestines\nwere exposed and manipulated, and the foot and tail \"CRUSHED.\" \"THE\nLEFT HIND-FOOT WAS BURNED; A RISE IN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE FOLLOWED.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 96.  Dog.  NO ANAESTHETIC MENTIONED.  Artificial\nrespiration. \"BURNING HIND-PAW PRODUCED A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\nAfter administration of CURARE, there was another \"BURNING OF THE\nPAW,\" the blood-pressure did not respond, and shortly after, the dog\ndied.\n\nEXPERIMENT 95.  Dog, in good condition.  NO ANAESTHETIC MENTIONED.\nIntegument removed from three-fourths of the body. \"BURNING OF THE\nHIND-PAW.  ABRUPT RISE (of blood-pressure), 55 MILLIMETRES, then an\nequal fall.  The denuded surfaces were roughly sponged for a\nconsiderable time.\" Then CURARE was given, and artificial respiration\nfollowed.\n\nEXPERIMENT 46.  Mongrel; good condition.  An excessive amount of ether\ngiven at beginning; artificial respiration became necessary.\nExtensive operations were made, such as crushing the paws, breaking\nthe legs, and manipulating the nerve trunks.  These were followed by A\nRISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n\nEXPERIMENT 104.  NO ANAESTHETIC NAMED.  Dog.\n\n\"11.26 a.m.  Animal reduced to surgical shock by skinning and\n               mechanically irritating the raw surface.\n 11.36 a.m.  CURARE given.\n 11.58 a.m.  Electrical stimulation of sciatic (nerve).  RISE OF\n               BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n 12.48 p.m.  Sciatic nerve stimulated.  RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n  1.12 p.m.  Electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve cause A RISE ...\n               IN BLOOD PRESSURE.\n  2.40 p.m.  Animal died.\"\n\nWhen Dr. Francis Gotch, F.R.S., the professor of physiology in the\nUniversity of Oxford, was examined before the late Royal Commission\non Vivisection, he testified that under curare an animal could not\neven blink an eye, so complete is the immobility produced by this\ndrug.  Yet to the eye of the experimenter would there not be something\nto tell him whether or not the animal was feeling pain?\n\n\"I should say so,\" replied the physiologist--\"in the alternations of\nblood-pressure.\"\n\n\"IT IS A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE, is it not?\" inquired one of the\nCommissioners.\n\n\"YES,\" was the physiologist's curt reply.\n\n\"But it would be diminished if the animal was absolutely\nanaesthetized?\"\n\n\"YES,\" was the reply of Dr. Gotch.\n\n\"Is a change in blood-pressure the only mode by which you can\nobjectively determine whether the animal is conscious, or suffering\npain, if under the influence of curare?\" somewhat later, he\nphysiologist was asked.\n\n\"I suggest that THAT IS ONE OBVIOUS WAY.\"\n\nLet us turn again to the experiment just quoted.  No anaesthetic is\nmentioned.  Curare was administered, the sole effect of which is to\nrender the living animal as motionless as a corpse.  Three times the\ngreta nerve was electrically \"stimulated,\" and each time there was\nthat RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE which we are told upon the highest\nauthority was the \"ONE OBVIOUS WAY\" of determining the presence of\npain.\n\nKeeping in mind this testimony of the professors of physiology at the\nUniversities of Oxford, of Cambridge, and of London, that if pain were\npresent during a vivisection IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF THE BLOOD-\nPRESSURE, let us now examine a little more carefully some of the\nexperiments referred to in the volume reviewed in the previous\nchapter.  We have had assurances of their painlessness.  But to the\nscientific man assurances are of little value as compared with the\ntestimony of the instrument.  Were any of these experiments associated\nwith a \"RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE\"? It is unnecessary to study them in\ntheir relation to other phenomena.  In the early \"stimulations of a\nnerve trunk, a rise in blood-pressure was always produced\"; but after\na number of repetitions the time came when no effect was produced, or\nthe pressure fell; the point of exhaustion had been reached.  But let\nus note what the instrument recorded.  The italics are ours.\n\nEXPERIMENT 5. \"Under incomplete anaesthesia, CRUSHING OF FOOT CAUSED A\nVERY SHARP RISE, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure.\nThis was repeated several times.\" (The author also tells us that\n\"under full anaesthesia, crushing of the paws\" caused a rise.  One may\nquestion the completeness of the insensibility.)\n\nEXPERIMENT 8.  Fox terrier, two years old; ether.... CRUSHING OF THE\nPAW WAS ATTENDED BY IMMEDIATE RISE..... Crushing of the fore-leg WAS\nATTENDED BY A RISE.... Crushing of the foot, ATTENDED BY A RISE.\nCutting skin of thigh and leg was ATTENDED BY A RISE.\n\nEXPERIMENT 9. \"CRUSHING OF THE PAW WAS FOLLOWED BY A RISE, and\ncontinual cutting and crushing of the paw BY A STILL FURTHER RISE OF\nPRESSURE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 17.  Several loops of intestines were withdrawn and placed\nIN BOILING WATER, ATTENDED BY A RAPID RISE of the blood-pressure,\nfollowed soon by a fall.\n\nEXPERIMENT 28.  Hip-joint amputation made on both sides caused a rise\nin pressure.  GRASPING SCIATIC NERVE WITH FORCEPS and MAKING TRACTION\n(pulling upon the nerve) CAUSED A RISE.\n\nEXPERIMENT 36.  Small white dog.... HOT WATER introduced into\nabdominal cavity PRODUCED A RISE.\n\nEXPERIMENT 59.  Spaniel, female; weight only 13 pounds.  It has \"been\nnursing its puppies,\" and is very cross.  Duration of experiment, one\nand a half hours.  Manipulation of ovaries caused slight RISE OF\nBLOOD-PRESSURE.\n\nEXPREIMENT 76.  Dog.  Among other procedures, the vivisectors \"APPLIED\nA LARGE GAS-FLAME to the posterior extremities in the region of the\nknee; a slight rise.  Repeated the application for a longer time;\nslight rise.... APPLICATION OF A BUNSEN FLAME TO THE NOSE, PRODUCING A\nSLIGHT RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 82.  A small female dog; weight oly 9 pounds.  Time of\nexperiment, one hour and fifty-five minutes. \"One-third of a grain of\nCURARE and one-twelfth of a grain of morphia were injected into the\njugular vein.\" After various manipulations, there was \"APPLICATION OF\nBUNSEN'S FLAME TO THE RIGHT HIND-FOOT,\" causing \"AN APPRECIABLE RISE\nIN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 87.  Dog.  Time of experiment, two hours and forty-five\nminutes.  \"Injected CURARE and morphine into the jugular vein;\nartificial respiration maintained.... The sciatic nerve was exposed\nand stimulated by a faradic current.  A SHARP INCREASE IN\nBLOOD-PRESSURE during the period of stimulation was noted.\"[1]\n\n[1] Concerning the rise of blood-pressure as the sign of an animal's\nsensibility to painful impressions, when under the influence of\nCURARE, see testimony of Professor Gotch of Oxford University, quoted\non a preceding page.\n\nEXPERIMENT 94. \"Electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve produced\nMARKED INCREASE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... Application of Bunsen's flame to\nthe foot; RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... REPEATED APPLICATION OF BUNSEN'S\nFLAME FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MINUTES PRODUCED DECIDED RISE IN BLOOD-\nPRESSURE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 95. \"Application of Bunsen's flame to the paw produced but\nslight rise.... Bunsen's flame applied to the foot, CAUSING RISE IN\nBOTH PRESSURES.... Application of BUNSEN'S FLAME NOW PRODUCED A SHARP\nRISE IN THE PRESSURES.\" Then the blood-pressure fell, and though the\nvivisector applied flame to the intestines, it produced no effect so\nfar as the blood-pressure was concerned.\n\nEXPERIMENT 97. \"Application of A BUNSEN'S FLAME PRODUCED THE\nCHARACTERISTIC INCREASE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... Stimulation of the\nsciatic nerve by the faradic current produced an INCREASE IN BLOOD-\nPRESSURE.... Repetition of the stimulus produced A FURTHER RISE IN\nBLOOD-PRESSURE....\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 110. \"Application of Bunsen's flame PRODUCED A SHARP\nRISE....\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 113. \"Bunsen's flame applied to the posterior and anterior\nextremities PRODUCED A MARKED RISE IN PRESSURE.... BUNSEN'S FLAME OVER\nREGION OF THE HEART PRODUCED A GRADUAL RISE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 131. \"Bunsen's flame to the right hind-foot was followed by\nA RATHER MARKED RISE IN CENTRAL BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 132. \"BUNSEN'S FLAME TO THE NOSE CAUSED A GENERAL RISE IN\nBLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nIn the year 1900 the same vivisector published an account of certain\nexperiments on the respiratory system, 102 in all.  We have the usual\nassurances of anaesthesia, which, of course, can only be regarded as\nthe operator's opinion.  Fire is an element of some of these\nexperiments.  We are told that \"a large blow-flame burner used for\nglass-blowing supplied a flame that could be adjusted to a very great\nrange of intensity.\" Of this statemnet one can have no doubt upon\nreading some of the experiments described.  Upon \"a healthy little\npoodle,\" weighing only ten pounds, with a blood-pressure of 120\nmillimetres, the following experiment was made:\n\n\"The mouth was held wide open, and THE BLOW-FLAME DIRECTED INTO THE\nPHARYNX AND RESPIRATORY TRACT.  The immediate effect upon the blood-\npressure was A TEMPORARY RISE.  Again the flame was applied; THE\nBLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE TO 204 MILLIMETRES, CONTINUING AT THIS HIGH RATE\nFOR SOME TIME.\"\n\nProbably this little creature was the pet of some child.  From whose\ndoor, one day, did it wander, to be snatched up by some thief, sold to\na laboratory, and sent to a death like this?\n\nIn another experiment a Newfoundland dog \"CONTINUOUSLY BREATHED THE\nFLAME FOR TWELVE MINUTES.\" In a similar experiment that followed, \"the\nresults were practically identical.  In this case THE FLAME WAS SO\nINTENSE AS TO MELT THE ADIPOSE TISSUE AROUND THE TRACHEA.\" The animal\nwas broiled alive.\n\nDuring the first year of the twentieth century the same writer\npresented the public an account of an \"Experimental and Clinical\nResearch into Certain Problems,\" a work containing a considerable\nnumber of experiments of a nature similar to those before published.\nWe are again told that in all cases \"the animals were anaesthetized,\nusually by ether, occasionally by chloroform,\" alone or combined with\nother substances, although, in a few cases, \"CURARE and morphine were\nused\"--neither of which is an anaesthetic.  A curious statement seems\nto imply a confession that all these experiments were not absolutely\npainless, for the writer says:\n\n\"Every precaution was taken to inflict AS LITTLE PAIN OR DISTRESS AS\nPOSSIBLE.\"\n\nIs not this an admission that in some experiments there was pain? How\nsenseless is such statement! When Ridley and Latimer were burnt alive\nat Oxford, the executioner might have protested with equal assurance\nthat \"every precaution was taken to burn the condemned with as little\npain and distress as possible.\"\n\nBetween the experiments recorded in this volume and those which have\nbeen reviewed, there is no very great difference.  There is a rise of\nblood-pressure after any mutilation or stimulation calculated to cause\npain, except in the few cases where a sufficiency of the anaesthetic\nappears to have been given; to these attention will be called.  A new\nprocedure seems to have been the use of the injection of a hot salt\nsolution into the blood.  Some of the results of experiments were as\nfollows:\n\nEXPERIMENT 12. \"Burning right hind-foot caused a slight RISE IN BLOOD-\nPRESSURE.\n\n\"Ten minims (drops) of chloroform on inhaler produced a DECIDED FALL\nin blood-pressure.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 56. \"Dog.  Hind-foot burned, FOLLOWED BY A RISE IN BLOOD-\nPRESSURE.... Burning the nose caused A VERY MARKED RISE in\nblood-pressure.  The animal, after the injection of cocaine, WAS NOT\nUNDER FULL ETHER ANAESTHESIA, CUNJUNCTIVAL REFLEX BEING PRESENT.\"\n\nEXPERIMENT 27. \"Dog.  Ether anaesthesia.  Hind-foot was burned,\nproducing A SHARP RISE in the blood-pressure.\n\n\"Right paw again burned, and ARTERIAL PRESSURE ROSE.... Animal\nsubjected to FURTHER BURNING, which was followed by ADDITIONAL SLIGHT\nRISE IN PRESSURE.\"\n\nA considerable number of experiments involved the adding of hot salt\nsolution to the blood.\n\nEXPERIMENT 34.  Dog, in good condition.  Saline solution in jugular\nvein.... In this and in preceding experiments with the hot saline, the\nanimal, THOUGH UNDER SURGICAL ANAESTHESIA, STRUGGLED.\n\nThat shows the worth of the \"surgical anaesthesia.\" When Professor\nStarling was asked how he might know that the anaesthesia was passing\noff, he told the Royal Commission that it was by noting the SLIGHT\nMOVEMNET of the the animal, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RISE OF BLOOD-\nPRESSURE.[1] Scalding water in the blood seems to have given both of\nthese signs:\n\n[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 4,054.\n\nEXPERIMENT 11.  At 3.35 saline at 64 degrees C. (this is 147 degrees\nF.).  THE DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT.  The blood-pressure ROSE MARKEDLY.\n 3.45.  Saline in jugular vein.  Slight fall, then a quite ABRUPT RISE\nin blood-pressure.... THE DOG AGAIN STRUGGLED VIGOROUSLY.\n 3.48.  Saline at 60 degrees C. (140 degrees F.).  Slight RISE in\nblood-pressure.  DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT.\n 3.54.  Saline at 60 degrees C.  An immediate RISE in blood-pressure.\n 4.12.  One-half drachm of chloroform on inhaler.\n 4.13. MARKED FALL in blood-pressure.\n 4.13. CHLOROFORM TAKEN AWAY.  BLOOD-PRESSURE IMMEDIATELY AROSE to\nprevious level.\n\nEXPERIMENT 32.  A few drops of chloroform were given instead of ether,\nthe BLOOD-PRESSURE FALLING immediately.... After a few minutes,\nseveral drops of chloroform were again administered, a marked FALL (of\nblood-pressure) following.\n  One-half drachm of chloroform given, PRODUCING A GRADUAL FALL IN\nBLOOD-PRESSURE.  On removing the chloroform, the blood-pressure\nrecovered.\n  At 5.30, saline stopped.  Eye reflex not gone.  At 5.36 THE\nANAESTHESIA REMOVED.  SLIGHT RISE in blood-pressure.  REFLEXES NOT\nABOLISHED.\n\nDoes all this seem obscure to the reader? At all events, he can see\nthat the effect of even a \"few drops of chloroform\" is a fall of the\nblood-pressure, and that when the \"anaesthesia is removed\" there comes\nthe rise which is so constantly associated with sensibility.\n\nSome of the experiments related to the effect of cocaine in \"blocking\"\nsensation.  These effects have long been known; the necessity of all\nthis burning of flesh is not apparent.\n\nIn another experiment, a large dog was reduced to \"surgicla\nanaesthesia,\" and both sciatic nerves exposed.  In one nerve cocaine\nwas inject, in the other salt solution.\n\nThe cocaine paw was subjected to burning by a Bunsen flame, UNTIL THE\nPAW WAS CHARRED.  There was no effect on the blood-pressure.  But on\napplying the Bunsen flame to the other paw, \"THERE WAS A DELIBERATE\nDRAWING UP OF THE LEG, AS IF TO REMOVE THE PAW FROM THE FLAME.\" The\nwriter tells us elsewhere that \"under general anaesthesia--no matter\nhow deep--if the paw of an animal is subjected to the flame of a\nBunsen's burner, after the lapse of a short time, the leg is drawn up\n... in a deliberate but rather forceful manner, removing the foot from\nthe flame.\" When cocain is injected into a nerve trunk, we are told\nthat an effectual physiologic \"block\" is produced.  The difference is\nmanifest.  Yet the vivisector would have us believe that in all cases\nof his \"anaesthesia\" the dog is unconscious.  May it not be rather\nthat there are phases of agony so great that the anaesthesia of the\nlaboratory does not suppress them? Is this a matter of uncertainty?\nThen why not permit the vivisected dog to have the benefit of the\ndoubt?\n\nHere is a most significant experiment:\n\nEXPERIMENT 17. \"... The animal was allowed to come out of the\ninfluence of the general anaesthesic sufficient (sic) to make a slight\nstruggle.... THE FEET WERE BURNED just previous to the application of\ncocaine, and ... BLOOD-PRESSURE WAS INCREASED.  More cocaine was then\napplied; THE ANIMAL BECAME TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, THE CORNEAL REFLEXES\nWERE ABOLISHED, and on applying a Bunsen flame to the paws, NO EFFECT\nWAS PRODUCED.\"\n\nHere we have an instance of a dog allowed to come out of the influence\nof the anaesthetic and to struggle; the feet burned; and finally, such\na degree of total anaesthetization as to prevent the usual phenomena.\nBut why are we told that \"the animal became TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, and\nthat the corneal reflexes were abolished\"? Is it a confession that in\nother experiments such a state of deep insensibility was not\ninvariably produced?\n\nWhat is the necessity for all this burning? The smell of scorched and\ncharred living flesh may have hung as heavily in the laboratory of the\nhospital as before the altars of Baal; it could hardly have been an\nattractive savour.  Here are other instances:\n\nEXPERIMENT 62. \"Dog, in good condition; fox-terrier.  As a control,\nTHE RIGHT HIND-FOOT WAS BURNED BEFORE THE CONJUNCTIVAL REFLEX WAS\nABOLISHED.  There was RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\n\nHere, then, was sensation; the eye responded to the touch.\n\nEXPERIMENT 72.  Dog; weight 12 pounds.  (Spinal) cord exposed.\n  5.5.  Burning foot was followed BY RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.\n  5.10. BURNING FOOT.  \"A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE FOLLOWED.\"\n  Cocaine was then injected, and burning of paws \"produced no effect.\"\nThere was a difference in the phenomena produced.\n\nIn the year 1909 the same vivisector published stll another volume\nrecording experiments upon haemorrhage and the transfusion of blood.\nTo many of these experiments we should take no exception on the ground\nof inutility or excessive production of pain.  Others, however, are to\nbe criticized, particularly when studied in connection with the claim\nput forth of complete absence of animal sensation.  In his\nintroduction the experimenter seems to assert in the most distinct and\nemphatic way the complete unconsciousness of each victim.  He says:\n\n\"No experiment was performed in which the particular animal used was\nnot reduced to complete insensibility by means of ether, or some other\nequally efficient anaesthetic.  If the statement is made that the\nanaesthetic was stopped during an experiment, it does not mean that\nthe animal could suffer pain, but that death was threatened from too\nmuch anaesthetic, more being given as soon as signs of revival were\nshown.  In every experiment in which necessary mutilation was\nperformed, the animal was killed before coming out of the anaesthetic;\ntherefore absolutely no suffering was undergone.  Very few recovery\nexperiments were performed, no more than were necessary to prove a\ngiven fact.\"\n\nWhat is the scientific value of this assurance--that \"absolutely no\nsuffering was undergone\"?\n\nIt can have no value, except as an opinion on the part of one\nextremely interested in the maintenance of a particular view.  So far\nfrom being a series of painless experiments, we do not hesitate to\nsuggest that IF RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE BE A SIGN OF PAIN, then, in all\nprobability many of them involed torments as exquisite as it is\npossible to imagine.\n\nTake, for example, the folloowing vivisections:\n\nEXPERIMENT 10.  The subject was a dog, said to be in a good\ncondition.  From time to time blood was abstracted from the body.\n 4.26.  ON BURNING A PAW UNDER LIGHT ANAESTHESIA, THERE WAS A RISE OF\n          PRESSURE OF 16 MILLIMETRES.\n10.16.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE.\n11.13.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of\n          13 millimetres.\n 1.42.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of\n          13 millimetres.\n\nEXPERIMENT 33. \"ON BURNING A PAW UNDER LIGHT ANAESTHESIA, THERE WAS A\nRISE OF PRESSURE OF 19 MILLIMETRES.\"\n\nWhat is \"LIGHT anaesthesia\"?\n\nIt is a condition which a few drops of chloroform will produce; a\nstate in which the loss of consciousness is so slight that any pain\nmay be as keenly felt as if no stupefying agent had been given.  What\nare we to think of a statemnet that in a condition of such light\nslumber the keenest of pains--THE BURNING OF LIVING FLESH--INVOLVED NO\nSUFFERING? How can one speak with authority on a matter like this\nagainst the evidence of the \"one obvious sign\" of sensibility? When\nthe paws of the miserable animal were burned, was there not the rise\nof blood-pressure which indicated suffering? \"Pain would cause a rise\nof blood-pressure,\" said the professor of physiology of the University\nof Cambridge.  Should we find the significant rise of the\nblood-pressure in other experiments where fire was used for the\n\"stimulation\" of the nerves? Let us see.\n\nEXPERIMENT  2. \"On burning a paw, there was a RISE OF PRESSURE OF 10\n               millimetres.  Stimulation of sciatic nerve resulted in\n               A RISE of systolic pressure.\"\nEXPERIMENT  4. \"11.45.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE.\n               \" 1.27.  Sciatic nerve stimulated; RISE OF\n               BLOOD-PRESSURE.\"\nEXPERIMENT  6. \"Burned a paw.  A RISE OF PRESSURE of 4 millimetres\n                resulted.\"\nEXPERIMENT 12. \"On burning a paw, there was a RISE OF PRESSURE of 16\n                millimetres.\"\nEXPERIMENT 14. \"On burning a paw, A RISE OF 12 MILLIMETRES, followed\n               by a temporary fall, and then a rise to a higher level.\n               \"On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\n               OF 2 MILLIMETRES.\"\nEXPERIMENT 15. \"11.12.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE\n               OF 8 MILLIMETRES.\n               \"11.36.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE\n               OF 12 MILLIMETRES.\"\nEXPERIMENT 16. \"Dog.  Condition good.\n               \"11.22.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE\n               OF 22 MILLIMETRES.\n               \"11.33.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF 29\n               MILLIMETRES.\n               \"11.44.  Contrl.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF\n               24 MILLIMETRES.\n               \"12.26.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE\n               OF 8 MILLIMETRES.\n               \"12.35.  On burning a paw, there was A STEADY RISE OF\n               PRESSURE.\"\nEXPERIMENT 22. \"Dog.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE IN PRESSURE\n               OF 36 MILLIMETRES.\"\nEXPERIMENT 24. \"On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\n               OF 12 MILLIMETRES.\n               \"12.19.  On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE\n               OF 18 MILLIMETRES.\"\nEXPERIMENT 29. \"2.13.  Blood-pressure 43.  On burning a paw it rose 12\n               millimetres.\n               \"2.30.  On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF BLOOD-\n               PRESSURE.\"\n               \"3.6. On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF BLOOD-\n               PRESSURE.\"\nEXPERIMENT 31. \"3.35.  On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF PRESSURE.\n               \"4.14.  On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF\n               PRESSURE.\"\n\nThe foregoing experiments are not quoted in full; in many of them, at\nintervals, the animals were bled; and these observations of the\neffects of \"burning a paw\" were incidental to others.  BUT WHY ALL\nTHIS BURNING AND STIMULATION TO PROVE A PHENOMENON SO UNIFORM?\n\nOne exceptional experiment must not be overlooked.  On one occasion\ntwo dogs were vivisected at the same time.  At the outset a paw of\neach dog was burned, causing A RISE of blood-pressure in each case.  A\nlittle later the sciatic nerve was stimulated:\n\n\"11.25.  On stimulating the sciatic nerves of each dog, Dog A showed a\nrising and falling pressure, and Dog B (MORE ETHER WAS GIVEN JUST\nTHEN) showed an initial FALL, and a rise, with a sudden second FALL\nand a rise.\n\n\"11.32.  BOTH DOGS WERE DEEPLY ANAESTHETIZED.  Dog A: Stimulation\nPRODUCED NO EFFECT.  Dog B: On stimulating the sciatic nerve, there\nwas A FALL OF (BLOOD)-PRESSURE, WITH SLOW RECOVERY.\"\n\nHere we have recorded by the experimenter himself the difference in\nthe effect of stimulation of nerves in an animal \"deeply\nanaesthetized\" and the results produced when the anaesthesia was\nlight.\n\nIt has seemed necessary to examine at some length these peculiar\nexperiments.  The volumes describing them are not easily to be seen;\nsome appear to be out of print; even Sir Victor Horsley; in whose\nlaboratory in London some of the experiments were performed, confessed\nthat he did not know about the vivisections made in the United\nStates--whether or not they differed from those performed in England.\nIn the vast number of these vivisections, so far beyond anything\npreviously reported in our country by a single experimenters; in the\ningenuity and variety of the mutilations to which the victims were\nsubjected--mutilations and stimulations calculated to cause the\nextremest agony, unless the anaesthesia was perfect; in the seeming\naffirmation of absolute insensibility of the wretched animals,\nalthough contradicted by the only sign of suffering that in some cases\ncould possibly be seen; in the apparent uselessness of experiments,\nrepeated again and again simply to elicit precisely the same\nphenomena; above all, in the absence from criticism which some of\nthese \"investigations\" have managed to secure--all this constitutes a\nclaim for especial consideration.  There can be little doubt that they\nmerely illustrate what goes on to-day, in many a laboratory in the\nUnited States, in secret--as these were made in secret--and untouched\nby the criticism of the outer world.\n\nOf the absolute uselessness of the vast majority of these experiments\nmuch might be said, but it is aside from this inquiry.  The question\nof utility is not here raised.  The one matter of inquiry is the\nexistence of pain.\n\nIf a vast number of the experiments recorded may have involved the\nkeenest agony of the victims, how are we to explain the repeated\nassertions that sensation was absolutely removed? Among\nantivivisectionists there are those who belive that any human being\nwho could thus subject animals to torment would not find it impossible\nto deny the fact.  Such explanation implies an inveracity which it is\nnot necessary to impute.  Mankind is still liable to error; the false\ndeductions of honest men have more than once led to mistaken\naffirmations of facts; and the most illustrious scientist that ever\nlived can hardly claim infallibility in matters of opinion.  A\ndistinguished philosopher and vivisector of three hundred years ago,\nRene Descartes, put forth the theory that animals, being without\nsouls, cannot suffer pain, and that their cries under vivisection were\nsimply as the whirring of wheels in an intricate piece of machinery.\nWe can easily imagine a modern follower of Descartes declaring, as the\nphilosopher would have done, that \"NO SUFFERING WAS FELT.\" A professor\nof physiology in Harvard Medical School, in course of an address\nbefore a State medical society, laid down the theory that \"it is\nENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to draw conclusions with regard to the sensations\nof animals by an effort to imagine what our own would be under similar\ncircumstances\"; and when a vivisector has reached the stage where he\ncan hold that belief, he may define pain as something pertaining only\nto human beings, and feel himself justified in declaring that\n\"VIVISECTION OF ANIMALS NEVER CAUSES PAIN,\" according to his\ndefinition of the word.  It is well for the world that with this\ntheory the vast majority of thinking men and women have no sympathy\nwhatever.  The organized efforts for the protection of animals from\ncruelty have no meaning if animals are without capacity for that\nanguish which cruelty implies.  We believe, on the contrary, that\nmany, if not all, of the higher species of animals, especially those\nnearest to man in structure and intelligence, receive, when subjected\nto the torment of fire or steel, precisely the same sensations that,\nunder a like infliction, a human being would suffer.  At any rate, if\ndoubt be possible, should they not have the benefit of it?\n\nIf one were asked whether he surely could demonstrate the emotions of\nany animal made incapable of movement, fixed immovably as in a vice,\nand subjected to the stimulation of fire, he might confess that\ninference and not proof was all he could offer.  But if one goes\nfarther, and inquires whether in any of the experiments recorded in\nthis chapter there was evoked any sign of sensibility which delicate\ninstruments could detect and record, then, assuredly, we are on safe\nground.  With startling uniformity we find recorded by the\nexperimenters themselves the fluctuations of blood-pressure following\nthe stimulation of exposed nerves, the crushing of pawes, the burning\nof the feet, the scalding with boiling water, and other mutilations.\nWhat is their significance? If, as Sir Lauder Brunton tells us, \"the\nirritation of sensory nerves tends to cause contraction of blood-\nvessels AND TO RAISE THE BLOOD-PRESSURE\"; if, as Straus affirms, \"PAIN\nINCREASES BLOOD-PRESSURE,\" so that in a healthy person the pressure is\nincreased even by pinching of the skin; if, as the physiologist Dalton\ndeclares, the irritation of any of the sensitive nerves induces a\nconstriction of bloodvessels indicated by icreased arterial pressure;\nif the professor of physiology at University College, London, being\nasked if there were any means, other than the cries or struggles of an\nanimal, by which one could tell if the anaesthesia of an animal was\npassing off, answered with scientific accuracy when he replied, \"YAou\ncan tell by the blood-pressure,\" adding that when sensibility was\nreturning \"THE PRESSURE GOES UP\"; if it be true, as Professor Dixon,\nof King's College, London, told the Royal Commissioners, \"you can see\nwhether you are giving enough (of the anaesthetic) BY LOOKING AT THE\nBLOOD-PRESSURE\"; if the professor of physiology at Oxford was correct\nin stating that \"A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\" would tell an experimenter\nwhether or not an animal undergoing vivisection was feeling pain, even\nthough curare had rendered it so helpless that it could not even wink\nan eye, and that this rise of blood-pressure was the \"ONE OBVIOUS WAY\"\nof determining such sensibility; if we may depend upon the evidence of\nthe professor of physiology at the University of Cambridge, that \"PAIN\nWOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE\"; if the agreement of all these\nscientific authorities concerning the rise of blood-pressure as an\nindication of pain or returning sensibility can be accepted as\nscientific truth--then may we not be sure that all of the living\nanimals whose vivisection we have here reviewed, in whose bodies, by\nfire and steel and every phase of mutilation, there was so constantly\nelicited this RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE, cannot be said to have attained\na painless death? \"A man about to be burned under a railway car begs\nsomebody to kill him, yet iti s a statemnet to be taken literally,\nthat a brief death by burning would be considered a happy release by a\nhuman being undergoing the experiences of some of the animals that\nslowly die in a laboratory.\" So wrote Dr. Bigelow of Harvard\nUniversity, the most eminent surgeon that New England has yet\nproduced; and were he living to-day, it is not improbable that he\nwould point to some of the experiments here reviewed as examples of\nthe vivisections he intended to condemn.  It may be that although the\npresent generation be indifferent, posterity will not condone, and\nthat one day it will hold up some of the experiments of the twentieth\ncentury as involving the most prolonged, the most useless, the most\nterrible, the most cruel torments, that the annals of animal\nvivisection have ever supplied.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XIII\n\n                WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM?\n\nEvery reflecting man must recognize that the settlement of the\nvivisection question is a problem that must find its solution at some\nperiod in future rather than to-day.  But the duty of the hour remains\nthe same.  Admitting the existence of the wrong, what can we do to\npromote reform? What should we ask with the hope that popular judgment\nwill gradually come to approve? How may we be faithful to that ideal\nof justice toward our inferior brethren, which underlies all\nhumanitarian effort, and lack nothing in fidelity to Science to whose\nachievements we reverently look for the amelioration of the human\nrace? There are those who would oppose the slightest use of animals\nfor any scientific purpose whatever.  There are others who would grant\nto the vivisector the secrecy and silence, the complete\nirresponsibility and unbounded freedom which he demands as his right.\nThere are those to whom a middle course seems the only one leading to\nultimate reform.  What is the most reasonable attitude toward the\nlaboratory and its claims possible to an honest and clear-minded\ninvestigator who is anxious to protect all living creatures from cruel\nacts, and equally concerned in the conservation of every legitimate\nprivilege which Science can claim?\n\nSuch a man stands, let us say, before some great biological\nlaboratory, richly endowed, slendidly equipped, and in the present\nenjoyment of freedom that is without bounds, and in a secrecy that\nto-day is as complete as can be imagined.  What can he learn with\ncertainty of what goes on within? If he hears claims of superlative\ngains by the experiments there carried on, how is he to weigh and\ndecide their value? If there is cruelty behind those barred doors, how\nis he to prevent its constant recurrence? What, in short, should be\nthe reasonable attitude of every intelligent man or woman anxious to\nknow the truth and to promote reform of abuse?\n\nFor many years I have insisted upon the necessity for a certain degree\nof scepticism regarding every claim put forth by the laboratory,\nunsupported by convincing proofs.  We may judge the future by the\npast.  Has there not been evinced a disposition to exaggerate\nachievement, to deny secrecy, to mislead regarding the infliction of\npain? No intelligent person, it seems to me, can study the vidence\ncarefully, year after year, without reaching this attitude of distrust\nand doubt in a great number of instances.  This by no means indicates\nthat every claim of utility is false.  A great many statements are\naccurate.  Some claims will be partly true, but magnified by the\nenthusiasm of youth far beyond what devotion to a strict veracity\nwould require.  And some claims may be doubted altogether.  It may be\ndoubted whether any reliabce whatever can be placed upon the\nassertions or protesting denials of any profession vivisector now\ndrawing a large income from the vivisection of animals, whose\ninterests would possibly be affeted by failure to produce startling\nresults, or by removal of the secrecy that now enshrouds the\nlaboratory.  The defenders of absolute licence have not told us the\ntruth on every occasion it has been sought from them, and it must be\ngained from other sources and by other means.\n\nIt would seem, therefore, that the first step toward reform must be\nthe creation of a public sentiment, eager, not so much to pass\ncondemnation as to know the facts.  That the laboratory, of its own\naccord and initiative, will ever open its doors and give to the world\na complete knowledge of what goes on within its sacred precincts, is\nmore than we can expect.  The doors will open only when public opinion\nso demands.  The laboratory is perfectly aware of this.  With ever\nyenergy that such consciousness gives, it will fight to keep\neverything that it now hides from the light of day.  Take, for\nexample, the question of vivisection in our institutions of learning.\nTo what extent is experimentation carried on therein merely to\ndemonstrate what every student knows in advance? It would appear that\ncertain lines of experiment are now permitted in such institutions\nwhich hardly more than a generation ago were condemned as cruel by the\nmedical profession of Great Britain.  We ought to inquire why it is\nthat experiments which scarcely thirty years ago were thus condemned,\nare less abhorrent to-day.  The removal of secrecy is the first and\nmost important step toward any true reform.\n\nIt is the fashion of certain apologists for vivisection without\ncontrol to represent their opponents as guided by sentiment alone.\nPerhaps it would be well to quote the opinions of one whose work for\nscience should absolve him from that imputation.\n\nOne of the most illustrious philosphers which America has produced was\nDr. William James, professor of psychology in Harvard University.  In\nthat institution, thirty-five years ago, he was assistant-professor of\nphysiology, and knew exactly what was done.  Harvard made him a\nprofessor of philosophy, and then of psychology; Princeton and Oxford\nand Harvard conferred upon him their highest honours.  He lectured\nboth at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh.  He\nwa s a member of various scienfitic societies in France, in Germany,\nin Denmark, and England.  If any man was entitled by experience and\nstudy to speak with some authority concerning vivisection, it was\nWilliam James of Harvard University.\n\nHe knew to what extent the practice of vivisection was carried on.\nCalling upon me one day in Cambridge, we compared views, and although\nhe told me of certain experiments he proposed to make the next day, he\nwas emphatic in his denunciation of the atrocities which over and over\nagain were repeated in physiological laboratories throughout the\nland.  The men who raised their voices against all reform were--he\nsaid--neither candid, nor honest, nor sincere.\n\nSomewhat later, with some knowledge of his views, he was asked to hold\nan honorary relation to the Vivisection Reform Society.  His reply was\nso characteristic of the man that it is here given:\n\n\"Dear Sir,\n\n\"I am made of too unorganized stuff to be a Vice-President of the\nVivisection Reform Society, and, moreover, I make it a principle not\nto let my name appear anywhere where I am not doing practical work.\nBut I am glad to send you, in answer to your request, a statement of\nmy views, which you are at liberty to publish if you see fit.\n\n\"Much of the talk against vivisection is, in my opinion, as idiotic as\nthe talk in defence of it is uncandid; but your Society (if I rightly\nunderstand its policy) aims not at abolishing vivisection, but at\nregulating it ethically.  AGAINST ANY REGULATION WHATEVER I understand\nthe various medical and scientific defenders of vivisection to\nprotest.  Their invariable contention, implied or expressed, is that\nit is no one's business what happens to an animal so long as the\nindividual who is handling it can plead that to increase Science is\nhis aim.\n\n\"This contention seems to me to flatly contradict the best conscience\nof our time.  The rights of the helpless--even though they be brutes--\nmust be protected by those who have superior power.  The individual\nvivisector must be held responsible to some authority which he fears.\nThe medical and scientific men, who time and time again have raised\ntheir voices in opposition to all legal projects of regulation, KNOW\nAS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE does the unspeakable possibilities of\ncallousness, wantonness, and meanness of human nature, and their\nunanimity is the best example I know of the power of club opinion to\nquell independence of mind.  No well-organized sect or corporation of\nmen can ever be trusted to be truthful or moral when under fire from\nthe outside.  In this case, THE WATCHWORD IS TO DENY EVERY ALLEGED\nFACT STOUTLY; to concede no point of principle, and to stand firmly on\nthe right of the individual experimenter.  His being `scientific'\nmust, in the eye of the law, be a sufficient guarantee that he can do\nno wrong.\"\n\nIt may be questioned whether more serious charges against the\nlaboratory have ever been made than are contained in these statements\nby an expert in vivisection.  The man of the world wonders at the\nunanimity of scienitfic writers of the day in opposing every step\ntending to reform.  Professor James tells us it is due to \"the power\nof club opinion to quell independence of mind.\" That the professional\nvivisectors as a body \"CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUTHFUL WHEN\nATTACKED,\" that they combine \"to deny every alleged fact stoutly,\"\nthese are the admissions of an expert experimenter, whose record as a\nman of science is surely equal if not superior to that of any\nvivisector in America.\n\nProfessor James believed that some abuses had been rectified.  He\nsays:\n\n\"That less wrong is done now than formerly is, I hope, true.  There is\nprobably a somewhat heightened sense of responsibility.  There are,\nperhaps, fewer lecture-room repetitions of ancient vivisections,\nsupposed to help out the professors' dulness with their brilliancy,\nand to `demonstrate' what not six of the students are near enough to\nsee, and what all had better take, as in the end they have to, upon\ntrust.  The waste of animal life is very likely lessened, the thought\nfor animal pain less shamefaced in the laboratories than it was.\nThese benefits we certainly owe to the antivivisection agitation,\nwhich ,in the absence of producing actualy State regulation, has\ngradually induced some sense of public accountability in\nphysiologists, and made them regulate their several individual selves.\n\n\"But how infinitely more wisely and economically would these results\nhave come if the physiologists as a body had met public opinion half-\nway long ago, agreed that the situation was a genuinely ethical one,\nand that their corporate responsibility was involved, and had given up\nthe preposterous claim that every scientist has an unlimited right to\nvivisect, for the amount or mode of which no man, not even a\ncolleague, can call him to account.[1]\n\n\"The fear of State rules and inspectors on the part of the\ninvestigators is, I think, well founded; they would probably mean\neither stupid interference or become a sham.  But the public demand\nfor regulation rests on a perfectly sound ethical principle, the\ndenial of which by the scientists speaks ill for either their moral\nsense or their political ability.  So long as the physiologists\ndisclaim corporate responsibility, formulate no code of vivisectional\nethics for laboratories to post up and enforce, appoint no censors,\npass no votes of condemnation or exclusion, propose of themselves no\nlaw, so long must the antivivisectionist agitation, with all its\nexpensiveness, idiocy, bad temper, untruth, and vexatiousness,\ncontinue, as the only possible means of bringing home to the careless\nor callous individual experimenter the fact that the sufferings of HIS\nanimals are somebody else's business as well as his own, and that\nthere is `a God in Israel' to whom he owes account.\n\n                                                \"WILLIAM JAMES.\n  \"Cambridge, Mass.,\n        \"May 5 (1909).\"\n\n[1] \"Unnecessary and offensive in the highest degree would it be,\n... by legislation of any kind, to attempt to dictate or control how,\nand by whom, and for what purposes, and under what conditions and upon\nwhat animals in the laboratories, ... experiments should be made.  The\ndecision in these matters SHOULD BE LEFT WHOLLY TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF\nTHESE INSTITUTIONS.\"--From a memorial of Dr. Simon Flexner,\nDr. W. T. Councilman, Dr. H. C. Ernst, and other members of the\nAssociation of American Physicians against Senate Bill regulating\nvivisection in the District of Columbia, May 4, 1896.\n\nThis is a very strong indictment.  If he misunderstood the\nantivivisectionists, we must remember that Henry Clay in 1851 could\nsee nothing good in William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition party.\nBut James knew precisely what the vivisection of animals meant, for he\nhad taught physiology, and had been engaged in experimentation for\nmore than a quarter of a century.  When he speaks of the power of\n\"club opinion to quell independence of mind,\" he explains a situation\nwhich otherwise might remain obscure.  When he asserts that certain\ngroups \"cannot be trusted to be truthful or moral,\" we have the\nexplanation of a philosopher who was not given to over-statement.\n\nDo we not find in this letter an outline of what Professor James would\nsuggest as steps toward vivisection reform? In perfunctory inspection\nof laboratories or supervision by State inspectors, he has no\nconfidence; such inspection would probably degenerate into a sham.  A\nwell-known experimentor once said to the rwiter: \"Your inspectors of\nlaboratories must be either well-educated and competent men, or else\nofficials of the grade of the average policemen.  If the belong to the\nfirst class, do you think they will become detectives and spies? If,\non the other hand, they earn the salary of the average policeman, will\nthey be intelligent enough to discover abuses, and invariably of such\nrectitude that a ten-dollar bill will not induce official blindness?\"\n\nIt would seem that this objection to State inspection cannot be\nlightly considered.  For the prevention of cruelty it may be right to\npermit certain persons always to have the right to enter any\nlaboratory whatever without previous notice; the fact that they may\ncome at any time constitutes the safeguard to a limited degree.  But\nsuch men must be persons unpaid by the State, of intelligence\nsufficient to comprehend all peculiarities of experimentation, and of\na probity that no bribe can disturb.  It would be far better to allow\nthings to go on as they are than to have cruelty protected by public\nconfidence in a legal supervision that did not sufficiently supervise\nand restrian.\n\nIt appears to me, as I have said elsewhere, that first of all public\nopinion should be aroused, not so much to condemn all experimentation\nupon animals, as to know with certainty the facts about it.  Of the\nvivisection of animals in England and America carried on in secret,\nthe general public, even of the more intelligent class, has no more\naccurate inforumation than two centuries ago it had of the methods of\nthe Spanish Inquisition in the dungeons of Madrid or Seville.  How did\nit happen that an institution so execrated and so universally\ncondemned to-day, managed for centuries almost unchallenged, to exist?\nPrecisely as the closed laboratory manges to exist among us, becauseof\nthe secrecy in which it was surrounded, and the general confidence\nwhich it claimed as its due.  Reform canot make headway so long as the\ndungeon is dark and the laboratory is locked.  The strongest line of\ndefence is the maintenance of ignorance, even though we have the\ncurious anomaly, existing nowhere else, of Science covering herself\nwith darkness and hiding behind ignorance.  It was one of the ablest\nadvocates for vivisection that America has produced, who, in an\naddress before the American Academy of Medicine, condemned the secrecy\nof the physiological laboratory as \"a grave and profound mistake,\"\nadding that \"if there be necessary secrecy, there is wrong.\" No more\nsignificant condemntation of present-day methods has ever been\nuttered.\n\nAn eminent London physician, Dr. Greville Macdonald, wrote not long\nago in favour of that publicity of vivisection, or rather of that\nknowledge of its methods which should precede any attempt at\nlegislation.  The question of interference is one that the State must\ndecide, though the dangers and advantages of vivisection can only be\narrayed in intelligible order by one who understands the subject. \"But\nthe public, HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE, must decide whether or no the\nState shall more willingly sanction cruelty in the secret laboratory\nthan in the highway.... I most reluctantly admit, it is almost\nimpossible to get evidence upon such points, and for the reason THAT\nTHE THINGS WHICH WE FEAR ARE PRACTISED IN SECRET PLACES.\nNevertheless, it is just because of this secrecy that the public have\na right to make trouble.  But for John Howard's crusade against the\nhorrors of the prisons, the public had never known the truth, their\ninfamies had never been remedied; and the public have now as much\nright to question the physiologist's repudiations as they had then to\ndoubt the denials of the gaolers.  The evidence is sufficient to\njustify, in my own mind, a large measure of sympathy with the\nantivivisectionists, though I am not of them.\"\n\nWhat lines of procedure in the direction of reform would Dr. Macdonald\nadvocate? He admits that \"to prohibit vivisection altogether would be\nto invite its performance in such secrecy as no system of espionage\ncould unearth.  Legislation can seldom do more than compromise,\nbecause it cannot essay the impossible.\" He admits that \"no Act of\nParliament can eradicate the spirit that makes cruelty possible.\" But\nthere are some things that may be done, and upon four points\nDr. Macdonald believes legislation is desireable.  \"The first is that\nvivisection ought to be prohibited for the purposes of teaching,\nbecause it is often misleading and always demoralizing.  The second is\nthat the inspection of the physiological laboratories should be\ncarried out more systematically and always unexpectedly, and that the\ninspectors should largely be increased in number.  Thirdly, I would\nprohibit all dissections, with or without anaesthetics, upon live\nhorses and dogs.  Fourthly, I would make the administration of curare\nfor purposes of experiments a criminal act.\"\n\nOne method of obtaining information concering the practice in America\nis through a Legislative commission.  Guided intelligently, such a\nCommission should be able to present in its final report a large\naccumulation of important facts.  It is evident, however, that if such\ndisclosures are likely to tell against present methods of research,\nthe appointment of any such Commission will be strenuously opposed by\neveryone connected with the laboratories.  The strange thing is that\nprecisely this opposition has been evinced in the State of New York,\nas elsewhere shown.  The powers that control prefer the present\ndarkness, and for the time being have been able to secure it.  But\nthis very opposition is so significant that no effort should be\nrelaxed to bring every phase of the practice of vivisection into the\nlight of day.\n\nThat altogether too much reliance may be placed upon Government\ninspection of laboratories seems unquestionable.  If one could be sure\nthat it would always be conducted by intelligent and educated men,\nwith due appreciation of scientific aims, yet in thorough sympathy\nwith humane motives and objects, it would undoubtedly be of use.  But\nno such reliance can be ours.  The experience of England should convey\na lesson in this respect.\n\nSuppose, therefore, that in place of demanding the State inspection of\nlaboratories, or any present interference with the conduct of the\nvivisector, we endeavor first of all to learn the facts through the\nexperimenters themselves.  Of course they will not volunteer any\ninformation that may seem to tell against the practice; we must expect\nthe laboratory to put forward ever obstacle that might hinder the\nfacts from becoming public if there is anything wrong to hide.  But\nunless the claim be soberly put forth--and I am not sure that this may\nnot be the case--that the vivisector has a right to work in complete\nsecrecy, and to hide his methods from the world, he cannot complain at\nbeing the reporter of his own activities.\n\nAssuming then, that our object be solely the acquisition of knowledge\nwithout interference until necessity be shown, what can be done by\nlegislation in America to attain the end desired?\n\n1. THE REGISTRATION OF LABORATORIES.--Every place where experiments\nupon animals are to be legally made should be licensed by the State.\nIt has been suggested that such regulation should recognize the\noccasional necessity for experiments upon animals relating to the\ntransmission of diseases at other places than laboratories, as, for\nexample, on farms.  A liberal recognition of all genuine exceptions\nmight easily be made; the only object of such regulation is to insure\nthat all experimentation whatever comes upon the record.  So long as\nthis is accomplished, every exceptional case of such investigation\noutside a laboratory may easily be permitted without injury to the\nprinciple involved.\n\n2. REGISTRATION OF EXPERIMENTERS.--Every man who desires to perform\nexperiments upon animals should be required to obtain a licence from\nthe State granting such privilege for a definite time.  This could\nwork no injury to science in America, for in England it has been a\nrule in force for many years.  When one remembers that a physician or\nsurgeon, even though possessed of the greatest skill, cannot practise\nunless licensed by the State, it is difficult to see why a practice so\nliable to abuse and crulety should be without this simple recognition\nof the experimenter's ability, humaneness, and skill.\n\n3. REPORTS OF EXPERIMENTS.--We are sometimes told that if there is any\nsecrecy in vivisection, it is only that which scientific men\neverywhere demand for scientific work.  The dissecting-room has its\nenforced privacy; the chemist must have his period of uninterrupted\nattention, and to the observatory of the astronomer it is not easy to\nobtain admittance at any and all times.  Suppose Society to grant the\nprivacy for a time, asking in return from every registered laboratory\nand from every experimenter, the completest reports of all experiments\nupon animals.  What objection can be raised if there is nothing to\nconceal? The Savings Bank, the Insurance Company, even the National\nTreasury, are all required to give at regular intervals information\nconcerning the disposition of funds.  Let us place the creatures\nliable to vivisection and taken into a laboratory on a plane of equal\nimportance with bags of silver coin taken into a banking-house.  From\ngreta financial institutions we require detailed information and\nreports attested by oath concerning the disposition made of money\ntaken into its treasury.  No cashier would dream of objecting to such\nreports; they are the tribute which conscious integrity\nunhesitataingly pays to secure public confidence and trust.  Now, in\nthe interests of science--which means always truth demonstrated, not\ntruth concealed--and in the interests of humanity as well, let us ask\nfor ever material fact pertaining to the creatures entering a\nlaboratory for vivisection, whether it be the dog, \"stolen, to begin\nwith\" (to use the phrase of the London Lancet), or animals more\nlegitimately acquired, so long as their lives are to be exploited in\nthe professed interests of mankind.\n\nIn every registered laboratory, therefore, the law should require that\na register be kept concerning every animal of the higher species\nbrought upon the premises for purposes of experimentation.  The\nspecies of every such animal, its sex, colour, condition, and apparent\nage; from whom it was acquired and the price paid for it; and to whom\nfor experimentation it was finally delivered--all these facts should\nbe a part of the permanent record of every laboratory.  It ought not\nto be difficult to devise a register, which at the outset would\nprobably meet the suggested requirements.[1]\n\n[1] See Appendix, pp. 340-343.\n\nOne advantage of such a register as this would be the assistance it\nwould render in all attempts to trace animals which are stolen or\nlost, and which find their way to the laboratory.  Every animal which\nmay possibly have been a pet should be kept for redemption for two to\nthree weeks, and no animal should be purchased unless the purchaser is\nable to have a record of the address of the seller.  Anyone can\ndistinguish between a homeless vagabond of the street and an animal\nwhich must have been well treated in a good home, and I believe that\nexperimentation upon a pet animal under any conditions should be\nforbidden by law.\n\nThe gain arising from such registration is obvious.  It would mark the\nentrance within the laboratory of every creature intended for\nexperimentation of any kind.  It makes possible to an extent the\ntracing of pet animals, lost or stolen, which now find themselves\ndevoted to vivisection.  The inspection of such a register should be\npermitted to any person whatever endeavouring to trace a lost or\nstolen pet.  A summary should be regularly furnished for publication,\nattested by oath, precisely as the cashier of a national bank\nperiodically attests the accuracy of his reports.  Such a report is\nbut a promulgation of facts which ought to be within the reach of the\npublic.  By no stretch of the imagination can one honestly declare\nthat such knowledge will constitute an impediment to justifiable\nresearch.  Yet no one acquainted with this subject can doubt that\nevery resource of the laboratory will be brought forward to resist to\nthe uttermost even the giving of so little information as this.\n\nBut we must go beyond this.  To trace animals to the door of the\nlaboratory, and there to drop them, leaves the curtain unlifted; they\nenter the darkness, and that darkness must be dispelled.  It must be\nthe privilege of the public to know as completely as possible EXACTLY\nWHAT IS DONE AFTER THEY PASS THE DOOR.  How is this to be\naccomplished? How may we know what is done to the animals thus traced\nto the door of every laboratory without being charged with impeding\nthe legitimate researches of science? For reasons stated, inspection\nwill not accomplish it.  As carried out in England, it certainly has\naccomplished but little for the protection of animals.  The published\nreports of experiments made in that country under one or another\n\"certificate,\" are practically of no value whatever except to show the\nconstant increase of such experiments every year.  The plummet must\nsink to deeper depths.  If Society is to grant to the physiological\nlaboratory that isolation and freedom from interference which it\ncraves, THEN SOCIETY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK IN RETURN THE COMPLETEST\nDISCLOSURE THAT CAN BE GIVEN OF METHODS AND RESULTS.\n\nIt has the right.  Unfortunately it cannot persuade or compel.  That\nis the province of Legislation.\n\nVivisection, we must always remember, is an exceedingly complex\npractice.  It is a means of demonstrating well-known facts; it is also\na method of original research.  How many animals in any given\nlaboratory are used in each of these phases of experimentation? No one\ncan tell us.  If the laboratory keeps no account, it is unlikely that\nthe information could be given by anybody else.  A strong impression\nexists that \"original research\" for any object of conceivable utility\nto mankind is vastly more infrequent than vivisection for the\nrepetition--painful or otherwise--of facts perfectly well known.  We\nneed to have the question settled with an accuracy upon which as much\nreliance may be placed as upon the oath of the cashier of a bank.\n\"Every laboratory,\" said Dr. George M. Guld, in an address before the\nAmerican Academy of Medicine, \"should publish an annual statement\nsetting forth plainly the number and kind of experiments, the objects\naimed at, and, most definitely, the methods of conducting them.\" This\nwise suggestion, however, bore no fruit.  No such \"annual statemnet\"\nhas ever been issued by any American laboratory, so far as I am\naware.  Even if thus issued it would not go far enough.  Such reports\nshould be attested under oath by each individual experimenter, exactly\nas the officers of a bank are required by law to make reports\nregarding its financial standing.  Every experimenter should therefore\nbe required to state what he has done during the three preceding\nmonths; to give the number of animals of each species which have been\ndelivered to him, the object of each experiment, and the cases in\nwhich curare was employed.  Especially should a careful distinction be\ndrawn between original investigations made in private and experiments\nmade before students or by students themselves, solely for the\nillustration of well-known facts.  An outline of a report that would\ncover these facts will be found in the appendix.\n\nAnd yet this is hardly enough.  It is not sufficient to have the\nresults of individual experience; we should have a summary of all\nexperimental work made upon the higher animals in each laboratory\ngiven us by the responsible head of that institution.  An outline of a\nreport that would give us the information desired is not difficult to\ndevise.[1]\n\n[1] See Appendix.\n\nThere is little doubt but that violent objection will be made to any\nsuch reports.  But in the opinion of very many persons the truth about\na vivisection laboratory is quite as desirable as the truth about a\ncountry bank.  Verification in either case implies the same.  It would\nmean that the statement was not made carelessly, but with a due\nappreciation of the solemnity of an oath.  Any gross misstatement on\nthe part of a bank cashier would almost certainly subject him to a\nrigid examination, and to the penalty of dismissal.  It should be the\nsame with a laboratory.  If gross missatements should be made with\napparent design to hide something that should have been made known, it\nseems to me that those who thus offend should have their licences\nsuspended or revoked.  We cannot forget that Society is here dealing\nwith a peculiar institution, where secrecy is regarded as a virtue.\nIf one could imagine a bank or an insurance company, where every\nofficial or employee, from the president down to the scrub-woman, was\nseeking in every way to keep its affairs hidden from the general\npublic, we should in one respect have the counterpart of the\nphysiological laboratory of to-day.\n\nOn the other hand, when the law asks for the truth, whether it be of a\nbank or a laboratory, under penalties for concealment that cannot be\neasily disregarded, we may be very certain that in the vast majorty of\ninstances compliance will be accorded to its demands.  Instances of\nattempted concealment will, of course, occur; the cashier who has\nspeculated with the funds of the bank will endeavour to conceal his\ncrime, and the vivisector who has carried his private experiments or\nhis demonstrations before students to cruel and unwarrantable lengths\nwill seek by all possible means to prevent revelation of his\ntransgression.  In both cases there will be occasional success.  But\nas regards vivisection, it cannot be questioned that whenever in\nfuture the law makes a demand for such reports as are here outlined, a\nvast amount of information, now carefully concealed from the\npossibility of public judgment, will become known.  We shall obtain\nit, too, withut crossing the threshold of a single laboratory, without\nhindering in any way whatever the least important investigation of a\nsingle scientific inquirer.\n\nOught we not to go beyond this and require reports to state the facts\nregarding anaesthetics? Eventually such information should undoubtedly\nbe required.  So far as the immediate present is concerned, it would\nseem perhaps the wiser course not to complicate the inquiry in this\nway.  There are vivisectors who would declare that \"anaesthetics are\nalways used\" when ether or chloroform has been given in quantity and\nin time absolutely insufficient to secure for the vivisected animal\nimmunity from pain.  Sometimes we shall ask how many animals and of\nwhat species are subjected to mutilations and observations that last\nfor days and weeks, and how many, if any, have had \"nerves torn out by\nthe roots,\" as one American physiologist connected with a medical\nschool tells us he has repeatedly done.  Into the thousand and one\nphases of experimentation Society must one day make inquiry.  But may\nit not be best to wait till some knowledge of the leading facts are\nsecured? A report regarding anaesthesia might be utterly useless,\nexcept to keep hidden the very facts we wish to know.  What some of\nthese facts are may be indicated hereafter, but it would seem best not\nto include them in any present demand.\n\nWhat may we conceive will be the attitude of the laboratory interests\ntoward any attempt to secure information concerning the practice, not\nby State inspection, but by and through reports made by themselves? If\nthe popular conceoption of physiological investigation were true,\nshould we not be sure of the hearty approval of all physiologists\nregarding any measure so calculated to remove misunderstanding and\ndistrust? Here would be the wished-for opportunity to demonstrate the\nvast importance of the problems pursued, and the wonderful results\nattained compared with the small cost of animal life, the humane and\never-present solicitude of the experimenter, the immunity from\nsuffering.  Here, too, we should have that \"organized, systematic, and\nabsolute frankness\" in regard to the practice of vivisection, for\nwhich one of its greatest American defenders once appealed.  But, on\nthe other hand, suppose that the laboratory in England and America\ndare not permit the whole truth to be known? Suppose that it would not\nwillingly permit the general public to know even the number of animals\nwhich are now sacrificed in the demonstration of well-known facts?\nThen assuredly the laboratory interests will unite to prevent any\nlegislation that could tend to destroy the secrecy that now exists, or\nto bring the facts of vivisection to the light of day.  Which\nhypothesis is the true one, some day will reveal.  We shall then\ndiscover whether the laboratory will yield to a demand for publicity,\nor whether, contending for continued secrecy, faithless to Science, it\nwill resist every attempt to make known the whole truth, and cling to\nthe ideals and traditions of the Spanish Inquisition of three hundred\nyears ago.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XIV\n\n                THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES\n\nIt is necessary to make a distinction between societies aiming to\ndestroy animal experimentation, root and branch, and those which hope\nonly to prevent abuses and cruelties.  Antivivisection societies have\nbeen organized in different States.  Of their activities it is not\nnecessary here to speak.  But another kind of organization has made\nits appearance, societies aiming solely at the prevention of abuse and\nthe restriction of the practice within limits compatible with humane\nideals.\n\nThe first society in America organized for the express purpose of\nprevention of cruelty in animal experimentation appears to have been\nthe American Antivivisection Society, founded at Philadelphia in\n1883.  The object of the society, as defined by its first charter, was\n\"the restriction of the practice of vivisection within proper limits,\nand the prevention of the injudicious and needless infliction of\nsuffering upon animals under the pretence of medical or scientific\nresearch.\" To Mrs. Caroline Earle White of Philadelphia, more than to\nany other, was due the credit of bringing this first society of\nprotest into being over thirty years ago.\n\nIt was believed by the founders of this society that the medical\nprofession--so many members of which had recognized the reality of the\nabuses and the necessity of reform--would join in some common endeavor\nto restrict and to regulate the practice.  But attempts in direction\nof any legislation met with decided opposition from the principal\nlaboratories in the State, and although a few physicians of eminence\nlent their influence to the promotion of reform, the great body of\nmedical practitioners stood aloof.  And gradually the founders of the\nsociety came to believe that their position was wrong; that the policy\nof concession and compromise ought to be abandoned, and that instead\nof asking that any experimentation be legalized, the society should\ndemand the total abolition of all experiments upon living animals.\n\nAt a meeting held in 1887 a resolution was brought forward favouring\nthe change of the name of the society and the aim which hitherto they\nhad had in view.  Opposition merely to experiments of a painful\ncharacter was not sufficient; from that time forward every phase of\nexperimentation was equally to be condemned.  The resolution was\ncarried.  And now for more than a quarter of a century the society has\nstriven to influence public sentiment in favour of its ideal, the\ntotal suppression of all scientific experiment upon living animals,\nwhether painful or otherwise.  It is needless to say that they have\ndone this in the face of innumerable obstacles, and doubtless with a\nrecognition of the impossiblity of present success.  Three times they\nhave introduced into the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania a\nBill for some restriction of animal experimentation, and always\nwithout avail.\n\nOther antivivisection societies in different parts of the country,\nadopting the same ideal, were organized shortly afterward.  So far as\nlegislation is concerned, their efforts have met with uniform\nfailure.  They have succeeded, however, in keeping the subject before\nthe world in making known the abuses of the practice and voicing a\ncondemnation of its cruelties wherever discerned.  I have elsewhere\nexpressed the opinion that, even if their ideals are beyond present\npossibility of attainment, the constant, persistent, and unwearied\nprotest of these societies against the cruelties and abuses of\nvivisection have helped, more than anything else, to keep the question\na living issue.\n\nIn 1896 was organized the first society having for its object solely\nthe repression of abuse, the American Society for the Regulation of\nVivisection.  Its object was distinctly stated in its title, and its\nwork was confined almost entirely to the publication of literature.\nIn 1903 the Vivisection Reform Society, organized to advance the same\nmoderate views, was incorporated under United States laws, and the\nearlier society became merged therein.  The president was Dr. David\nH. Cochran of Brooklyn, a distinguished educator, and the secretary,\nupon whose shoulders fell nearly all the work of the organization, was\nSydney Richmond Taber, Esq., a member of the legal profession.  Among\nits supporters were Cardinal Gibbons, Professor Goldwin Smith, Senator\nGallinger, Professor John Bascom, ex-President of the University of\nWisconsin, Professor William James of Harvard University, and men of\nstanding and influence in the medical and legal professions.  For\nseveral years its work was carried on with efficiency and enthusiasm,\nchiefly by the propaganda of the press.  It has always seemed to me\nthat the name of the society was especially felicitous, for it\nexpressed tersely the object of the organization, not the abolition of\nall scientific utilization of animal life, but the repression and\nelimination of abuse.  A year or two later there was incorporated at\nWashington the National Society for the Humane Regulation of\nVivisection, the objects of which were identical with those of the\nearlier societies.  For many reasons it did not appear expedient to\nkeep in activity two societies with precisel the same objects, and\ninto the new organization the Vivisection Reform Society was finally\nmerged.\n\nAnother American society which has done particularly good work is the\nVivisection Investigation League of New York.  The object of this\nassociation is fairly expressed by its name; it seeks to investigate\nthe practice, so far as inquiry is practicable, and to make known from\nthe writings of experimenters themselves exactly what is done in the\nname of scientific research.  In this direction the League has already\ndone work of exceptional value and interest.\n\nAn organization which more than any other has distinguished itself for\npersistent, unwearied, and vigorous attempts to secure reform by legal\nenactment is the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal\nExperimentation, organized in Brooklyn, New York, in 1907.[1] From the\nfirst it repudiated the suggestion that it was opposed to scientific\nexperimentation upon animals under all circumstances; it has never\ndenied that some benefits have accrued through animal experimentation,\neven though such benefits have been exaggerated, but it has bent all\nits energies toward securing such legislation in the State of New York\nas should limit the practice to competent men, place it under such\nlegal control, render its abuse a misdemeanour, and all unnecessary\nand wanton cruelty a legal offence.  Bills were therefore introduced\nfor the appointment of a Commission of inquiry regarding the extent\nand nature of the practice at each annual session of the Legislature.\nSome of these Bills were reported out of the Committee, and one\nreached debate in the Senate.  But investigation of the practice was\nprecisely what the supporters of the modern laboratory do not seem to\ndesire.  They were strong enough to influence the Legislature against\nsuch inquiry, and their attempts to open the laboratory have so far\nfailed.  Will it be possible for ever to maintain this secrecy? That\nis the question for the future.\n\n[1] To the discriminating and energetic work of Frederic P. Bellamy,\nEsq., the counsel of the society, and of Mrs. William Vanamee, the\nsecretary, the success of this society is particularly indebted.  In\nthe public journals, on many occasions, they have definitely and\ncomprehensively outlined the aims of the organization, and in this\nrespect there has been no excuse whatever for any misunderstanding or\nmisstatement.\n\nIn its early efforts to secure investigation an attempt was made by\nthis society to secure the co-operation of members of the medical\nprofession, and in union with a large number of persons belonging to\nvarious professions over seven hundred physicians in the State of New\nYork signed a petition in 1907-08 in favour of a measure that would\nhave tended to elicit the facts.  As soon as the Medical Society of\nthe State of New York became aware of this endorsement, it sent out to\neach of these physicians a request that he would withdraw his name.\nWhat Dr. William James called \"the power of club influence to quell\nindependence of mind\" could hardly have been more significantly\nexercised, yet less than forty signers were willing to accede to such\ndemand.  Upon the files of the society are now the signatures of over\nsix hundred physicians in the State who have favoured legislation\nrestricting the practice of vivisection to competent men, and\nproviding against cruelty and abuse.\n\nIn the fall of 1911 the Society circulated a petition throughout the\nState.  It asked the Legislature of the State of New York to provide--\n\n\"an immediate and impartial investigation by a non-partisan commission\ninto the practice of animal experimentation as conducted in this\nState.  In view of the inherent possibility of cruelty in the\npractice, and the obvious inadequacy of the existing laws to prevent\nsuch cruelty, we deem the existing status of vivisection in this State\nto be a menace to the community, which calls for legislative\ninvestigation.\"\n\nTo this petition more than twelve thousand signatures were obtained.\nAgain the influence of the laboratory was effective in preventing the\nLegislature from granting the investigation desired.\n\nSome of the most scholarly editorials which have appeared in the\nnewspaper press in favour of inquiry have been those of Hon. St. Clair\nMcKelway, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the State of New\nYork and editor of the Brooklyn Eagle, the leading evening newspaper\nin the United States.  Referring to one of the Bills introduced by the\nSociety for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation,\nDr. McKelway said:\n\n\"The Bill ought to be passed.  It would secure an unpaid\nrepresentative Commission to investigate animal vivisection,\nprotecting it from abuses, and allowing it to be properly pursued\nwithin safeguards of necessity and mercy.... The regulation of\nvivisection is not the abolition of it, but the civilization of it.\nSuch of the medical profession as are a Trade Union on a large scale,\nas afraid of one another as they are deaf to the voices of humanity\nand to public opinion, should be forced by the State to courses that\nshould long ago have been volunteered by themselves.  The beginning of\nthe end of licensed cruelty has come.  The struggle may still take\ntime, but the time will be well spent and the result is as certain as\nthe triumph of every other benign movement for the Kingdom of God in\nthe hearts of men and in the laws of the State.\"\n\nOf another bill introduced by this society, Chancellor McKelway wrote:\n\n\"The Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation\nnecessarily has an awkwardly long name; necessarily, to state just\nwhat the Society is, and to show just what it is not.  It is not to\nprevent animal experimentation, but only to prevent the abuse of it.\nIt is not an antivivisection body, ut it is a body to control the work\nof vivisection within the confines of actual necessity, and to bring\nthe work under accountability to law as affected by a relation to\nreason, to humanity, and to the mercy which is mightiest in the\nmighty, and which becomes a State more than its sovereignty, and a\nmonarch more than his crown.\n\n\"The Legislature again has before it a Bill to bring animal\nexperimentation, or the infliction of pain on animals, in the interest\nof the treatment of human beings, within law and under responsibility\nto law.  Not for the first time is this Bill brought.  It will be\nbrought again and again until the Bill becomes law.  The instinct of\nmercy and justice backs this measure and annually augments its\nsupporters.  That instinct will not become extinct until God abdicates\nor creation reverts to chaos.  The movement is on the gaining hand.\nDoubt of its eventual and nearing success is unthinkable, for in its\nfavour are all the forces that maintain and advance justice and mercy\nin the hearts of men and in the action of States.\n\n\"State-regulated vivisection should be differentiated from\nantivivisection or from no vivisection, just as civilized and\nnecessary war should be from the impossible abolition of all war.\nBetween reulation and prohibition is a difference.  Between\nresponsibility and wantonness is a difference.  Yet regulated\nvivisection has been confounded with antivivisection by the union of\nzany cranks and trade-unionized men of medicine, who have not\nrefrained from the coercion of patients, from the deception of the\npublic, from the inoculation of legislators with mendacity, capsuled\nin sophistry, and from the direct or indirect corruption or\nintimidation of not a few public journals.  The discovery of the ways\nand means and men is bringing the evil to an end.\n\n\"That discovery coincides with the arousal of the public conscience\nagainst political corruption, party corruption, and interparty as well\nas intraparty bribery and tyranny.  There is accord between all the\nforces for betterment.  Barbarism and cruelty toward the brute\ncreation are as certainly doomed as polygamy and human slavery were.\nThe needs of surgery will be preserved from wanton slaughter in the\nname of surgery, in times past, and now wrought by men called doctors\nand by cub-boys called students.  The statesmen in politics are\nrealizing this.  The demagogues and opportunists in Legislatures are,\ntoo.  So are the men of mercy, conscience, and vision in medicine\nitself.  The impact of banded pretension in trade-unionized medical\nschools and societies is resented and resisted by teachers and\npractitioners, who are becoming ashamed not to be free, and who are\nabetting those who would free them.\n\n\"There is a good time coming around the whole circle of uplift.  The\ntime will not be long coming; but when it shall come, its duration\nwill have no end, and its progress will be perpetual.\"[1]\n\n[1] Editorial, Brooklyn Eagle, April 4, 1910.\n\nIt is an interesting fact that the American Society for the Prevention\nof Cruelty to Animals, founded by Henry Bergh, the first organization\nof its kind in America, joined in the demand for further\ninvestigation.  Under the heading, \"The Facts Demanded,\" the editor of\nits periodical makes known its position regarding vivisection:\n\n\"The above caption defines the attitude of the Society to-day toward\nthe practice of `animal experimentation.' In the common phrase, `we\nwant to know,' and we are not to be deterred from what we believe to\nbe a duty by being told from sources more or less reputable that it is\nnone of our business.  For many years this Society has been the chief\nrepresentative in this country and in this city of that large class\namong our people who feel and cherish an interest in and a sense of\nhumanity for what are called the `dumb animals.' One great life--that\nof the founder, Henry Bergh--was spent in this service, and\nprematurely sacrificed in his devotion to these interests.  With\nfaults and failures to reach his ideal, with stumbles and falls,\nfreely admitted, but with a persistent purpose to attain it in the\nend, this Society has never faltered in its effort to follow the path\nwhere he had blazed the way.  It has never been seriously accused of\nacting from fear or favour or from other than altruistic motives, and\nby so doing it has gained and kept the confidence and respect of a\ngreat part of what is best in our community.  It is far too late in\nthe day for any newspaper or anay group of citizens, no matter how\ninfluential in the one case or highly respected in the other, to say\nto this Society: `You shall not do the work for which you were\nchartered, and which for forty-five years you have performed in this\ncommunity.'\n\n\"Now, what is that work in the present instance? Expressed in its\nsimplest terms, it is a demand that the practice of animal\nexperimentation shall be investigated by the State to determine what\nis actually being done, and that thereafter legislation shall be had\nthat shall place it under such supervision and restriction as shall\ninsure differentiation between scientific investigation performed for\nwise and adequate ends and purposes on the one hand, and on the other\nacts of a painful and brutal character performed from unworthy\nmotives, with no adequate benefit possible as a resultant, and which\nclearly come within the classification of cruelty.\n\n\"We submit that this is an eminently fair proposal, and one that\nshould not be opposed by any friend of scientific work, and least of\nall by the physicians of this city.  Yet what do we find? The attitude\nof that profession is clearly shown by the letter of Mr. Bergh, which\nwe reproduce in our columns, and which will unquestionably receive\ncredence from its frankness and from the eminent name attached to it,\nnow borne by a worthy and devoted descendant of our first president.\n\n\"The attitude of the medical profession on this subject is this: `We\nknow what we are about.' `We practice vivisection for wise purposes.'\n`We surround it with as humane conditions as the object sought will\npermit.' `We have made great and beneficial discoveries by its means.'\n`We assert that we con trol it within the above limits.' `But we will\nnot state what we do, or how.' `We will not permit our assertions to\nbe verified if we can help it.' `We will oppose any movement in the\nPress or the Legislature looking to this end.' `And we will encourage\nthe Press to defeat such an effort, not only by ridicule and irony but\nby a definite misrepresentation of the motives and views of the\nSociety that seeks \"to know.\"'\n\n\"We do not at this moment question the truth of the assertions as to\nthe practice and control which we have put (accurately, we think) into\nthe mouths of the medical profession; but it is startlingly evident\nthat these assertions can only apply TO THAT PART OF ANIMAL\nEXPERIMENTATION WHICH THEY PRACTICE OR CONTROL.  What of the other\npart? Will those who champion unrestricted, uninvestigated,\nunsuperintended vivisection assert that they will guarantee to the\npeople of this city that no act of cruelty or wantonness is or ever\nshall be committed here by a medical practitioner under the guise of\nscientific investigation? Will they guarantee that such acts are not,\nand never shall be, committed in this State? Will they guarantee the\nhumanity and the practice of the thousands of medical students who\nannually graduate from the colleges? Will they enter into bonds to the\ncommunity for the acts of those who, from time to time, they expel,\nfor cause from the medical societies? Will they place their own great\nreputations and highly esteemed characters behind, and as vouchers\nfor, many a practitioner with whom they would not meet in\nconsultation, and whom they would not allow to practice or malpractice\nin the house of a friend or a patient? We think not--we KNOW they\nwould not, for such endorsements and guarantees would be impossible of\nfulfilment.  And if they will not and cannot, they wshould cease to\nstand between the society that seeks `to know' and the evils it seeks\nto expose and eliminate.\n\n\"Gentlemen of the medical profession, understand once for all that\nthis Society does not seek to abolish vivisection.  It recognizes the\ngood, the great good, that has and that may come to the human race\nfrom its careful, humane, and scientific use.  But it aims to abolish\nits ABUSES, and in that aim it is entitled to your advice and\nco-operation.\"\n\nEnough has been given to indicate the purpose of the present movement\nfor vivisection reform.  It is not the same as antivivisection, and\nalthough it has been persistently misrepresented as such by the\nadvocates of unrestricted freedom in the physiological laboratory,\nperhaps we have no reason to expect from that quarter any other\ncourse.  Yet in expressing appreciation both of purpose and\naccomplishment, it may perhaps be well to suggest a single caution.\nThe time is probably coming when those who have most persistently\nopposed all appeals for more light concerning vivisection will\nannounce willingness to accede to the public demnad, provided the\nvivisector may himself appoint the investigators, and define the\nlimitations of the inquiry.  It needs but little discernment to\nforesee that an inquiry so conducted may be no better than a farce,\nand conduce to no real change in the present obscurity.  To be of any\nvalue the commission of inquiry regarding vivisection must be so\nintelligent regarding all phases of the practice that it shall know\nhow to penetrate to hidden recesses, where things not desired to be\nrevealed shall be concealed; capable, too, of distinguishing between\nthe work of the expert scientist and that of the ignorant and careless\nstudent, untouched, it may be, by any sense of pity or compassion for\nthe creature in its power.  The greatest cruelties may yet be found,\nnot in the laboratory of the investigator, but in that of the\ndemonstrator of well-known facts.  Perhaps no investigation of the\npractice of vivisection can be expected until public opinion shall\nhave been educated to demand it, and then, in point of thoroughness,\nlet us trust it may leave nothing to be desired.  Meantime the work of\nagitation for reform must continue; no matter how slight the\naccomplishment, surely something is done. \"All work,\" said Carlyle,\n\"is as seed sown; it growns and spreads, AND SOWS ITSELF ANEW, and so\nin endless palingenesia lives and works.\"\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XV\n\n                UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY\n\nOne phase of the vivisection controversy is of singular significance.\nIt is the peculiar tendency to unfairness which the advocates of\nunrestricted experimentation seem to display in every discussion\nregarding the practice.  In all controversy there is something to be\nsaid on both sides of the question, yet it would seem to be impossible\nfor anyone writing in advocacy of unlimited and unrestricted\nvivisection to state fairly the views to which he is opposed.\nStatements, the inaccuracy of which may easily be ascertained, are\nagain and again repeated, until it would almost seem that upon\nreiteration of error and untruth a certain degree of dependence has\nbeen placed for the creation of prejudice against reform.\n\nTo demonstrate the truth of such a charge would require a volume.  Let\nit here suffice to mention a few instances of what may at least be\ntermed an unfairness in controversy.  Partly, of course, it is the\nresult of ignorance, and of imperfect acquaintance with the past\nhistory of vivisection; partly it is due to that enthusiasm of youth\nwhich sometimes prefers a seeming victory to any close fidelity to\ntruth.  Other instances cannot be thus explained.  Some of them are\nworth consideration as problems for which no solution is easily to be\nfound.\n\nIn January, 1913, a Bill was introduced into the New York Legislature\nproviding for an inquiry into the practice of animal experimentation.\nThere was no suggestion of any restriction of vivisection; it was\nsimply an attempt to get at the real facts concerning the practice as\nnow carried on.  If it be assumed that no objectionable practices\nexist, it would seem difficult to oppose such inquiry upon any\nreasonable grounds.  It might possibly have been expected that the\nLaboratory would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the general\npublic that nothing deserving censure could be found to exist.\n\nFor reasons not difficult to understand, the proposal to investigate\nthe laboratory and its methods has been resisted quite as strongly as\nif it had been an attempt to prohibit experiments altogether.  To\njustify rejection of inquiry would not appear to be an easy task.  To\ncreate a sentiment of approval of the policy of secrecy it doubtless\nseemed necessary to make an appeal to the general public by editorial\nutterances, in journals supposed to be impartial and of high standing\nin other directions.  In a New York daily paper which claims to be\nconducted with special regard for respectability and avoidance of\nunseemly sensationalism, there appeared, therefore, an editorial\nopposing all inquiry on the part of the legislature into the methods\nof animal experimentation.  It is worth while to see how matters of\nhistory were placed before its readers by one of the most reputable of\nNew York journals:\n\n\"... An outcry was raised against the English doctors in the early\nseventies, and it was decided to investigate their laboratories.  A\nRoyal Commission was appointed in 1875 by Queen Victoria.  The\nCommission took elaborate testimony, and found no material abuse; but\nowing to the inflamed state of the public mind, and the attitude of\nmany members of the medical profession, who at that early date did not\nappreciate the importance of the experimental method, a restrictive\nlaw was recommended, which resulted in the calamitous measure of 1876.\n\n\"Far from allaying the British agitation, as was expected, the\ninvestigation only served to stimulate it....  A demand was made in\n1906 for a second full investigation of laboratory methods.  Again a\nRoyal Commission was created, which took testimony for a year and\nhalf.  Its report, submitted in March last year, overwhelmingly\ndisproved the charges that the medical experiments upon animals are\nimmoral and unjustifiable.... THE DOCTORS OF ENGLAND HAVE FOR A\nGENERATION HAD TO FLEE TO THE CONTINENT to prosecture their necessary\nlabours.  Is the experience of Great Britain to be repeated in the\nUnited States at the hands of persons who have become deluded into\ninsensibiity to human suffering?\"[1]\n\n[1] Editorial in New York Times, January 28, 1913.\n\nNow, this editorial utterance is not exceptionally misleading.  In\nscores of newspapers throughout the United States just as ignorant and\nas prejudiced statements find editorial expression every year.  It\naims to justify the closing of the laboratory to all investigations\nwhatever, and it attempts to do this by misstatements regarding\nhistorical facts.  It tells us of an \"outcry raised against the\nEnglish doctors in the early seventies,\" forgetting to mention the\nattacks made by the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, and other\nmedical periodicals, against the terrible cruelties of the practice\nlong before the \"early seventies.\" The Royal Commission of 1875, we\nare told, \"found no material abuse.\" What is meant by the qualifying\nadjective \"material\"? Let us see how the inquiry impressed an\nimpartial observer, the Lord Chief Justice of England.\n\n\"Is, then, the present law reasonable? It is the result of a most\ncareful inquiry, conducted by eminent men in 1875, men certainly\nneither weak sentimentalists nor ignorant and prejudiced\nhumanitarians, men among whom are to be found Mr. Huxley and\nMr. Erichsen, Mr. Hutton, and Sir John Karslake.  There men\nunanimously recommended legislation, and legislation, in some\nimportant respects, more stringent than Parliament thought fit to\npass.  They recommend it on a body of evidence at once interesting and\nterrible.  Interesting, indeed, it is from the frank apathy to the\nsuffering of animals, however awful, avowed by some of the witnesses;\nfor the noble humanity of some few; for the curious ingenuity with\nwhich others avoided the direct and verbal approval of horrbile\ncruelties which yet they refused to condemn.... Terrbile the evidence\nis for the details of torture, of mutilation, of life slowly destroyed\nin torment, or skilfully prolonged for the infliction of the same or\ndiversified agonies, for days, for months, in some cases for more than\na year.\"[1]\n\n[1] Fortnightly Review, February, 1882.\n\nThis was the view of the Lord Chief Justice of England of that day;\nand yet the unknown scribe, writing in a New York newspaper, without\nadducing a particle of evidence, would have his readers to believe\nthat the Commission of 1875 \"FOUND NO MATERIAL ABUSE.\"\n\nEqually unfair and inaccurate is the editorial reference to the report\nof the Royal Commission of 1906.  The conclusions set forth in this\nreport cannot possibly be stated in a single sentence without leaving\nessential matters unstated.  The six principal recommendations of the\nRoyal Commission were all in the direction of reform, AND OF REFORM\nTHAT IMPLIED THE EXISTENCE OF ABUSES that requierd change.  The\nsubject has been treated in a previous chapter, and need not occupy\nattention again.\n\nBut the worst misstatement in this editorial intended to incite\nprejudice against any inquiry in the State of New York was that which\nreferred to the effect of the English law governing the regulation of\nvivisection.  It is now nearly forty years since this law came into\nforce.  The editor speaks of it as \"the calamitous measure of 1876\";\nand after declaring that \"the doctors of England have for a generation\nhad to flee to the Continent to prosecute their necessary labours,\"\nasks his readers whether \"the experience of Great Britain is to be\nrepeeated in the United States?\" If this assertion were true, then\nassuredly the law would have been regarded with detestation and\nabhorrence by the medical profession of England, and by the teachers\nof medical science throughout the land.\n\nNow, it so happens that the impression given is wholly false.  It did\nnot originate with the editorial writer; for many years the assumed\nevil results of the English law have been held up for our warning by\nthose who desire a free hand in vivisection in America.  But is it\ntrue that the law of 1876 is regarded in England as a calamitous\nmeasure, which Parliament should hasten to repeal? On the contrary, so\nfar from being thus regarded, a large majority of the representatives\nof medical science in England are in favour of the law.  Of course,\nevery authority can suggest modifications for its betterment, but the\nprinciple which underlies the measure, of inspection of laboratories\nand the restriction of vivisection, they do not condemn.  That it is a\nperfect measure, the leaders of the medical profession do not assert,\nbut they evidently consider it as better than no law at all.  It\ncertainly is not considered, as the American editor calls it, \"the\ncalamitous measure of 1876.\"\n\nThe proofs of this attitude of the English medical profession may be\nfound in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on\nVivisection, the final report of which appeared in 1912.  The\nmisapprehension concerning the working of the English law is so\nwidespread in America and is so sedulously cultivated by those who\noppose any reform, that it seems worth while to show just how the law\nis regarded in the land to which it applies.\n\nSir Douglas Powell, President of the Royal College of Physicians, the\nphysician to the King, and Senior Physician to Guy's Hospital, was\nasked whether the laws at present governing vivisection \"have been in\nany way noxious to Science?\" \"No, I do not think so,\" was his reply.\n\"I think, as administered at the present time, they have not\ninterfered with the advance of Science.\" Sir Henry Morris, President\nof the Royal College of Surgeons, being asked substantially the same\nquestion, replied: \"I think the present Act of 1876, under which\nvivisectional experiments are done, WAS AMPLY PROTECTIVE AGAINST\nCRUELTY, AND SUFFICIENTLY FREE AND LIBERAL FOR THE DUE PROSECUTION OF\nPROPER SCIENTIFIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INQUIRY.\" Considering their\nsource, are not these remarkable testimonies concerning what is the\nfashion in America to designate as \"the calamitous measure of 1876\"?\n\nWhat is the opinion of the law held by men engaged in teaching in the\nmedical schols of England? Do they demand its repeal?\n\nDr. Pembrey, the Lecturer on Physiology at Guy's Hospital, London,\ndoes not like many of the restrictions; yet, being asked if he\nadvocated the abolition of the Vivisection Act, replied: \"No, I would\nnot do that.... I think only people interested and people who are\ncompetent should be allowed to make vivisection experiments.\" The\nprofessor of physiology in the University of Cambridge,\nDr. J. N. Langley, told the Commissioners: \"I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE\nTHE ACT THAN NO ACT.  I think it would not be fair to the animals to\nallow anyone to experiment upon them without control.\" Dr. Francis\nGotch, professor of physiology in the University of Oxford, being\nasked whether the law had restricted scientific research in\nexperiments upon warm-blooded animals, answered: \"No, I do not think\nit restricts it.  I THINK IT HAS OPERATED WELL.\" Dr. Lorrain Smith,\nprofessor of pathology in the Univesity of Manchester, when asked if\nhe had any objection to the present restrictions placed by law upon\noperations on living animals, answered, \"No.\" Dr. E. H. Starling, a\nFellow of the Royal Society, and professor of physiology at University\nCollege, London, declared that at the present time, the physiological\nschool in England occupied a very high place in the world, \"not\ninferior to that of any other nation\"--surely a strange fact for a\ncountry suffering from what the American editor calls \"the calamitous\nmeasure of 1876\"!\n\nEverywhere we find substantially the same testimony.  Sir James\nRussell, being asked whether the law had operated in way of preventing\nlegitimate research, replied in the negative, giving it as his opinion\nthat \"the Act has worked with substantial smoothness.\" Sir Victor\nHorsley, widely known as an experimenter and as a surgeon, criticized\nmany of the details of the law, yet when asked whether or not he was\nopposed to the Act altogether, answered: \"Oh, no.  I look upon the Act\nas necessary in view of public opinion.... To the purpose of the Act,\nthat experiments should only be done in registered places and only by\npersons who hold a licence from the Home Secretary, there can be no\nobjection whatever; at least, I cannot see any.\" Sir John Rose\nBradford, professor of medicine at University College Hospital in\nLondon, being asked if it might not be better if the Act were\nabolished altogether, replied: \"No; I think experiments on animals\nshould be regulated by an Act.\" Whether there were any alterations\nthat might be valuable, was a subject to which he had given no thought\nduring recent yeaars.  Dr. Dixon, a professor in King's College,\ndeclared that in his opinion \"THE MEDICAL PROFESSION WOULD BE STRONGLY\nAGAINST THE ACT BEING REPEALED NOW.\" Dr. Thane, one of the Government\ninspectors, admits that science has not suffered materially by any\nrestrictions, and has no recommendations to make.  And Dr. Martin, a\ndirector of the Lister Institute, being asked if English scientific\nmen \"are less advanced than their brethren on the Continent in\nconsequence\" of the regulation of vivisection, answered very promptly,\n\"No.\"\n\nIt is impossible here to quote the evidence in full; to do that would\nrequire a volume.  No one of these experts claimed that the law was\nperfect; each representative of English science was doubtless able to\nindicate some detail capable of improvement and pertaining to the\nbetter working of the law.  But when it came to repealing the law\naltogether, not one of the distinguished men here quoted was in favour\nof it.  The principle of State regulation, against the adoption of\nwhich in America every art of prevarication has been employed, that\nprinciple is fully accepted by the English medical profession to-day.\nWas it fair for the editor of a leading journal to misstate so obvious\na fact? Can one imagine that the leading representatives of medical\nscience in England, the leading teachers and professors in medical\ncolleges and schools, would have given the evidence just quoted if for\nthirty years the \"doctors of England\" had been flying to the Continent\nto escape the stringency of the law of 1876? Should we not have found\nsome witness before the Royal Commission of 1906 making allusion to\nthis flight of the doctors of England? It is quite possible that when\nthe law went into operation, over thirty-five years ago, its working\nwas less satisfactory than it is to-day.  Was it fair to make these\nearly criticisms annul the evidence given by a large body of\nrepresentative men before this Commission of the twentieth century in\nfavour of the regulation of vivisection by law? Of course such an\neditorial tended to strengthen prejudice against legal regulation in\nAmerica.  It did its work.  But can success so achieved ever be worth\nof admiration?[1]\n\n[1] The reader may ask why correction of so inaccurate a statement\nconcerning the English law was not sent to the journal in question.\nThis was done.  A synopsis of all the medical opinions here given and\ntaken from the evidence given before the Royal Commission was sent to\nthe editor of the periodical.  So fafr as seen, it did not appear.\n\nAn editorial in a morning paper would hardly seem worth noticing.\nUpon the opinions of its readers it makes its impress, and is quickly\nforgotten.  But the same untrue assertions will be made again more\nthan once in order to create prejudice against any legal regulation of\nvivisection in America.  It has seemed worth while, therefore, to set\nforth the evidence of the absolute untruth of such statements,\nregarding the English law.[1]\n\n[1] In demonstrating that the English law for the regulation of\nvivisection is not there regarded with the disapprobation alleged by\ncertain writers in this country, I must not be taken as claiming that\nthe law from a humane standpoint is satisfactory.  Until amended as\nadvised by Dr. Wilson, a member of the Royal Commission, it cannot\nadequately protect animals liable to experimentation from hte\npossibility of abuse.\n\nThe extent to which an untruth concerning vivisection may be worked to\ncreate prejudice against reform is afforded by a curious legend\nconcerning the late Lord Lister, one of the most eminent men of the\nlast century.\n\nSo far as I have been able to discover, the first appearance of the\nstory was in an address delivered before the Women's Medical College,\nand reprinted in the Popular Science Monthly of May, 1885, nearly\nthirty years ago.  It thus appears:\n\n\"Lister himself, no tyro, but the great master, is still searching for\nfurther improvements.  But when, lately, he desired to make some\nexperiments on animals, still further to perfect our practice, so many\nobstructions were thrown in his way in England that HE WAS DRIVEN TO\nTOULOUSE to pursue his humane researches.\"\n\n\"He was driven to Toulouse.\" The phrase is worth remembering.  Fifteen\nyears later the author of this statement appeared before the Senate\nCommittee at Washington, D.C., to oppose a Bill regulating the\npractice of animal experimentation in the District of Columbia.  In\ncourse of his address, delivered February 21, 1900, he again repeated\nthe story:\n\n\"When Lord Lister, whose name is the most illustrious in the history\nof surgery, wanted to carry out some further experiments in Great\nBritain, where, as Dr. Leffingwell has expressed it, the `very\nmoderate restriction of the law applies'--experiments for the direct\nbenefit of humanity--HE WAS OBLIGED TO GO TO FRANCE TO CARRY ON HIS\nEXPERIMENTS for the benefit of the human race BECAUSE HE COULD NOT DO\nIT IN ENGLAND!\"\n\nCan one imagine any argument against the legal regulation of\nvivisection more weighty than this assertion, that the most\nillustrious man in English medicine was \"obliged to go to France\"\nbecause he could not make his researches on English soil? Could doubt\nof the story exist when it was related by the President of the\nAmerican Medical Association before a committee of the United States\nSenate? This story alone may have indused the rejection of the\nproposed legislation.\n\nThe legend again found expression nearly three years later, in a\nletter written by the same person to Senator Gallinger, and\ntelegraphed to the newspaper press throughout the country.  In the\nPhiladelphia Medical Journal of December 13, 1902, it appeared as\nfollows:\n\n\"If the laws which you and your friends advocate were in force, the\nconditions for scientific investigation in this country would be quite\nas deplorable as those in England.  For example, when Lord Lister, who\nhas revolutionized modern surgery, largely as a result of such\nexperiments, wished to discover possibly some still better way of\noperating by further experiments, HE WAS OBLIGED TO GO TO TOULOUSE TO\nCARRY THEM OUT, as the vexatious restrictions of the law in England\npractically made it impossible for him to continue there these\neminently humane experiments.\"\n\nNearly a quarter of a century after the first appearance of this\nstory, we meet it again.  In an article entitled \"Recent Surgical\nProgress,\" appearing in Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, we are told\nthe same tale:\n\n\"To complete his beneficent work, LORD LISTER WAS COMPELLED TO GO TO\nFRANCE, BY REASON OF THE STRINGENCY OF THE ENGLISH ANTIVIVISECTION\nLAWS.\"\n\nThe law of 1876 has now multiplied into \"laws\" which obstruct and\nhinder even the researches of a Lister.  And yet two years before, in\nhis testimony before the Royal Commission, the President of the Royal\nCollege of Surgeons in England--Sir Henry Morris--had stated: \"I think\nthe present Act of 1875, under which vivisectional experiments are\ndone, was amply protective against cruelty to animals AND SUFFICIENTLY\nFREE AND LIBERAL FOR THE DUE PROSECUTION OF PROPER SCIENTIFIC AND\nPHYSIOLOGICAL INQUIRY.\"[1] But of the readers of Harper's Monthly\nprobably not one in ten thousand had ever seen this evidence in the\nVivisection Report.\n\n[1] Minutes of Evidence, Question 7,805.\n\nIt will be seen that no two of these accounts are precisely the same.\nThey agree, however, in stating that one of the most distinguished of\nEnglish scientists was compelled to leave England in order to do his\nwork; he \"was driven to Toulouse.\"\n\nIt seemed to me worth while to investigate the truth of this story;\nand accordingly I wrote to Lord Lister, asking him, among other\nthings, if it was true that he had been obliged to go to France to\ncarry out experiments looking to the improvement of surgical methods,\nbecause the restrictions of the English law had made it impossible for\nhim to carry out his investigations in England? The reply to my\ninquiry was clear and definite.  The italics are mine.\n\n                                        \"12, Park Crescent,\n                                              \"Portland Place,\n                                                  \"December 23, 1910.\n\"MY DEAR SIR,\n\n\"It is not strictly true that I was compelled to go out of the country\nto perform the experiments in question.\n\n\"I COULD, NO DOUBT, HAVE OBTAINED A LICENCE TO DO THEM HERE.  But they\nhad to be on large animals; and the Veterinary College, in which, I\ndare say, I might have had opportunity given me for the\ninvestigations, is a long way from my residence, and it would have\nbeen inconvenient to have worked there.  Thus, my going to Toulouse\nwas a matter of convenience rather than of necessity.\n\n\"The circumstance was of course of no interest to anyone but myself,\nAND I HAVE GIVEN NO ACCOUNT OF IT FOR PUBLICATION.... I have answered\nyour question frankly, but I must beg you to understand that it is not\nintended for publication.\n                                \"Believe me,\n                                     \"Sincerely yours,\n                                                \"LISTER.\"\n\nFrom every man's correspondence Death at last removes the seal; and\nLister's true story surely may now confront the distorted fiction\nwhich in America for many years has been given so wide a publicity.\n\nThe facts are indeed different from the legend which for more than a\nquarter of a century has been repeated as a convincing argument\nagainst reform.  Of the malign influence of such a tale upon public\nopinion in preventing legislation in America, we can form no adequate\nestimate.  For any intentional deception we may, of course, absolve\nthe distinguished professional man who has made himself responsible as\ntransmitter of the myth; no man with any conception of honour would\nstate as facts what he knew to be false.  But from the charge of\ncarelessness, of gross inaccuracy, is one as readily to be freed? For\na quarter of a century the statement has been in circulation--that\nwhen Lister desired to make most important researches, \"so many\nobstructions were thrown in his way in England, that HE WAS DRIVEN TO\nTOULOUSE to pursue his humane researches\"; and now Lister's letter\nshows us that he \"could, no doubt, have obtained a licence to do them\nhere\"--showing that he did not even ask permission to experiment.  In\n1900 the public was informed that Lister \"was obliged to go to France\nto carry on his experiments\"; the readers of Harper's are told that\n\"Lord Lister was COMPELLED TO GO TO FRANCE by reason of the stringency\nof the English antivivisection laws\"; and now Lister writes that going\nto France was a matter of convenience, and not of necessity; that at\nthe Veterinary College \"I dare say I might have had the opportunity\ngiven me for the investigation\"--showing that the opportunity had\nnever been sought! Yet the influence of the untruth will continue for\nmany a year.\n\nOf Lister's extreme antipathy to the antivivisectionists and to th\nerestriction of animal experimentation there can be no doubt.  That he\nmisapprehended the effect of the law of 1876 we know; he imagined that\neven the observation of the circulation of the blood in a frog's foot\nunder the microscope by an unauthorized investigator would render the\nstudent liable to a criminal prosecution.  We can be very sure that if\nthis were true, the Act of 1876 would never have escaped the\ncondemnation of the scientific men whose opinions have been quoted\nfrom evidence given before the Royal Commission, men who found in this\nAct no impediment to any reasonable investigation.  But when the\nreports of personal experience were brought to Lister's notice, he was\nwilling to correct their gross exaggerations; yet--to avoid\ncontroversy, perhaps--he desired that the facts should not be\npublished, and during his lifetime, compliance was given to his wish.\n\nThe phase of untruthfulness in the defence of unrestricted\nexperimentation deserves far more attention than can here be\naccorded.  One is loth to regard as possible any intent to deceive;\nthe inaccuracy and exaggeration are undoubtedly due chiefly to\nignorance on the part of men who ought to be well-informed, because\nthe world looks to them for statements of fact concerning the benefits\nclaimed to be due to experimentation.  Take, for instance, an\nassertion made in testimony given before the Royal Commission by Sir\nVictor Horsley, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the representative\nof the British Medical Association.  Referring to pyaemia, or blood-\npoisoning, he was not content to affirm the disappearance of these\nformidable maladies from the hospital to which he was attached, but\nwent on to declare their disappearance altogeher. \"Anybody,\" said Sir\nVitor Horsley, \"who would now be asked to write an article on pyaemia\nor blood-poisoning in a dictionary of surgery, COULD NOT DO IT; THE\nDISEASES ARE GONE!\"[1]\n\n[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 15,669.\n\nThis statement is a most remarkable one.  The witness was once widely\nknown as a ruthless experimenter upon living animals, and he was now\ndefending the  practice by an enumeration of its gains.  Apparently,\nno member of the Commission questioned his evidence; the\nrepresentative of the British Medical Association solemnly affirmed\nthat as a result of vivisection certain diseases had so completely\ndisappeared that present observation or description was impossible,\nand the Royal Commission accepted his word.  The statement that these\nseptic diseases had disappeared crossed the Atlantic, and nearly six\nyears afterward, in the columns of a New York journal, it again\nappeared.[2] Yet the statement was untrue.  It is indeed difficult to\nbelieve that any educated medical man in England or America could have\nread it without recognition of its untruth.  Let us glance at the\nevidence.\n\n[2] New York Times, July 28, 1912.\n\nIf it were true that the septic diseases which relate to blood-\npoisoning had really been so completely abolished that description of\nthem were now impossible--as Sir Victor Horsley declared--it is\nevident that as causes of any part of English mortality they would\ncease to appear.  The report of the Registrar-General of England and\nWales tells a very different story.  Sir Victor Horsley gave this\ntestimony in November, 1907.  During the five years preceding, and\nending December 31, 1907, NO LESS THAN 2,933 PERSONS DIED FROM BLOOD-\nPOISONING (PYAEMIA AND SEPTICAEMIA) IN ENGLAND AND WALES.  During the\nyear 1907, the year that testimony was given, the tribute of 604 lives\nwas exacted by these diseases which had \"GONE\"! Even during the year\nfollowing (1908), the recorded deaths due to blood-poisoning in\nEngland and Wales were 560; and yet the disease had been solemnly\ndeclared to be non-existent by the leading defender of English\nvivisection!\n\nNor is this all.  In proportion to the total population the death-rate\nfrom blood-poisoning WAS HIGHER DURING THE YEAR THAT SIR VICTOR\nHORSLEY GAVE THIS ASTOUNDING TESTIMONY THAN IT WAS EVEN FORTY YEARS\nBEFORE.  In 1868, in England and Wales, to a million persons living,\nthe death-rate from septic diseases, or blood-poisoning, was fifteen;\nthe year following it was sixteen.  In 1870 it rose to eighteen,\nfalling, however, to sixteen for the next two years.  Nearly forty\nyears go by, and we find a leading English vivisector assuring a Royal\nCommission that blood-poisoning had so completely disappeared that a\nmedical writer could not describe it; and the Registrat-General\ncharging this extinct disease with a death-rate of nineteen in 1906\nand eighteen in 1907, A HIGHER RATE OF MORTALITY THAN A GENERATION\nBEFORE![1]\n\n[1] For these statistics see reports of the Registrar-General of\nEngland and Wales, 54th Report, Table 16, and 73rd Report, Table 22.\n\nThese are officially stated facts.  At the cost of half a crown Sir\nVictor Horsley might have learned that the diseases he so glibly\ndeclared had \"gone\" were still responsible for a part of English\nmortality, and a greater proportion even than during thirty-five to\nforty years before.  It is this gross ignorance on the part of those\nwho would teach us, this willingness in the defence of all phases of\nvivisection, to make assertions which are without foundation in fact,\nthat justly tends to create distrust of every such statement,\nunsupported by proof.  We are not questioning the value of asepsis,\nwhich is only a learned phrase to express absolute surgical\ncleanliness.  The time may come when these septic forms of disease\nwill entirely disappear.  That day, however, has not yet arrived.  Why\ndeclare that it is already here? Why proclaim that diseases had \"GONE\"\nwhich still existed, or that an enemy had been utterly exterminated\nwhich still was responsible for hundreds of deaths?\n\nNor are English medical writers alone guilty of blunders and\nexaggerations concerning the effect of experiments on animals.  In the\nnumber of Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, to which we have referred,\nan American writer blunders quite as badly as his English confre`re.\nHe tells us that \"the friends of experimental research have almost\ncompletely abolished the dangers of maternity, reducing its death-rate\nFROM TEN OR MORE MOTHERS OUT OF EVERY HUNDRED, to less than one in\nevery hundred.\"\n\nA more ignorant statement was never put forth by an intelligent\nwriter.  Where are statistics to be found going to prove that among\nany people, in any land, at a ny time, 10 PER CENT. of all mothers\ngiving birth to offspring perished from the accidents or diseases\nincident to child-birth? No such statistics can be produce, for the\nsimple reason they do not exist.  In the United States we have no\nofficial statistics of mortality covering the entire country or\nreported from year to year.  England, however, has recorded the\nmortality of its people for over half a century.  What support does it\nafford to the assertion that at any time one in every ten mothers,\nbringing children into the world, perished either from accident or\ndisease? During a period of sixty-two years, from 1851 down to th\nepresent time, there was not a single year in which mortality of\nEnglishwomen from septic diseases connected with child-birth EVER\nREACHED EVEN ONE IN A HUNDRED.  But this is the figure for all\nEngland.  Then take the forty-four counties into which England is\ndivided, and from the downs of Devon to the slums of Lancashire, one\ncannot find a county in all England in which the mortality of mothers\nfrom diseases pertaining to child-birth has reached even a quarter of\nthe ratio stated by this medical writer. \"From all causes together NOT\nFOUR DEATHS IN A THOUSAND BIRTHS and miscarriages happened in England\nand Wales during the first year, seventy-five years ago, that official\nstatistics were gathered; it was a death-rate of five in one thousand\nthe following year.\"[1] We are not questioning the value of surgical\ncleanliness; we dispute only the justice of exaggerated and misleading\nstatements concerning any fact capable of scientific demonstration.\nThere can be no doubt that less than half a century ago, in the\nmaternity wards of certain hospitals and in the experience of certain\nmen, there was a death-rate from such ailments far above the average\nexperience of the country; but it was solely due to the ignorance, the\ncriminal blindness and obstinacy of certain men in the medical\nprofession.  But a little over seventy years ago, when Dr. Oliver\nWendell Holmes pointed out that this saddest place of mortality was\ndue to want of care on the part of medical men, it was two professors\nin two of the largest medical schools of America who opposed him; it\nwas Professor Charles Meigs, of Jefferson Medical College in\nPhiladelphia, who laughed to scorn his warnings, and held up to the\nridicule of the medical profession the theories that are now accepted\nas facts.  With such men as teachers of medical science, what wonder\nthat for women about to become mothers certain hospitals of that day\nwere little better than slaughter-houses, to enter which was to leave\nhope behind?[2] But the experience of such hospitals is not the basis\nupon which Science rests conclusions when they may be ascertained by\nreference to the statistics of a nation.  The murder-rate of\nPhiladelphia is not to be determined by that of one of its slum\ndistricts.  If, a century ago, a slave-owner of Jamaica owning ten\nnegroes, whipped one of them so severely that he died, should we be\njustified in declaring that in the West Indies the murder-rate of\nslaves was 10 per cent., or \"ten in a hundred\"? Its absurdity is\nmanifest.  When, therefore, a reputable writer for a magazine largely\nread by wives and mothers puts forth the statement that by reason of\nsome experiments the death-rate of diseases incident to maternity has\nbeen reduced \"from ten or more mothers out of every hundred,\" leaving\nit to be inferred that such rate of mortality was once general, what\nare we to infer concerning his ideals of scientific accuracy?\n\n[1] \"Medical Essays of Dr. O. W. Holmes,\" Boston, 1899, p. 156.\n[2] \"Polk told us that when he graduated in medicine, delivery in a\nlying-in hospital was far more dangerous than an engagement in the\nbloodiest battle, for during his internship at Bellevue, he saw FORTY-\nFIVE WOMEN DIE OUT OF THE SIXTY WHO HAD BEEN DELIVERED DURING A SINGLE\nMONTH.\"--Williams; Jour. Am. Med. Association, June 6, 1914.\n\nEqually mistaken is the implication conveyed by the passage quoted\nthat some vast reduction of mortality has been accomplished in regard\nto this special form of disease.  This belief is doubtless entertained\nby a majority of medical practitioners, accustomed to accept\nstatements of leaders without investigation or questioning.  But it is\nnot true.  We need to remember, as Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes tells us,\n\"how kindly Nature deals with the parturient female, when she is not\nimmersed in the virulent atmosphere of an impure lying-in hospital.\"\nTo demonstrate the exact facts, I have tabulated all the deaths in\nEngland and Wales from diseases incident to child-birth, as compared\nwith the number of children born, for sixty years from 1851 down to\n1910.  It will probably surprise many a medical practitioner to know\nthat so far from having vastly diminished, the death-rate from\ndiseases of this character in England and Wales WAS ACTUALLY LESS HALF\nA CENTURY AGO THAN IT WAS DURING THE TEN YEARS ENDING 1910.  But the\nfacts are beyond question; they not only rest upon the official\nreports of the Registrar-General, but they show a uniformity year\nafter year which it is impossible to regard as due to chance.  In\nEngland and Wales, during twenty years (1851-1870) the total number of\nbirths reported by the Registrar-General was 13,971,746.  The total\ndeaths from puerperal fever during the same period were 21,935--a\nmortality-rate per 100,000 births of 157.  This was the period between\nforty and sixty years ago.  During the ten years between 1901 and\n1910, the births in England and Wales numbered 9,208,209; and the\ndeaths from puerperal sepsis were 16,341, a mortality-rate per 100,000\nbirths of 175--GREATER THAN THAT OF HALF A CENTURY AGO! The mortality-\nrate may now be going downward; it was in 1910 but 142 per 100,000\nbirths, but in 1860 the corresponding death-rate was 140, and in 1861\nit was 130--considerably less than at the present day.[1]\n\n[1] These figures have been compiled from the annual reports of the\nRegistrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and\nWales.  Each Annual Report furnishes the number of births and the\nnumber of deaths from puerperal sepsis.\n\nNor is it true that recognition of the origin of this terrible disease\nwas due to experiments upon animals.  It was Dr. Oliver Wendell\nHolmes, in America, who indicated, in 1843, the distasteful truth that\nthe medical attendant was chiefly responsible for the deaths from this\ndisease; and the great lights of the profession in Philadelphia made\nhim and his theory the butt of their ridicule and scorn.  It was\nSemmelweis, a young assistant in the Lying-in Hospital of Vienna, who\nin 1847 pointed out the same truth, drawn, not from any experiments,\nbut from rational observation in the hospital wards; and his discovery\nwas received with contempt, he was hated and despised in his lifetime,\nand he died, as an American author has phrased it, \"with no other\nreward than the scorn of his contemporaries.\" It was not by laboratory\nexperiments upon living animals that the methods by which this\nterrible disease is transmitted became known to Science; it was common\nsense in the sick-chamber that discerned its clue.\n\nThe decreased and decreasing mortality of tuberculosis is not\ninfrequently claimed as a triumph of vivisection; in the article in\nHarper's Magazine to which reference has been made, it is intimated\nthat experimentation has reduced the mortality of tuberculosis \"from\n30 to 50 per cent.,\" by treatment springing from the discovery of\nKoch.\n\nDo facts support this assertion? On the contrary, the decline in the\nmortality due to this dread destroyer of the human race BEGAN MORE\nTHAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY BEFORE KOCH ANNOUNCED THAT DISCOVERY OF A\nGERM which was the cause of the disease.  In his report for 1907, the\nRegistrar-General of England and Wales tells us that \"throughout the\nlast forty years there has been a steady decline in the fatality of\ntuberculous diseases\"; and he illustrates the figures by a diagram,\nshowing, for both men and women, the steady fall in the death-rate\nfrom this disease from a period long before its bacillus was\nrecognized.  Here are the exact figures for England and Wales:\n\nENGLAND AND WALES: AVERAGE ANNUAL DEATH-RATE FROM PHTHISIS PER MILLION\nPERSONS LIVING, IN GROUPS OF YEARS.\n\n        For five years, 1850-1854   ..   ..   ..  2,811\n           \"      \"     1855-1859[1]..   ..   ..  2,647\n           \"      \"     1861-1865   ..   ..   ..  2,528\n           \"      \"     1866-1870   ..   ..   ..  2,449\n           \"      \"     1871-1875   ..   ..   ..  2,219\n           \"      \"     1876-1880   ..   ..   ..  2,042\n\n           \"      \"     1881-1885   ..   ..   ..  1,830\n           \"      \"     1886-1890   ..   ..   ..  1,635\n           \"      \"     1891-1895   ..   ..   ..  1,462\n           \"      \"     1896-1900   ..   ..   ..  1,322\n           \"      \"     1901-1905   ..   ..   ..  1,218\n           \"      \"     1906-1910   ..   ..   ..  1,106\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n[1] For statistics relating to period, 1850-1859, see Registrar-\nGeneral's 34th Report, p. 249.  For years, 1861-1880, see 48th Report,\nTable 27.  For later period, see 73rd Report, p. 21.\n\nThis table is very significant.  The death-rate of consumption in\nEngland for the year 1853 was 2,984 per 1,000,000 population.  From\nthat year, down to the five-year period, 1881-1885, there was a steady\ndecline in the mortality of this disease, amounting to a fraction less\nthan 39 per cent.  On March 24, 1882, Koch announced his discovery.\nThe fall of the death-rate from 1881-1885 to 1906-1910, was almost\nprecisely the same--a fraction over 39 per cent.  NOW WHAT WERE THE\nCAUSES WHICH INDUCED THE CONSTANTLY DECREASING MORTALITY FROM\nCONSUMPTION DURING THAT EARLIER PERIOD, WHEN THE NAME OF KOCH WAS\nUNKNOWN? Is it conceivable that they suddenly became inoperative\nthirty years ago? Is it not more than probable that the chief reason\nwhy the \"great white plague\" has steadily and almost uniformly\ndecreased during sixty years, not only in England, but probably in all\ncivilized lands has been the increased recognition of the value of\nsanitary laws and of personal hygiene? No one questions the importance\nof the discovery of Koch; it has given Science the knowledge that a\ndefinite enemy exists, whose insidious invasion she strives to\nprevent, and whose ultimate conquest may one day be accomplished--more\nby prevention than by cure.  But when a medical writer ascribes the\ndecrease in mortality of this disease to the discovery of Koch in\n1882, and makes no reference to the steady fall in the death-rate\nwhich went on for a quarter of a century before that discovery was\nknown, what is to be said of his fidelity to scientific truth? Is this\nthe ideal of fairness which the laboratory of to-day inculcates and\ndefends?\n\nWhy does it seem worth while to dwell upon these exaggerations and\nuntruths? Was it necessary to go through the mortality records of a\nnation for more than half a century merely to prove the falsity of a\nsingle laboratory claim? I think so.  These are not ordinary blunders\nor trivial mistakes.  They are affirmations made in opposition to the\nslightest step toward reform of great abuses, by honoured and\ndistinguished writers; by men who are regarded as absolutely reliable\nin all statements of fact.  Their assertions of the vast benefits\nconferred  upon the human race by experiments upon living animals are\nmade in the journals of the day, in popular magazines--in periodicals\nwhich refuse opportunity of rejoinder, and which therefore lend their\ninfluence to securing the permanency of untruth.  There are problems\nof science concerning which such affirmations would be of\ncomparatively little consequence; if they concerned, for example the\nweight of an atom or the distance of a star, the controversy would\nexcite but a languid interest, and the correction of inaccuracy might\nsafely be left to time.  But here, on the contrary, we touch some of\nthe most vital problems of life and death, problems that concern every\none; and in defence of practices, the cruelty of which has been\nchallenged as abhorrent to the conscience of mankind, we have\ndistorted and exaggerated claims of utility; we have assertions that\nhave no basis in fact; we have covert appeals to woman's fears in her\ngreatest emergency, and to that sentiment, the noblest almost that man\nhimself can entertain--his solicitude for the mother of his children\nin her hour of peril.  To the malign influence of untrue suggestion no\nbounds can be placed; in the creation of a public sentiment, its\ninfluence extends in ever-widening circles.  It is against this\nunfairness and exaggeration that those who take moderate ground in\nthis question of animal experimentation have the duty of protest and\ncomplaint.  We do not ascribe the unfairness to intentional\nmendacity.  Such motive may be discarded without hesitancy, so far as\nconcerns any reputable writer.  But surely there has been a\ncarelessness regarding the truth which even the plea of ignorance\nought not wholly to condone.\n\nAnd the lesson? It is the reasonableness of doubt.  Every statement\nput forth by the Laboratory interests in defence of the present system\nof unrestricted and secret vivisection should be regarded with\nscepticism unless accompanied by absolute proofs.  In an experience of\nmore than a third of a century, I have never read a defence of\nvivisection without limitations, which did not contain some\nexaggerated claim, some misstatement of fact.  To doubt is not to\ndishonour; it is the highest tribute we may pay to Science; for\n\"without doubt, there is no inquiry, and without inquiry, no\nknowledge.\"\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XVI\n\n                RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION\n\nNo phase of modern science so closely touches the welfare of humanity\nas the studies which concern the prevention of disease.  Up to a very\nrecent period, well within the lifetime of many now living,\npractically the entire energy of the medical profession was given up\nto the treatment of human ailments, with an almost complete disregard\nof problems of prevention or studies of origin.  To-day, in great\nmeasure, all this has been changed, and the importance of preventing\ndisease has come well to the front.  It is permissible to doubt\nwhether the \"cure\" of any of the principal infectious diseases is\nlikely to be so thoroughly accomplished as to eliminate it as a cause\nof mortality, and we may regard with greater promise attempts to\ndiscover the mysterious causes of our diseases, and the best methods\nby which their spread may be prevented.  It is certainly a great gain\nthat during the last hundred years mankind has learned that\ndeliverance must come through human activity, and has ceased to regard\ntyphoid or consumption as a dispensation of Providence.\n\nFor the conquest of some of the principal maladies affecting the human\nrace at the present time I have long questioned whether the laboratory\nfor experimentation upon animals offers the opportunity for the surest\nresults.  The average man has his attention fixed upon mysterious\nresearches which are being carried on in this or that \"Institute\";\nrumours of impending discoveries and almost certain cures are\npublished far and wide; and gradually one gets the impression that\nnotwithstanding abundant disappointments, it is only by yet more\nvivisection that the mystery will be solved.  Is this a valid\nconclusion? In many cases, might not scientific research have a better\nchance to discover the secret of origin were it directed into other\nchannels? I propose to suggest one method of scientific research with\nwhich vivisection is in no way concerned--an investigation into the\ncause of one of the most terrible and most threatening of human\nmaladies--cancer, or malignant disease.\n\nThe subject is a vast one.  Within the limits of a few pages it cannot\nbe treated with any approach to the completeness which its importance\ndemands.  The utmost that can now be attempted is the suggestion of\ncertain lines of research independent of animal experimentation,\nwhich, if carried out with completeness, might lead to results of\nincalculable benefit to humankind.\n\nOutside the medical profession there are few who have the faintest\nrealization of the facts pertaining to malignant disease.  One reason\nfor such ignorance is the lack of any organized system, in the United\nStates, for recording the annual mortality.  Except among barbarous or\nsemi-civilized people, no such condition exists.  When, during the\nautumn of 1912, Dr. Bashford, the Director of the Imperial Cancer\nResearch Fund of England, was invited to lecture in New York, he\nconfessed that he had tried in vain to obtain American statistics\nconcerning cancer which might be compared to those of other nations;\nthey simply did not exist.  There are a few states and a few cities\nfor which mortality records exist, but in some of the principle states\nof America there is no official record showing even the total number\nof deaths from murder, from accident, or disease.  Once in ten years\nthe Federal Government resents us the mortality report of the census\nyear, but even here the information is not available until a\nconsiderable period after it is collated.  There is, however, one\nnation whose official registers for many years have recorded the\nmortality from each cause of disease, for either sex, and for each\nten-year period of life.  These records have no equal elsewhere, and\nare only approached by the mortality records of the Empire of Japan.\nThe figures concerning cancer upon which we may chiefly depend are\nthose which pertain to the English people.  There can be no doubts but\nthat the mortality from cancer in America exhibits the same phenomena,\nthough the rate may be higher.\n\nThe first thing to impress the student is the immensity of the tribute\nof mortality exacted by this disease, from those in the maturity of\nlife, and in large measure at the period of greatest usefulness.\nDuring thirty years, from 1881 to 1910 inclusive, there perished in\nEngland and Wales from cancer no less than 703,239 lives.  Figures\nlike these, for the average intelligence, are practically\nincomprehensible; for this thirty-year tribute to malignant disease in\na signle country represents more human being than all estimated to\nhave perished on the battlefields of Europe for two hundred years.\nAnd if we were able to add the mortality from this one disease on the\nContinent of Europe, it might represent a total of several millions.\n\nAnother significant circumstance is the uniformity of the tribute\nexacted by cancer, year after year.  We can see that best by taking\nthe actual number of deaths from this cause, in a single country, and\nobserving with what slow, implacable, and ever-increasing steps the\ngreat destroyer advances.\n\n\n    DEATHS FROM CANCER IN ENGLAND AND WALES\n\n-----------------------------------------------\n|          Year.           |  Males | Females |\n|--------------------------|--------|---------|\n| 1905  ..      ..      .. | 12,470 | 17,761  |\n| 1906  ..      ..      .. | 13,257 | 18,411  |\n| 1907  ..      ..      .. | 13,199 | 18,546  |\n| 1908  ..      ..      .. | 13,901 | 18,816  |\n| 1909  ..      ..      .. | 14,263 | 19,790  |\n| 1910  ..      ..      .. | 14,843 | 19,764  |\n| 1911  ..      ..      .. | 15,589 | 20,313  |\n| 1912  ..      ..      .. | 16,188 | 21,135  |\n|                          |        |         |\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThe terrible thing about these figures is their uniformity from year\nto year.  With as great a degree of certainty as the farmer foretells\nthe produce of his fields and the results of his seed-sowing, so the\nstatistician can calculate the tribute that cancer will exact from the\nhuman race in future years.  How many persons in England and Wales\nwill die from some from of cancer during the year 1917? Unless some\ngreat catastrophe shall vastly lessen the total population, the number\nof victims destined to perish from malignant disease during that one\nyear will hardly be less than 38,500, and in all probability will be\nmore.  And we have no reason to doubt that in the United States the\nmortality from cancer would be found equally uniform were it possible\nto know the facts.\n\nNor does uniformity pertain to numbers of either sex only.  Each\nperiod of life has to furnish its special toll.  If we look at the\nmortality among men or women for a period of years, we shall see this\nphenomenon very clearly.  In the following table we see the deaths of\nmen from cancer, in England, at each ten-year age-period.\n\n    DEATHS FROM CANCER AT DIFFERENT AGE-PERIODS (ENGLAND):\n                       AGE-PERIODS OF MALES\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n|YEAR|Under|25-35.|35-45.|45-55.|55-65.|65-75.| Above |Total.|\n|    | 25. |      |      |      |      |      |  75.  |      |\n|----|-----|------|------|------|------|------|-------|------|\n|1906| 250 |  322 |  927 | 2,454| 4,087| 3,651| 1,566 |13,257|\n|1907| 305 |  277 |  921 | 2,392| 4,041| 3,675| 1,588 |13,199|\n|1908| 274 |  317 |  925 | 2,594| 4,147| 3,957| 1,687 |13,901|\n|1909| 262 |  296 |  921 | 2,581| 4,319| 4,174| 1,710 |14,263|\n|1910| 283 |  337 |1,001 | 2,778| 4,377| 4,315| 1,752 |14,843|\n|1911| 309 |  317 |  978 | 2,901| 4,627| 4,602| 1,855 |15,589|\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPrecisely the same phenomenon is to be found in the cancer-mortality\nof women.  Each ten-year period of life exacts its own proportion,\nwith an increasing death-rate out of proportion to the increase of\npopulation.\n\nAnother fact, attainable only by the study of English statistics, is\nthe singular regularity with which malignant disease selects different\nparts of the body year after year.  If proclivity to this mysterious\nailment were a matter of chance, or dependent upon the irregular\naction of certain forces, we should certainly fail to find such\nuniformity, or such approach to uniformity, as exists.  One year, for\ninstance, there would be, let us say, a preponderance of attacks upon\nthe skin; another year the digestive organs would be the principal\nsufferers; a third year the joints and muscles would be chiefly\ninvolved.  The actual experience proves that we are subject here to\nforces of incalculable stress, which nevertheless press steadily and\nuniformly upon humanity, where the habits and environment are the\nsame.  In the year 1901, for example, of the total number of fatal\ncases among men, the seat of the disease was the stomach in a little\nover 21 per cent. of the total number of cases.  In 1910 the\nproportion was also 21 per cent.  During the ten years 1901-1910, of\nthe total mortality, the stomach was the organ involved in but a\nfraction over 21 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL CASES.\n\nIs cancer increasing? This is a question of vast importance to the\nhuman race.  That in proportion to total population more die from the\ndisease to-day than twenty or thrity years ago, is a fact about which\nthere can be no doubt.  Dr. Stevenson, in the Report of the Registrar-\nGeneral for the year 1910, tells us that in \"all countries from which\nreturns have been received the mortality has shown a general tendency\nto increase in recent years.\" Speaking on the \"Menace of Cancer,\" the\nstatistician of the Prudential Insurance Company of America affirmed\nthat \"the cancer death-rate in the United States is increasing at the\nrate of 2.5 per cent. per annum, and a corresponding increase is\ntaking place practically throughout the civilized world.\" The cancer-\nrate among men in the United States has increased, according to the\nsame authority, 29 per cent. during the last decade.  The steady\nincrease of cancer year after year is strikingly shown by a curve\ndiagram, based upon the English mortality for several years.\n\nA significant illustration of the steady increase in the mortality\nfrom cancer is shown by its fatality among women in England between\nthe ages of forty-five and sixty-five.  In the year 1875, of all\ndeaths of women at this period of life, one in ten (in round numbers)\nwas due to some form of malignant disease.  In 1890 the tribute\nexacted by the disease had become one in eight.  Ten years later--in\n1900--of all women dying in England during this period of middle life,\nthe toll of cancer was one in seven; and in 1910 the corresponding\nproportion was one in five! At this rate of increase it will not be\nmany years before a full third of all the deaths of women at this time\nof life will be due to malignant disease.  There can be little doubt\nthat the same phenomenon would be found to pertain to American\nexperience, were it possible to disentangle the facts from the\nobscurity in which they are now permitted to lie.  It is a curious\nfact that in England until the year 1900--and, so far as we know, for\nthousands of years--the death-rate from consumption among women was\nconsiderably higher than that of malignant disease; that in 1903, for\nthe first time, the cancer-mortality of women exceeded that of\nphthisis; and that in 1910 it had so far surpassed it that they are\nnot likely ever again to be equal, unless we shall discover the cause\nof the more fatal plague.\n\nThe theory has been put forth by certain writers that the increased\ndeath-rate from cancer is due, not to any increased frequency of the\ndissease, but rather to improved methods of detection.  It is quite\ncertain that fifty years ago, for instance, surgeons were less able\nand less willing to pronounce judgment regarding obscure cases of\ninternal tumours.  But if the better diagnosis of to-day accounts for\nsome part of this increase since 1860, it does not seem probable that\nit can explain the rising death-rate of the last ten or fifteen\nyears.  The medical practitioner of 1900 was certainly as well\nqualified to pronounce upon the character of the disease as the\nsurgeon or physician of to-day.  Nevertheless, the cancer death-rate\nof England in 1910 had increased 16 per cent. above that of ten years\nbefore, and during the fifteen years 1895-1900 it had increased fully\n28 per cent.  Certainly in these last few years there has been no such\nincreased ability to detect the disease as would account for all\nthis.  Yet another fact suggests doubt of this optimistic hypothesis.\nIf the increased cancer death-rate were due merely to the increased\nability of the physician or surgeon to recognize the ailment, we\nshould certainly find that the increase of cancer would be seen only\nin those parts of the system, such as internal organs, where some\ndegree of doubt might perhaps be entertained; while, on the other\nhand, there would be little or no increase discernible in the\nmortality of cancers affecting parts of the body where its nature\ncould not be mistaken by any intelligent physician or surgeon.  Now,\nfor a number of years, perhaps with this hypothesis in view, the\nRegistrar-General in England has tabulated all deaths from cancer of\neither sex, not only by different age-periods, but also by the part of\nthe body affected by the fatal disease.  A study of the facts thus\nmade known is extremely suggestive.  It is true that a marked increase\nin the death-rate has occurred in cancer affecting internal organs, as\nwe should naturally suppose; but it is also true that malignant\ndisease affecting parts of the body where little or no doubt of the\ncharacter of the ailment could be entertained by the physician,\nexhibit in some instances as marked an increase in the death-rate as\nin some other cases, where doubt of malignancy might be justifiable.\nFor example, cancer of the tongue among men showed a death-rate of 32\nper million population in 1897; it went up to 47 per million in 1910--\nan increase of nearly 50 per cent.  Cancer of the female breast showed\na death-rate of about 142 per million population in 1897; it had\narisen to a rate of 190 per million only thirteen years later; and\nhere, assuredly, the nature of the disease in fatal cases cannot be\nmistaken.[1] Cancer of the stomach in its final stages does not\npresent insuperable difficulties in way of diagnosis, but the\ndeath-rate increased for men about 40 per cent. in fifteen years; and\nalthough some of this increase may be due to more careful\ndiscrimination between cases of malignant disease affecting the liver,\nyet this explanation cannot account for the increase when both organs\nare considered together.  The subject is worthy of careful and\nextended investigation, but even a cursory examination of the facts\nnow available indicate a real increase in the death-rate from cancer\nin England, and probably in every other civilized country in the\nworld.\n\n[1] \"During fourteen years ... the mortality from mammary cancer has\nincreased by about 29 per cent., NOTWITHSTANDING LIVES SAVED BY\nIMPROVED METHODS OF OPERATION.\"--Registrar-General's Report for 1910,\np. 69.\n\nBut all these phenomena are of secondary importance compared with the\ngreat problem of medical science--the yet undiscovered cause of\nmalignant disease.  During recent years the study of cancer has been\nconducted with scientific enthusiasm in many laboratories.  Vast sums\nof money have been given, in the hope that these studies may one day\nlead to the discovery of a cure.  One whom I knew in his youth became\nthe heir of great wealth; lived to see one whom he loved perish from\nthe disease; was struck down himself, and dying, left a fortune for\nthe purpose of promoting research concerning cancer.  And yet to-day\nthe problem, as attacked in the various laboratories of Europe and\nAmerica, is apparently as far from solution as it was forty years\nago.  Sir Henry Butlin, ex-President of the Royal College of Surgeons,\nEngland, is said to have operated on as many cases of cancer as any\nsurgeon of his day.  Yet, speaking in October, 1911, he said:\n\n\"I have been associated with the Imperial Cancer Research and in touch\nwith its staff from the foundation of the Research, and have been a\nmember of the publication committee of all its scientific reports.  IT\nHAS DONE NOTHING ON THE LINES IN WHICH OBSERVATION HAS BEEN SO\nUSEFUL.  It has not unfolded the life-history of a single variety of\ncancer, so that we can base our operations on the information.  It has\nnot even discovered whether spontaneous cancer of a particular part of\nthe body in the rat or mouse runs a similar course to spontaneous\ncancer of the same part of the body in the human subject.  These\nproblems are not suited for experimental investigation; they are\ndetermined by observation.\"[1]\n\n[1] Lancet, London, October 7, 1911.\n\nNo \"serum,\" no drug, no curative agency of any kind, has thus far been\ndiscovered upon which the slightest dependence may be placed.  The\nonly measure of relieve which medical science can now suggest is early\nand complete extirpation.  Of what proportion of cases even this\ninsures immunity we cannot tell.\n\nWithout decrying what has been done in the laboratory, may it not be\nthat we have gone in that direction as far as there is any hope for\nsuccess, and that all effort should now be directed TO THE DISCOVERY\nOF THE CAUSE OF MALIGNANT DISEASE IN HUMAN BEINGS? That great secret\nstill eludes us, but until we can penetrate that mystery, it is\ndifficult to perceive how we may hope to prevent the increasing\nprevalence of the great destroyer . Yet there is one method of\ninvestigation which (speaking from a study of cancer statistics for\nmore than twenty-five years) seems to me to offer, more than all\nothers, a reasonable hope of ultimate success. It is independent of\nall sacrifice of animal life.  It involves, however, an expenditure\nfar greater than is possible for any private investigator, and\nprobably only by the co-operation of the Government can it be\nundertaken with any chance of success.  Yet, if Society can once be\naroused to a recognition of the need for the completest possible\ninvestigation concerning malignant disease, and particularly the\nreasons for its differing prevalence among people of different\nnationalities, habits, and general environment, that inquiry will take\nplace, even though it cost the price of a battleship.\n\nThe subject is so vast and involved that it cannot be discussed with\nany approach to completeness in a single essay.  Suppose, however,\nthat we glance at the theory which regards cancer as due to a microbe\nwhich in some mysterious ways gains admission into the human body,\nlying for a time dormant, but liable under appropriate stimulation to\nbe awakened into malignant activity.  We know at the outset that if\nany such germ of disease exists, it has thus far escaped visual\nrecognition.  No human eye can be said with certainty to have seen it,\neven when aided by the most powerful microscope; but this may be due\nto the fact that, like the germ of certain other diseases, it is so\nminute that it lies beyond the range of human vision.  There are,\nhowever, certain facts pertaining to the disease which have\nsignificance.  We have already seen that in a given country there is a\nkind of uniformity in the number of those dying from the disease from\nyear to year; but another phenomenon relates to the unequal pressure\nin difference countries of the causes of the disease.\n\n1. THE DEATH-RATE FROM CANCER APPEARS GREATLY TO VARY ACCORDING TO\nRACE AND ENVIRONMENT.\n\nCANCER DEATH-RATE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES PER 100,000 POPULATION\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n|    Five-Year Periods.    | Switzerland. | England. | Italy. |\n|--------------------------|--------------|----------|--------|\n| 1886-1890     ..      .. |      114     |    63    |   43   |\n| 1891-1895     ..      .. |      122     |    71    |   44   |\n| 1896-1900     ..      .. |      127     |    80    |   51   |\n| 1901-1905     ..      .. |      128     |    87    |   55   |\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nHere is the record of a period of twenty years.  These differences of\nproclivity to cancer are exceedingly curious.  Can the reader perceive\nwhy they exist?\n\nThe rate in England is quite 50 per cent. higher than that of Italy.\nIf we explain this by the hypothesis of greater skill in detecting the\ndisease, what are we to say of the cancer-rate in Switzerland, which\nis 50 per cent. higher than that of England?\n\nBut here is another curious fact.  The United States census of 1900\npermits a contrast of the mortality of cancer according to the\nbirthplaces of mothers of those attacked.  Here, for instance, is the\ndeath-rate from cancer and tumour of persons of different nationality,\ncalculated in three sections of the country--the rural districts of\nthe registration area, the cities of the same section, and the cities\noutside the registration area.\n\nDEATH-RATES IN THE UNITED STATES FROM CANCER AND TUMOUR PER 100,000\nWHITE POPULATION, ACCORDING TO THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE MOTHERS OF\n                        PATIENTS\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n|                          |                      |           |\n|                          |  Registration Area.  |   Other   |\n|      COUNTRIES.          |----------------------|  Cities.  |\n|                          |   Rural    | Cities. |           |\n|                          | Districts. |         |           |\n|--------------------------|------------|---------|-----------|\n| Italy ..      ..      .. |     20     |    24   |     39    |\n| Russia and Poland     .. |     26     |    30   |     26    |\n| England and Wales     .. |     79     |    77   |     80    |\n| Ireland       ..      .. |     90     |    82   |     86    |\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nHow are these facts to be explained? What is there about the habits,\nthe environment, the dietetic peculiarities of the Italians in\nAmerica, which tends to confer upon them a greater immunity from\ncancer than is possessed by those whose maternal ancestry goes to\nEngland or Ireland? Assuredly this immunity is not due to chance.  It\nis governed by some law, even though that law be unrecognized to-day.\nIf the low cancer mortality of Italy made itself manifest only in that\ncountry, we might suspect it indicated a lack of skilled diagnosis;\nbut here we find it just as prominent in three different section of\nthe United States.  Not only that, but the difference is seen in\ncomparison of parts affected by cancer.  For persons whose mothers\nwere born in Ireland the death-rate in cancer of the stomach per\nmillion population was 184; the corresponding rate for Italians was\n56.\n\nDoes the poverty of the people have anything to do with proclivity to\ncancer? In one way this is a probability.  If we could compare the\ngeneral prosperity of men and women whose parents were born in the\nUnited States with the entire population of which the parents were\nborn in other countries, it seems to me that we should find the second\nclass, taken as a whole, to be financially less prosperous than the\nfirst.  Now, in 1900, the census reveals that in the United States the\nclass to suffer chiefly from malignant diseasewas that which included\nTHE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION, alike in cities, in rural districts,\nwithin or without the registration area.  This is certainly a fact of\ntremendous import.  In America the population is a blend of every\nEuropean nationality.  Why, taken as a whole, should the native\nAmerican suffer from one mysterious disease less than some of those\nwho have come more recently to the United States?\n\nIn another work I have ventured to suggest that if we are to discover\nthe cause of cancer, we must study the habits and customs of those\nstill living who have become the victims of some form of this\nmysterious disease.  A theory held by some is that cancer is due to\nthe consumption of meat.  If one means that the flesh of perfectly\nhealthy animals is liable to cause cancer, the hypothesis is one for\nwhich it seems to me that the evidence is far from being sufficient to\njustify belief.  But if, on the other hand, it is suggested that\nmalignant disease may be due to germs derived from animals which were\nsuffering from som form of cancer when they were killed for the food\nof human beings, then much that is otherwise obscure becomes plain.\nWe should expect in such cases to find cancer more prevalent among the\npoor than among the rich, and especially prevalent among those who,\nfrom carelessness, or ignorance, or seeming necessity, consume the\ncheaper kinds of meat.  And since, both in their native land and in\nAmerica, the Italian population consumes less meat than peoples of\nother nationalities, we should expect them to be less liable to be\ninfected by the germs of malignant disease.\n\nA few years ago a medical writer who has given much attention to this\ndisease published some of his investigations into the cancer\ndeath-rate of Chicago.  Taking the figures for a single year, he\ndiscovered that the \"cancer death-rate among the Irish and German\nresidents of Chicago is the highest in the world, being nearly 300 per\ncent. higher than in their native countries.\"[1] Of each 10,000\npopulation of each nationality living at the age of forty years and\nover, he found that the deaths from cancer among the Germans was 76,\namong the Irish 70, among the Scandinavians 52, and among the natives\nof Italy 24.  It was found that, while the staple diet of Italians in\nChicago was macaroni and spaghetti, the people of other nationalities\namong whom the cancer-rate was exceedingly high, \"consume large\nquantities of canned and preserved meats and sausages, OFTEN EATEN\nUNCOOKED.\" He discovered that a large part of the fresh meat prepared\nat the establishment of a certain slaughtering establishment in\nChicago was derived from animals which had been condemned on the ante-\nmortem inspection, but the flesh of which was perimitted TO BE SOLD AS\nPURE FOOD AFTER THE DISEASED PARTS HAD BEEN REMOVED.  Sold thus at a\ncheaper price, such meat was chiefly consumed by the poorer classes of\nthe foreign population.  And while Dr. Adams does not adopt the\nhypothesis of the cancer-germ, he does not think there can be \"the\nslightest question but that the increase in cancer among the foreign-\nborn over the prevalence of that disease in their native countries is\ndue to the increased consumption of animal foods, PARTICULARLY THOSE\nDERIVED FROM DISEASED ANIMALS.\"\n\n[1] See article by Dr. G. Cooke Adams in Chicago Clinic of August,\n1907, pp. 248-251.\n\nA statement like this is calculated to induce serious reflections.\nThe average reader finds it difficult to believe that, according to\nthe present interpretation of the law, the flesh of animals found to\nbe suffering from cancer at the time of their slaughter would be\npermitted to pass into the world's food-supply.  We are int the\npresence of a great mystery.  We do not know how the gret plague\noriginates.  But no reflecting man or woman can be insensible to the\nsignificance of possibilities when he learns that cancer affects\nanimals which are killed for food; that in the majority of cases the\ndisease affects some part of the digestive tract; that it chiefly\nprevails among the very poorest classes of the population, excepting\nonly those like Italians, who use but little meat; and that, according\nto the official regulations of the United States Government in force\nto-day, THE FLESH DERIVED FROM CANCEROUS ANIMALS NEED NOT ALWAYS BE\nDESTROYED AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.  The cancerous tumour, the\naffected parts, must indeed be cut away, and carefully condemned.  The\ndisposition of the remainder of the meat is left to the decision of\nthe inspector!\n\nThe regulation so far as it applies to meat of this kind, is as\nfollows:\n\n\"ANY ORGAN OR PART of a carcass, which is badly bruised, or which is\naffected by tumours, MALIGNANT or benign, ... shall be condemned; but\nwhen the lesions are so extensive as to affect the whole carcass, the\nwhole carcass shall be condemned.\"[1]\n\n[1] Regulations governing Meat Inspection, U.S.A. Regulation No. 13,\nsection 23.  See also Appendix VIII., p. 362.\n\nThe meaning of this regulation would seem to be perfectly clear.\nThere is no demand by the Government that the entire carcass of an\nanimal affected by malignant disease shall be utterly destroyed for\nfood purposes, unless the disease has involved the entire body,--a\ncondition as rarely found among domesetic animals, as among human\nbeings.  Otherwise than this, what is there in the official\nregulations of the bureau governing meat inspection to prevent such\nuse of the flesh of diseased animals as the inspector may authorize?\n\nIt seems to me that if science is ever to discover the cause of\nmalignant disease, there should be a careful study of all the\nconditions under which the disease now manifests itself.  The\nmortality from cancer in the state of New York, in 1912, amounted to\n8,234; in England, the number of those who perished from the disease\nin 1911 was nearly 36,000.  By what figure must we multiply this\nmortality in order to ascertain the number of persons living who have\nbeen affected, or who now are suffering from cancer? Nobody knows.\nWhat has been the success of surgery in securing immunity from a\nrecurrence of the disease? So far as the entire country is concerned,\nwe are entirely ignorant.  Is it true that among the class of people\nin such cities as Chicago, where cancerous animals are used for food,\ncancer is especially prevalent year after year? If true, it should be\nfully known.  Such facts must be ascertained, if ever we are to\npenetrate the secret of the dissease.  Even the number of victims of\neach sex is not given in the mortality reports of the state of New\nYork at the present day.\n\nLet us suppose that the time comes, when with a realization of peril\npertaining to ignorance, public sentiment shall urge the attainment of\nknowledge concerning cancer as it now affects the general population.\nIn what way is information of this character to be secured? Assuredly\nnot by any of the ordinary census methods, implying publicity.  The\nonly practicable enumeration would be one conducted privately, by\nmembers of the medical profession.  Nor can it be done\nparsimoniously.  In the state of New York, there may be, to-day,\n50,000 cases of malignant disease.  To have every case, completely\nreported, might cost the state half a million dollars.  Perhaps even\nthe patient should be compensated.  Certainly some method could be\nadopted whereby the reports should be absolutely confidential, the\npatient being known only by a number.  But all this is of minor\nconsequence.  When the necessity of the inquiry is everywhere\nrecognized, the details pertaining to accomplishment will be easily\narranged.\n\nAssuming the willingness of patients and friends to assist in making a\nState-wide inquiry concerning the prevalence of malignant disease, let\nus see in what directions the investigation will be conducted.\n\nFIRST.  After securing the name, age, and place of birth of each\nindividual sufferer, and the particulars which would suggest\nthemselves to every physician or surgeon, inquiry should be made\nconcerning the parents; the names, nationality, religious faith, place\nand date and cause of death.  Especially should inquiry be made\nwhether there have been other cases of cancer in the family, and their\ntermination or present state.\n\nSECOND.  What is the location of the suspected ailment? When were the\nfirst symptoms manifested? To what cause, if any, were they ascribed?\nHas any surgical operation been performed, and if so, what are the\ndetails of time and place? Has recurrence followed operation? For what\nperiod was there freedom from symptoms?\n\nWhatis the social position of the patient? Does he belong to that\nclass which is enabled always to select the best food, the most\nsanitary dwellings, and all the conveniences of well-ordered and\ncomfortable existence; or, on the other hand, to the extremely poor\nclass, which disregards cleanliness, indulges to excess in the use of\nstimulants, and consumes the poorest and cheapest kinds of meat? I\ndeem it of great importance that the completest possible information\nbe secured concerning the usual diet of every sufferer from this\ndisease.  Is he a vegetarian? Are viands invariably well-cooked, or\neaten sometimes rare or raw? Is there a liking for the canned products\nof the packing-house, or for sausage that comes from the same\nsource?[1] What is the water-supply? Within the knowledge of the\npatient or friends, has there been any other case of malignant disease\nin the same house? Is residence near any fresh-water lake or stream?\n\n[1] The relation between diseased meat and human ailments is treated\nat length in my work on \"American Meat,\" New York, 1909.\n\nThese are suggestions only.  They constitute merely an outline of the\ninformation that is necessary, concerning the living sufferers, in\nwhom the disease has made its appearance.  Doubtless the average\nreader will discern no reason for all these inquiiries.  Yet each one\nhas some pertinency to the possible discovery of the great secret.\nDoes inquiry concerning family history seem useless? It should have a\ndecided bearing on any theory of heredity.  Does the occurrence of\nnear-by cases have no significance? We are not yet in a position to\nstate this as a fact.  Does inquiry concerning religion seem\nespecially impertinent? What if some future investigation should prove\nthat cancer everywhere, is more prevalent among the Christians than\nthe Jews? Does the social condition of the sufferer seem to have no\nrelation to cause? What if we discover, that everywhere,--and not\namong the foreign population of Chicago only,--cancer finds an undue\nproportion of its victims among the poorest and most poverty-stricken\nelement of every nationality? Does suggestion of inquiry concerning\ndiet induce a smile? It should not, as long as meat derived from\ncancerous animals is permitted by Government authority, to pass\ninspection, and to be distributed throughout the world.  And no\ninquiry concerning cancer can be deemed complete which has not fully\ninvestigated the extent to which this atrocious practice has been\ncarried on for the past quarter of a century.\n\nBut this State-wide inquiry is only a part of the work.  Every year,\nfor a period of at least ten years, the record must be revised, the\nresult of surgical operations recorded, the deaths enumerated, the new\ncases added.  The expense of each annual revision would be far less\nthan that of the original inquiry; but the inquiry will be costly, and\nshould be costly, if it is to be accurate and complete.  Here, indeed,\nwould be the opportunity for the co-operation of organizations devoted\nto \"cancer research,\" and particularly of that new foundation, the\nincome of which for a single year is far more than the original\ninvestigation would cost.\n\nAnd when the inquiry is completed; when all attainable information\nconcerning the occurrence of malignant disease shall have been secured\nnot for a single year, but for a period of successive years, not for\none community, but for an entire state, and for each of its\nconstitutuent parts, what then? Then I believe a knowledge of the\ncause of cancer will soon be attained.  When we know the cause, then\nthere will be hope for prevention, which is far better than cure.  All\nthe various experiments upon mice, for example, whatever they may\nteach concerning the disease in the lower animals, have not\nenlightened us concerning the cause of the malady in mankind.  The\ngreatest and most promising fields for scientific research, now almost\nuntrodden, awaits the explorers of the future.  In a world where now\nthere is comparative unconcern, there may soon be fearful\napprehensions of the increasing prevalence of an almost irremediable\ndisease.  Within the coming century, the investigation I have here\noutlined, will sometime be made; and, as a result, the cause of cancer\nmay be as well known to medical science, as the causes of typhoid\nfever or malaria,--mysteries that seemed insoluble less than a century\nago.  And I venture with assurance to predict, that some time within\nthe next fifty years, the Governments of England and of the United\nStates, alarmed, it may be, by a continually increasing mortality from\ncancer, will condemn under severest penalties, the sale for human food\nof meat deriveed from animals affected by malignant disease,--no\nmatter how great may be the pecuniary loss to every slaughtering\nestablishment and packing-house in either land.  The public awakening\nto danger that must precede legislation cannot yet be discerned; and\nbefore the national apprehension is aroused and apathy ceases,\nprobably more than a million lives will be sacrificed to cancer, in\nEngland and America alone.\n                ------------------------------\nNote.--\"The deaths ascribed to cancer or malignant disease in England\nand Wales during 1912, numbered 37,323.  The mortality of males was\n913 per million living, as compared with 891 in 1911, and that of\nfemales, 1,117, as compared with 1,098.  IN THE CASE OF EACH SEX,\nTHESE RATES ARE THE HIGHEST ON RECORD.\"--From 75th Report of\nRegistrar-General, 1914, p. lxxxiii.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XVII\n\n                THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION[1]\n\n[1] Address delivered at Washington, D.C., before the International\nHumane Congress, December 10, 1913.\n\nAttempts to forecast the future development of Humanity in any\ndirection have always possessed for some minds a peculiar\nfascination.  Plato and Bacon had their visions of a State superior to\nthat in which they lived; Burton foresaw improvements in the\nadministration of justice, and the condition of the poorer classes,\nwhich waited for two centuries for some measure of realization; even\nDefoe had his list of \"projects,\" some of which, laughed at in their\nday, are the realities of our time.  No great reform in any direction\nwas ever effected which had not been the unrealized vision of a\ndreamer.\n\nAnd such dreams are the romance of history.  For any one to have\nimagined two centuries ago, that the African slave-trade and negro\nslavery would some day be condemned by every civilized nation, not\nbecause they were pecuniarily unprofitable, but because they\ncontravened the conscience of Society and its sense of righteousness,\nrequierd a faith in the ultimate triumph of justice over greed, that\nnot one man in ten thousand possessed.  For Calvin or Torquemada to\nhave imagined the coming of a time when the burning of an unbeliever\nwould not be regarded as pleasing to the Deity, demanded a sublimer\nvision than either of them possessed.  Custom and universal acceptance\nwould sometimes seem to create impregnable barriers against change.\nBut with the slow lapse of years, the venerated custom is attacked by\ndoubt; the superstition is undermined, and the great evil gradually\npasses from the sight.  No great wrong is so securely entrenched, as\nto be absolutely safe from the ultimate condemnation of mankind.\n\nWhat is to be the future of vivisection, as conducted in America to-\nday? Is it to continue, without other limitations against cruelty than\nthose which are self-imposed, without legal restriction or restraint,\nso long as civilization endures, ever widening its scope, ever\nincreasing the hecatombs of its victims, until uncounted milions shall\nhave been sacrificed? Is protest against excess to grow weaker, until\nthe ideal of humaneness in the laboratory shall become a scoff and a\nbyword? Is approval of any research in the name of Science to become\nstronger until it shall cover the vivisection of human beings as well\nas the exploitation of animals? Or are we to expect, as the result of\nagitation, the legal suppression of all scientific research requiring\nanimal life, within the limits of the next half-century? It is easier\nto ask questions than to answer them.  Yet, as one who for over thirty\nyears, has taken some part in the agitation for reform, you may be\nwilling to permit a forecast of probabilities, vague, it may be, as\nthe vision of a sailor peering through the darkness that environs the\nship,--but the best he can do.\n\nNo estimate of the future of vivisection in America can be of value\nwhich does not recognize the power of the laboratory at the present\nday.  Half a century ago, the vivisection of animals was rarely\npractised; to-day, in the older states, there are few institutions of\nhigher learning which do not possess ample facilities for animal\nexperimentation.  Millionaires, many times over, have been induced to\ndevote some part of their great wealth to the foundation and support\nof institutions for exsperimentation upon living things.  Farms have\nbeen established where animals destined to sacrifice, are born and\nbred.  It may safely be estimated that in America, to-day, there are\nnot less than five hundred times as many experiments every year, as\ntook place half a century ago.\n\nOne must recognize, too, the change which has taken place in the\nattitude of a majority of the medical profession towards this reform.\nDuring the past thirty years, thousands of young men have entered the\nprofession, who have been carefully educated to regard all criticism\nof animal experimentation as due to a sentimentalism worthy only of\ncontempt.  I greatly doubt whether even one per cent. of the\nphysicians in America, under fifty years of age, have ever heard that\nhalf a century ago, the feeling of the medical profession, in the\nEnglish-speaking world was almost unanimous in disapproval and\ncondemnation of methods and of experiments which now pass without\nnotice, and uncondemned.  When men, educated to come into the closest\nof relations with their fellow-beings, are thus prejudiced and\nuninformed, should we wonder that their views are so widely accepted?\nThe wonder to me is rather that so large a minority are not to be\nconvinced that everything in a laboratory must be right.\n\nAnother element of the forces that to-day are marshalled against\nreform, is the Press.  Political journals, which even twenty-five\nyears ago endeavoured to hold an attitude of impartiality, now present\neditorials almost every week in ridicule of any legal regulation of\nvivisection, or of any opposition to laboratory freedom.  The intimate\nknowledge of medical matters sometimes exhibited by the writers, would\nseem to indicate a closer relation between the physiological\nlaboratory of to-day, and the editorial sanctum, than existed forty\nyears ago.  There are journals, so closely related, apparently, to\nlaboratory interests, that they do not permit correction of editorial\nmisstatements or mistake to appear in their columns, even when such\nblunders are pointed out.  The old impartial attitude of the Press\nseems--except here and there--to have completely disappeared.  Any\nforecast of the future must take into account this vast and ever-\nincreasing influence.\n\nYet another impediment to the legal repression of any cruelty\npertaining to animal experimentation is one which we all deplore, even\nthough no remedy appears in sight.  It is not the opposition of\nenemies, but division among friends that constitutes, in my opinion,\nthe greatest present obstacle to any reform.  It is as though against\nsome strong fortress, different armies were engaging in an attack,\neach with its separate purpose, its own plan of campaign, its own\nultimate aim, and now and then crossing and recrossing in each other's\nway, to the infinite delight of the enemy.  Some of us make the demand\nthat ALL such inquiry on the part of Science shall be made a crime;\nand some of us take the position of the English-speaking medical\nprofession of forty years ago, that ABUSES AND CRUELTY ALONE should be\nthe object of attack.  If opposition from the first, had been solely\ndirected against ABUSES of vivisection, could any reform have been\nachieved? It is not certain.  When Mr. Rockefeller opened his purse on\nthe vivisection table, he added immeasurably to the strength of the\nforces that resist reform.  And yet it is difficult to over-estimate\nthe loss to any cause of such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, as\nProfessor William James and Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard\nUniversity, or of Dr. Theophilus Parvin of Jefferson Medical\nCollege,--to refer only to the dead.  Their criticisms of cruelty were\noutspoken, but they could not join in universal condemnation of all\nsuch inquiry into the phenomena of life.  Might it not have been\nbetter--even at the cost of a lessened demand--to have kept on the\nside of reform that large element in the medical profession which\nwillingly condemned abuse, but declined to denounce the simplest\ndemonstration, or the most painless investigation? Of course such an\ninquiry will receive different replies.  It is ever the easier task to\nmake condemnation absolute.  The thing has been done; the past is\nbeyond recall.  But in looking at the future, we cannot but recognize\nthe changed attitude of a majority of the medical profession from that\nof half a century ago.\n\nThe strongest position of the modern physiological laboratory, is its\nSECRECY.  It occupies in the popular mind almost precisely the place\nwhich was held for centuries by the Inquisition in Spain.  There were\nmen who doubtless objected, then, to the secrecy of the dungeon.\n\"Trust us absolutely,\" cried the inquisitor. \"Ours is the\nresponsibility of preventing errors that lead to eternal death.  Can\nyou not leave it to us to decide what shall be done in the torture-\nchamber, being assured that NO MORE PAIN WILL BE INFLICTED THAN IS\nABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE END IN VIEW?\" \"Trust us absolutely,\"\ndemands the vivisector of to-day. \"Can you dare to question the purity\nof our motives, the unselfishness of our aims, the mild and humane\nmethods of our experimentation? Why should any one wish to disturb the\nsilence and secrecy in which we carry on our work? Cannot the public\nleave it solely to us to determine what pain may be inflicted upon\nanimals, being certain that no more suffering will be caused than we\ndeem to be necessary for success?\"\n\nThe parallelism is complete.  It is a call for implicit confidence.\nAnd that confidence has been given by a too credulous public.  Three\nhundred years ago, when the victims were marched in long procession\nfrom dungeon to burning-place, they were accompanied by an approving\nmob, eager to inflict every indignity and to applaud every pang.  The\nmen about the burning-place were not intentionally cruel.  They had\nsimply given the control of their judgment to the inquisitor.  Is it\nso very different, to-day, in the matter of vivisection? Why should we\nhesitate to recognize that at the present time, a large section of the\ngeneral public have made the same act of surrender, justifying\nwhatever the laboratory demands, and defending whatever it defends?\n\nIt seems to me probable, therefore, that for many years to come, the\nlaboratory for vivisection, IF ONLY IT CAN MAINTAIN ITS SECRECY, will\ncontinue as serenely indifferent to criticsm, as completely master of\nthe confidence of modern society, as supreme in power and position as\nwas the Spanish Inquisition of three centuries ago.  New laboratories\nwill be founded upon ill-gotten wealth; new inquisitors, with salaries\ngreater than those of Washington or Lincoln will take the places of\nthose that retire; new theories, now unimagined, will demand their\ntribute of victims to help prove or disprove some useless hypothesis;\neven new methods of torment may be invented, and new excuses for their\nnecessity put forth.  Nor is this all.  If the laboratory of the\npresent day shall continue to maintain its hold upon the intelligence\nof modern society; if it can keep unimpaired that confidence in its\nbenevolent purpose, that belief in accomplishment, that faith in\nutility which now so largely obtains; and if, moreover, it can secure\nfor the charity hospital that absolute power and secrecy which it has\ngained for itself in animal experimentation, then, within the lifetime\nof men now living, human beings will take their place as \"material\"\nfor investigation of human ailments.  Upon the living bodies of\nAmerian soldiers, upon lunatics in asylums and babes in institutions\nand patients in charity hospitals, experiments of this character have\nalready taken place.  Is utility to Science to be considered the\nstandard by which human actions are to be judged? Then, even within\nthe present century, experimentation upon human beings may be openly\nacknowledged as a defensible method of investigation.\n\nNow all this is not a cry of despair, a confession of defeat.  It is\nmeant only to be rational recognition of existing conditions, and\nespecially of the forces that now prevent reform.  Perhaps if the\narmies were united, a different forecast could be made; but that union\nis beyond hope.  The enthusiasm that would expect to eliminate a great\nevil on other terms, and within the space of time occupied by a single\ngeneration does not seem to me to be justified by the records of\nhistory.  Of the ultimate triumph of the reform of vivisection, there\ncan be no more question than of the result of the agitation against\nhuman slavery, against the torment of criminals, against the burning\nof the heretic or the witch.  In what way may we anticipate its\ncoming?\n\nWe may be certain that a period will yet arrive, when among the more\nintelligent classes of society, doubts concerning the practical\nutility of all that is done in the name of Science will take the place\nof present-day credulity.  It is too soon to expect a general spirit\nof inquiry to arise; the closed laboratory has not been so long in\nexistence but that a request for more time to demonstrate possibility\nof accomplishment may seem not unreasonable.  But some time in the\nfuture, long after we have all passed away, the intellectual world may\nbe moved by the spirit of doubt and unrest; it will ask from the\nlaboratory a statement of account; it will demand that the books be\nbalanced; and that against the cost of agony and death, there be made\nknown whatever gains in way of discoveries of clearly demonstrated\nvalue to humanity, can be proven to exist.\n\nLike the servant in the parable, the modern laboratory has been given\nits ten talents.  It enjoys a secrecy which is profound, all that\nwealth can procure, and unrestricted opportunity for ever phase of\nresearch.  There is no limitation to the torments which it may\ninflict, without impediment or fear of public criticism, if present\nsecrecy can be maintained.  The conscience of modern society--so far\nas vivisection is concerned,--would seem to have \"journeyed into a far\ncountry.\" But some day it may return to its own, and ask for an\naccounting of its trust.\n\nAnd fifty years hence, if pressed for the proof of great achievement,\nof grand discoveries, what evidence will then be produced by the\nvivisection laboratory? How much of wealth will have been devoted to\nfruitless explorations in desert regions? What vast fortunes will have\nbeen paid out to professional explorers, whose work will have been in\nvain? What proofs will the laboratory then be able to adduce of\n\"priceless discoveries\" made within its walls, proofs resting not upon\nthe heated enthusiasm of the experimenter, but demonstrated by\nstatistical evidence of a decreased mortaility from the scourges of\ndisease? THAT is the test of utility, which may one day be applied not\nmerely to Mr. Rockefeller's creation, but to every laboratory in\nEngland and America.  Then, perhaps, it may not suffice to set forth\ndiscoveries, as useless to mankind, as would be the demosntration of\ngold and silver in the moon.  Before the tribunal of an intelligent\npublic opinion,--not of our day, but of some distant epoch, the\njustification of secret vivisection will assuredly be demanded.  Will\nit be given? Against the vast cost in money, cost in depravation of\nthe instinct of compassion, cost in the lessened sensitiveness of\nyoung men and young women to the infliction of torment, cost in the\nseeming necessity of defending and justifying cruelty, cost in the\ntemptation to exaggerate facts, cost in the countless hecatombs of\nvictims, non-existent to-day, yet doomed to perish in pain of which no\nrecord and no use can be found,--against all this, what profit will be\nadduced? Something? Undoubtedly.  BUT SUFFICIENT TO BALANCE THE COST?\nWhen that accounting is made, will the enlightened conscience of\nhumanity then grant condonation, because of great achievement, of all\nthat will have been done in the name of research, and of demonstration\nof well-known facts? I cannot imagine it.\n\nWhat can we venture to forecast regarding the future of medical school\nvivisections, made for the one purpose of fixing facts in memory? No\none qualified by any experience in teaching can doubt the value of\ncertain demonstrations.  So far as they are performed upon animals\nmade absolutely unconscious to any senstation of pain, it is difficult\nto suggest a condemnation that does not equally apply to the killing\nof animals for food or raiment.  But the medical school laboratory\nseems to shrink from the public scrutiny.  If there were no need for\nsecrecy, is it likely that every attempt to penetrate the seclusion of\nthe laboratory would be so strenuously opposed? OF WHAT IS THE\nLABORATORY AFRAID? If the present methods of demonstration or teaching\nof physiology are such as would meet general approval so far as their\npainlessness is concerned, why fear to make them known? On the other\nhand, if animals are subjected to prolonged and extreme torment for the\nillustration of well-known and accepted facts; if students not only\nwitness, but are sometimes required to perform for themselves\nexperiments as agonizing and as useless as any that ever disgraced the\ntorture-chambers of Magendie, we can well understand why immunity from\ncriticism can only be secured by concealment and secrecy.  Opposition\nto publicity or to investigation by the Government is quite\nconceivable, if there be something which must be hidden out of sight.\n\nIn the long-run, the policy of concealment must fail, and the whole\ntruth be known.  Then, indeed, we may hope for the beginning of\nreform.  That fifty or a hundred years hence, all utilization of\nanimals, whether for food or raiment or scientific ends will have\nabsolutely ceased in England and America I am not able to believe.\nBut I am very sure that before this century closes, the subjection of\nanimals to pain for the demonstration of well-known facts will have\ncome to an end; that agonizing experiments will have ceased; that\nevery laboratory wherein animals are ever used for experimental\npurposes will be open to inspection \"from cellar to garret,\" as\nProfessor Bigelow of Harvard Medical School said they should be; and\nthat except as a shield for crime, the secrecy which now enshrouds the\npractice will for ever have disappeared.\n\nWe are living to-day in a period of unrest and change, such as the\nworld has never known before.  A new social consciousness has awakened\nthroughout the civilized world, a feeling that for those who are to\ncome after us, life should be happier and better than it is.  Humanity\nis advancing toward its ideals by leaps and bounds, where once it\nslowly crept.  Every social problem, from the prevention of cruelty,\nthe suppression of vice, the rescue of the submerged, to the abolition\nof poverty itself, is to-day more in the thought of humanity than ever\nbefore in the history of the world.  We are but just beginning to\nlearn our duties to human beings of other races; may we not be assured\nthat the more sensitive conscience of the future will define with\nauthority, our duties to the humbler sharers of this mysterious gift\nof life? Already, Science has told us, that far in the past, we had\nthe same origin; and surely, when some higher ideal than utility to\nourselves, shall dominate human conduct, there will be a new\nconception of JUSTICE toward every sentient being.  It may mean\nextinction of species; but it will notmean their torment.  You and I\ncannot hope for life long enough to see the realization of that\ndream.  And yet, sometimes I have wondered whether it be so far\ndistant as I have feared.  But a little while ago, who of us could\nhave imagined that in our day, the Government of the United States\nwould listen to the cries of little birds, starving on their nests in\nthe swamps of Florida, and prohibit the importation of the egret\nplumes? How much of hopefulness for the final triumph of th\neprinciples of humaneness lies in the passage of such a law!\n\nI fancy that one day, all noxious animals, and especially those which\nprery upon other creatures, will largely, if not entirely, disappear.\nIt is calculated that ever grown lion in South Africa kills for food,\nevery year, between 200 and 300 harmless animals, and each one of\nwhich is as much entitled as the lion to the happiness of existence.\nIn great museums to-day, we see the remains of creatures, like the\nsabre-toothed tiger, that lived probably, over a million years ago.\nIn a century or two, hence, the skeletons of the panther, the tiger,\nthe leopard and the lion, will be found in the same halls of science,\nwith those of other extinct species, that could exist only at the\nexpense of others' lives.\n\nSome day the question of vivisection will be merged in the larger\nproblem, the adjustment of man's relations to animals on the basis of\nJUSTICE.  We who are assembled here to-day, certainly are not\nforgetful of other cruelties than those which pertain to animal\nexperimentation.  In the awful torment endured for days by animals\ncaught in steel traps in order that their death may contribute to the\nadornment of women and the luxury of men; in the killing of seals,\naccompanied by the starvation of their young; in the great variety of\nblood-sports; in the slaughter of animals, destined for human food, in\nall these, as well as in the cruelties that have pertained to\nphysiological inquiries, we see exemplified man's present indifference\nto the highest ethical ideals.  We do not oppose one phase of cruelty;\nWE OPPOSE THEM ALL.  And we may be assured, that when the day dawns in\nwhich humanity shall seek to govern conduct by the ideal of universal\njustice, then in some more blessed age than ours, the evils of\nvivisection not only, but all phases of cruelty and injustice will for\never cease.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XVIII\n\n            THE FINAL PHASE: EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN\n\nThere is one phase of scientific research which cannot be passed in\nsilence.  It is experimentation upon human beings.  That \"no\nexperiments on animals are absolutely satisfactory unless confirmed\nupon man himself,\" a well-known vivisector has asserted; and no one\nacquainted with the trend of events, could doubt the coming of a time\nwhen opportunity for such \"confirmation\" would be given, and when a\nmore precious and a less costly \"material\" than domestic animals would\nbe used for investigations of this kind.  Writing many years ago, a\ndistinguished jurist declared that \"to whomsoever in the cause of\nScience, the agony of a dying rabbit is of no consequence, it is\nlikely that the old or worthless man will soon be a thing which in the\ncause of learning, may well be sacrificed.\"\n\nIt is necessary at the outset, however, to draw a careful distinction\nbetween those phases of experimentation upon man which seem to be\nlegitimate and right, and those other pases of inquiry which are\nclearly immoral.  It is, of course, to be expected that certain\nexperimenters upon human being will endeavour to confound both phases\nof inquiry in the public estimation; and yet there is no difficulty in\ndrawing clear distinctions between them.  Let us see what differences\nmay be perceived between the experimentation upon human beings which\nis laudable and right, and the other phase of inquiry which Society\nshould condemn.\n\nI. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being,\nconscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely\nfor the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and,\nif practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and\nright.  In the practice of medicine, there must always be a \"first\ntime\" when a new method of medical treatment is tested, a new\noperation performed, a new remedy employed.  Whether the procedure\npertain to medicine or surgery, so long as the amelioration of the\npatient is the one purpose kept in view, IT IS LEGITIMATE TREATMENT.\nThe motive determines the morality of the act.\n\nII. Now human vivisection is something quite different.  It has been\ndefined as \"the practice of subjecting to experimentation human\nbeings--men, women, or children, usually inmates of public\ninstitutions--by methods liable to involve pain, distress, injury to\nhealth, or even danger to life, without any full, intelligent,\npersonal consent, FOR NO OBJECT RELATING TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT,\nBUT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SOME SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.\"\n\nThe distinction is a perfectly clear one.  Under the term \"human\nvivisection\" only those experiments are included which have some of\nthese characteristics:\n\n1. THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE PERSONAL\nWELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE EXPERIMENT IS\nMADE.\n\n2. The experiment is liable to cause some degree of pain, discomfort,\ndistress, or injury to the health, or danger to the life of the person\nupon whom it is performed.  The defence often made that no real injury\nresulted from the experiment, cannot palliate the offence against\npersonal rights.\n\n3. The experiment is performed without the intelligent, and full\nconsent of the individual experimented upon.  Such legal consent of\ncourse is impossible to obtain from children, from the feeble-minded,\nor from lunatics in public institutions.\n\nIt is the purpose of this chapter to demonstratte that such\nexperiments upon human beings have been performed.  Naturally, it will\nbe impossible to quote the cases in full.  Enough, however, will be\ngiven to prove that the charge of human experimentation is not the\nexaggeration of ignorance or sentimentality; that such methods of\nresearch have been practised upon the sick, the friendless, the poor\nin public institutions, without their knowledge or intelligent\nconsent; that they are in vogue even in our own time; and that\nhospitals and institutions, founded in many cases, for charitable\npurposes, have lent their influence and aid in furnishing either\nvictims or experimenters.\n\nCommenting upon certain human vivisections in Germany, the British\nMedical Journal declared in its editorial columns:\n\n\"Gross abuses in any profession should not be hushed up, but should\nrather bemade public as freely as possible, so as to rouse public\nopinion against them and thus render their repetition or spread\nimpossible.  And therefore we have reason to thank the newspaper\nVorw\"arts for dragging into light the experiments made by Dr. Strubell\non patients.... The whole medical profession must reprobate cruelties\nsuch as these perpetrated in the name of Science.\"[1]\n\n[1] British Medical Journal, July 7, 1900, p. 60.\n\nIt is this sentiment which justifies present publicity.  The cases to\nwhich attention will be directed are not many; but they suffice to\nillustrate the practice, and to enable the reader to decide whether\nsuch experiments should meet approval or condemnation.\n\n\n                    I. The Case of Mary Rafferty\n\nAn instance of human vivisection which ended by the death of the\nvictim, occurred some years ago in the Good Samaritan Hospital in\nCincinnati.  It would be difficult to suggest a name for a hospital\nmore suggestive of kindly consideration for the sick and unfortunate:\nand to this charitable institution, there came one day a poor Irish\nservant girl by the name of Mary Rafferty.\n\nShe was not strong, either mentally or physically.  Some years before,\nwhen a child, she had fallen into an open fire, and in some way had\nseverely burned her scalp.  In the scar tissue an eroding ulcer--\npossibly of the nature of cancer,--had appeared; and it had progressed\nso far that the covering of the brain substance had been laid bare.\nNo cure could be expected; but with care and attention she might\npossibly have lived for several months.  We are told that she made no\ncomplain of headache or dizziness; that she seemed \"cheerful in\nmanner,\" and that \"she smiled easily and frequently,\"--doubtless with\nthe confidence of a child who without apprehension of evil, feels it\nis among friends.  The accident, however, had made her good\n\"material\"; she offered opportunity for experimentation of a kind\nhitherto made only upon animals.  \"It is obvious,\" says the\nvivisector, \"that it is exceedingly desirable to ascertain how far the\nresults of experiments on the brain of animals may be employed to\nelucidate the functions of the human brain.\"[1]\n\n[1] This case, under the significant title, \"Experimental\nInvestigations into the Functions off the Human Brain,\" is related at\nlength in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 93\n(N.S., 67).\n\nAt the outset the experiments seem to have been somewhat cautiously\nmade.  Nobody knew exactly what would be the result.  The experimenter\nbegan by inserting into Mary Rafferty's brain, thus exposed by\ndisease, needle electrodes of various lengths, and connecting them\nwith a battery.  As a result, her arm was thrown out, the fingers\nextended, but in the brain substance no pain was felt.  Presently, as\nthe experimenter grew bolder, other phenomena appeared.  The\nvivisector shall tell the story in his own words:\n\n\"The needle was now withdrawn from the left lobe, and passed in the\nsame way into the (brain) substance of the right. ... When the needle\nentered the brain substance, SHE COMPLAINED OF ACUTE PAIN IN THE\nNECK.  IN ORDER TO DEVELOP MORE DECIDED REACTIONS, the strength of the\ncurrent was increased by drawing out the wooden cylinder one inch.\nWhen communication was made with the needles, HER COUNTENANCE\nEXHIBITED GREAT DISTRESS, and she began to cry.  Very soon, the left\nhand was extended as if in the act of taking hold of some object in\nfront of her; the arm presently was agitated with clonic spasms; her\neyes became fixed with pupils widely dilated; lips were blue, and SHE\nFROTHED AT THE MOUTH; HER BREATHING BECAME STERTOROUS; SHE LOST\nCONSCIOUSNESS AND WAS VIOLENTLY CONVULSED.  The convulsion lasted five\nminutes, and was succeeded by coma.  She returned to consciousness in\ntwenty minutes from the beginning of the attack.\"\n\nThe experiment was a success.  Upon the body of the poor servant girl,\nthe distinguished vivisector had produced the \"violent epileptiform\nconvulsion\" which Fritsch and Hitzig and Ferrier had induced in\nanimals, by the same method of experimentation.\n\nThere are those who feel that further vivisecting should have then\nceased, and that Mary Rafferty should have been allowed to die in\npeace.  Such views, however, were not permitted by the experimenter to\ninterfere with his zeal for scientific research.  Other \"observations\"\nwere made, and the needles were again passed into the brain, evoking\nalmost the same phenomena.  The final experiments were thus described\nby the vivisector:[1]\n\n\"Two days subsequent to observation No. 4, Mary was brought into the\nelectrical room with the intention to subject the posterior lobes (of\nthe brain) to galvanic excitation.  The proposed experiment was\nabandoned.  SHE WAS PALE AND DEPRESSED; HER LIPS WERE BLUE, AND SHE\nHAD EVIDENT DIFFICULTY IN LOCOMOTION.  She complained greatly of\nnumbness.... On further examination, there was found to be decided\nPARESIS and rigidity of the muscles of the right side.... She became\nvery pale; her eyes closed; and she was about to pass into\nunconsciousness, when we placed her in the recumbent posture, and\nDr. S. gave her, at my request, chloroform by inhalation.\n\n\"The day after observation No. 5, MARY WAS DECIDEDLY WORSE.  She\nremained in bed, was stupid and incoherent.  In the evening she had a\nconvulsive seizure.... AFTER THIS, SHE LAPSED INTO PROFOUND\nUNCONSCIOUSNESS, AND WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLETELY PARALYZED ON THE RIGHT\nSIDE.... The pupils were dilated and motionless.\"\n\n[1] Italics not in original.\n\nWhen did death come to her release? We do not know; the omission is\nsignificant; it may have been within a few moments.  The next sentence\nin the report is headed by the ominous word, \"AUTOPSY.\" The brain was\ntaken out, and the track of the needles traced therein.  One needle\nhad penetrated an inch and a half.  There was evidence of \"INTENSE\nVASCULAR CONGESTION.\"\n\nIn cases like this, the investigation of a coroner apparently is not\nrequired.  The experimenter himself was the physician to the\nhospital.  He tells us of course that Mary's death was due to an\nextension of the disease, for the relief of which she had been led to\nthe \"Good Samaritan Hospital.\" Of the real cause of death, there was\napparently but little doubt among scientific men.  An English\nvivisector, Dr. David Ferrier, whose experiments upon monkeys had\nperhaps first suggested their repitition on a living human brain,\nquestioned somewhath the propriety of the American experiments.  In a\nletter to the London Medical Record, he referred to \"the depth of\npenetration of the needles\"; the \"occurrence of epileptiform\nconvulsions FROM THE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF THE IRRITATION WHEN THE\nCURRENTS WERE INTENSIFIED,\" and declared that the \"EPILEPTIC\nCONVULSIONS AND ULTIMATE PARALYSIS are clearly accounted for by the\ninflammatory changes\" thus induced.\n\nThat the experiments had been to some extent injurious to his victim,\nthe vivisector himself, in a letter to the British Medical Journal,\nvery cautiously admitted.[1] He regretted, he said, that the new facts\nwhich he had hoped would further the progress of Science were obtained\nat the expense of SOME injury to the patient.  She was, however,\n\"HOPELESSLY DISEASED,\"--as if that fact tended to justify her\nmartyrdom! \"THE PATIENT CONSENTED TO HAVE THE EXPERIMENTS MADE.\" Is\nnot this excuse the very height of hypocrisy? Twice, he had stated in\nhis report of the case, that the young woman was \"RATHER FEEBLE-\nMINDED\"; he suggests that this poor, ignorant, feeble-minded servant-\ngirl was mentally capable of giving an intelligent consent to repeated\nexperiments upon her brain, the possible result of which even HE could\nnot foresee!\n\n[1] British Medical Journal, May 30, 1874, p. 727.\n\nWho made these experiments? It was Dr. Roberts Bartholow, at that time\nthe physician of the \"Good Samaritan Hospital\" in Cincinnati.  His\nbiographer says that he gained no credit \"for his candour in reporting\nthe whole affair,\"--a hint, the significance of which for future\nexperimenters, it is not very difficult ot perceive.  Yet his\ntreatment of Mary Rafferty was no bar to his professional\nadvancement.  Not long after his victim was in her grave, one of the\noldest medical schools in the country,--Jefferson Medical College of\nPhiladelphia--offered him a professor's chair; and for several years\nhe was Dean of the medical faculty of that institution.\n\nIt might seem impossible that any physician of the present day would\ncare to come forward in defence of this experiment.  Yet forty years\nafter the deed was perpetrated, such justification was apparently\nattempted in an American journal, and republished in a pamphlet issued\nby the American Medical Association.[1] It would seem at the outset\nthat only by suppression of the worst facts relating to the case,\ncould any defence be essayed.  WAS THERE ANY SUCH SUPPRESSION OF\nMATERIAL FACTS? Let us see.\n\n[1] \"The Charge of Human Vivisection,\" by Richard M. Pearce, M.D.,\nJournal of the American Medical Association, February 28, 1914.\n\nDid any injury to Mary Rafferty result from these experiments upon her\nbrain? Bartholow himself admits some injury; he says that to repeat\nthe experiments \"would be in the highest degree criminal.\" The modern\napologist, however will have it otherwise.  At the beginning of the\nexperiment, she smiled as if amused; and this, he tells us, \"whows\nthat she did not object, that the pain was not severe, AND THAT NO\nHARM WAS DONE HER.\" Is this a fair summary of the symptoms elicited\nduring these experiments upon the brain? Why did the apologist mention\nonly the \"smile,\" and neglect altogether to mention the other symptoms\nreported by Dr. Bartholow? Why does he pass in silence her complain of\n\"ACUTE PAIN IN THE NECK,\" the \"GREAT DISTRESS\" EXHIBITED, THE ARM\nAGITATED WITH CLONIC SPASMS, THE FIXED EYES, THE WIDELY DILATED\nPUPILS, THE BLUE LIPS, THE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH, THE STERTOROUS\nBREATHING, THE VIOLENT CONVULSION lasting for five minutes and the\nsucceeding unconsciousness lasting for twenty minutes? Why does the\napologist leave unmentioned the symptoms following the subsequent\nexperiments,--the pallor and depression, the blue lips, the difficulty\nin locomotion, the decided paresis and rigidity of muscles, the\nprofound unconsciousness, THE FINAL PARALYSIS? Do omissions like these\nsuggest an ardent desire to present the whole truth of the matter for\nthe information of the public?\n\nThe defender of the experiments tells us:\n\n\"It is not an uncommon procedure in neurologic surgery, to stimulate\nafter operation, in conscious patients, certain areas of the brain.\nThis procedure is a familiar one to all neurologists, and it is\nTHEREFORE DIFFICULT to understand why so much has been made of these\nearly observations in Cincinnati.\"[1]\n\n[1] Italics not in original.\n\nAside from the astounding confession contained in this admission of\nfamiliar procedure, it is difficult to understand what is meant by\nthis paragraph.  Is it a suggestion that these experiments upon Mary\nRafferty were observations following a remedial surgical operation?\nIt is surely impossible that this can be the meaning; for in the\noriginal account of the \"Investigations into the function of the human\nbrain,\" there is not a line in support of such hypothesis.  The reader\nmay make his own interpretation of a paragraph which seems exceedingly\nobscure.\n\nNo apology for these experiments could be complete, which did not\nrefer to the alleged \"consent.\" It is thus presented:\n\n\"If the patient under these circumstances consented to the\nobservations described, it would appear to be a matter between herself\nand the physician making the observations.\"\n\nThis is the view of the matter which the apologist invites us to\naccept.  On the one side, stands a poor, ignorant, feeble-minded Irish\nservant girl, full of faith and implicit trust in the benevolence of\nthose about her; on the other a learned scientist, eager, as he says,\n\"to ascertain how far the results of experiments on the brains of\nanimals may be employed to elucidate the functions of the human\nbrain\"; and her \"consent\" to procedures the purpose and dangers of\nwhich she knows nothing,--to experiments involving her life, are\nsuggested as a justification of whatever was done, and as a matter\nwith which Society need have no concern!\n\nUpon such methods of vindication every intelligent reader may form his\nown judgment.  He will doubtless reach the conclusion that such vital\nomission of essential facts,--no matter whether accidental or\nintentional,--absolutely nullifies the value of the entire apology.\nLet us hope that the next defender of these experiments, writing not\nonly for the instruction of the medical profession but also for the\ngeneral public, will proceed along somewhat different lines; that\nevery symptom which Bartholow mentions, he will mention also; that if\nhe speaks of the \"CONSENT\" of the victim, he will frankly tell us that\nit was consent of one whom the experimenter himself called rather\n\"feeble-minded\"; and that if he thinks other palliating circumstances\nexist, he will at least graciously furnish us with references to the\nevidence presented by the experimenter, upon which he grounds his\nbelief.\n\n                II. Experiments with Poison.\n\nOf all experiments upon patients in hospitals, probably one of the\nboldest was Dr. Sydney Ringer, physician to the University College\nHospital in London.  His position in this institution gave him a\npeculiarly favourable opportunity for the utilization of the human\n\"material\" under his care.  The experiments upon his patients were\nfrankly reported by himself, and were published in his well-known work\non Therapeutics.[1] For the most part these experiments were made with\npoisonous drugs.  Are we justified in classing them as human\nvivisections? If in any case, the drug can be shown to have been\nadministered for the welfare of the patient, it was legitimate medical\ntreatment, to which criticism does not apply.  Were the drugs so\nadministered?  The experimenter shall describe his work in his own\nlanguage.\n\n[1] \"Handbook of Therapeutics,\" by Sydney Ringer, M.D.  Eighth\nedition, William Wood and Co., New York.\n\n                    Poisoning with Salicine\n\n\"In conjunction with Mr. Bury, I have made some investigations\nconcerning the action of salicine on the human body, USING HEALTHY\nCHILDREN FOR OUR EXPERIMENTS, to whom we gave doses sufficient to\nproduce toxic (poisonous) symptoms.  We tested the effects of salicine\nin three sets of experiments ON THREE HEALTHY LADS.  To the first two,\nwe gave large doses, and produced decided symptoms.... Under toxic\n(poisonous) but not dangerous doses, the headache is often very\nsevere, so that the patient buries his head in the pillow.  There may\nbe very marked muscular weakness and tremour....\"\n\nAnother \"set of experiments\" was made on a boy ten years old, who had\nbeen brought to the hospital to be treated for belladonna poisoning.\n\"Our observations,\" said Dr. Rigner, \"were not commnced TILL SOME DAYS\nAFER HIS COMPLETE RECOVERY.\" Among effects of the experiment was a\nsevere headache,--\"so severe that the lad shut his eyes and buried his\nhead in his arm...became dull and stupid, lying with his eyes\nclosed....\"\n\nOther experiments were made upon a boy only nine years old, almost\nwell from an attack of pneumonia, the temperature having become normal\nover a week before.  Dr. Ringer's experiment went so far as to give\nhim apparently considerable apprehension.  He speaks of the flushed\nface, the trembling hand, and lips, the laboured breathing, the\nspasmodic movements of limbs.\n\n\"These symptoms were at their height at midday, and were so marked,\nand the pulse and respirations so quick, that we must confess we felt\na little relief when the toxic (poisonous) symptoms which became FAR\nMORE MARKED THAN WE EXPECTED, abated; not that at any time the boy was\ndangerously ill; but as the symptoms progressed, after discontinuing\nthe medicine, WE DID NOT KNOW HOW LONG AND TO WHAT DEGREE THEY MIGHT\nINCREASE.\" (!)\n\nWhat shall be said of experiments like these, made upon children who\nhad almost or quite recovered from ailments for which medical advice\nwas sought?\n\n                     Poisoning with Ethyl-Atropium.\n\nThis drug has no recognized medical use.  In order to make experiments\nwith it upon patients under his care, Dr. Ringer was obliged to have\nit specially manufactured.  He refers to \"our experiments upon man,\"\nand states that the poisonous substance\n\n\"produces decided but transient paralysis, THE PATIENT BEING UNABLE TO\nSTAND OR WALK, and the head dropping rather toward the shoulder or\nchest, and the upper eyelids drooping.\"[1]\n\n[1] Ringer's \"Therapeutics,\" p. 534.\n\n                Experiments with Tartar-Emetic, or Antimony.\n\nOf this poison, an American authority tells us that \"the fraction of a\ngrain\" may be followed by a fatal result.  Dr. Ringer states,\nnevertheless, that,\n\n\"TO A STRONG YOUNG MAN, I gave tartar-emetic in the 1/2-grain doses\nevery ten minutes for nearly seven hours, INDUCING GREAT NAUSEA AND\nVOMITING with profuse perspiration.\"[2]\n\n[2] Ibid., p. 273\n\nTwenty-one grains of antimony administered to \"a strong young man,\"\nthough a fatal result may be inducted by a fraction of a single grain!\n\n                    Poisoning with Alcohol.\n\nWith this substance, Dr. Ringer tells us he made a great many\nobservations \"every quarter of an hour for several hours ON PERSONS OF\nALL AGES.... After poisonous doses, the depression (of temperature) in\none instance reached nearly three degrees.\"\n\nDoes this sinister confession mean that even infants were the objects\nof his scientific zeal? It is certain that some children were\nsubjected to this experiment, for he says:\n\n\"In a boy aged ten, who had never in his life before taken alcohol in\nany form, I found through A LARGE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS, a constant\nand decided reduction of temperature.\"\n\nIs there any parent who would be willing to have his ten-year-old boy\nsubjected to an experiment like this?\n\n                Poisoning with Nitrate of Sodium.\n\n\"To eighteen adults, fourteen men and four women, we ordered 10 grains\nof pure nitrate of sodium in an ounce of water, and of these,\nseventeen declared they were unable to take it.... One man, a burly\nstrong fellow, suffering from a little rheumatism only, said that\nafter taking the first dose, he felt giddy as if he `would go off\ninsensible.' His lips, face, and hands turned blue, and he had to lie\ndown an hour and a half before he dared moved.  His heart fluttered,\nand he suffered from throbbing pains in the head.  He was urged to try\nanother dose, but declined on the ground THAT HE HAD A WIFE AND\nFAMILY....\"[1]\n\n[1] The London Lancet, November 3, 1883, p. 767\n\nWhen this account of hospital experimentation first appeared in the\nLancet, another medical journal made the following comment:\n\n\"In publishing, and indeed, in instituting these reckless experiments\non the effect of nitrate of sodium on the human subject, Professor\nRinger and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false move, which the\never watchful opponenets of vivisection will not be slow to profit\nby.... It is impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet\nwithout distress.  Of eighteen adults to whom Drs. Ringer and Murrill\nadministered the drug in 10-grain doses--all but one avowed they would\nexpect to drop down dead if they ever took another dose.  One woman\nfell to the ground, and lay with throbbing head and nausea for three\nhours; another said it turned her lips quite black, and upset her so\nthat she was afraid that she would never get over it.... One girl\nvomited for two hours and thought she was dying.  All these\nobservations are recorded with an innocent naivete as though the idea\nthat anyone could possibly take exception to them were far from the\nwriters' minds.  But whatever credit may be given to Drs. Ringer and\nMurrill for scientific enthusiasm, it is impossible to acquit them of\ngrave indiscretion.  THERE WILL BE A HOWL THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IF IT\nCOMES OUT that officers of a public charity are in the habit of trying\nSUCH USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS on the patients committed to their\ncare....\"[1]\n\n[1] Medical Times and Gazette, November 10, 1883.\n\n\"CRUEL AND USELESS EXPERIMENTS ON PATIENTS\"--that was the judgment of\na medical journal of the day.  Any stronger condemnation now is hardly\nnecessary.\n\nWhat is the judgment of the reader upon investigations of this\ncharacter? Here we have a physician making use of the bodies of his\npatients for the testing of poisonous drugs, apparently without the\nslightest regard for the poor and ignorant fellow-beings who had\nconfidently placed themselves under his care.  Can such\nexperimentation as this be termed anything but human vivisection? Once\nwe admit that patients in hospitals have no rights superior to\nscientific demands, and there is hardly a limit to which such\nexperimentation may not be carried on the poor, the ignorant, the\nfeeble-minded and the defenceless.\n\n                III. Experiments involving the Eye\n\nRecent experiments with tuberculin, made upon the eyes of children and\nother patients in public institutions, seem in many cases to have been\ncarried to an extent not easily justified by ordinary ethical ideals.\nIt is impossible to quote all the cases of this phase of human\nexperimentation; but enough can be given to afford any reader the\nopportunity of judging the morality of the practice.\n\nThe experiments in question had one or more of the following\ncharacteristics, distinguishing them from ordinary medical treatment:\n\n1. They were made indiscriminately upon large numbers of children or\nadults, who were under treatment for various ailments.\n2. They appear to have been purely experimental in character, and\nwithout purpose of individual benefit.\n3. They seem to have involved in some cases considerable discomfort or\npain and the risk of irreparable injury to the sight.\n4. Dying children apparently were not exempt from experimentation.\n\nA recent medical writer, defding the experiments, points out that the\ntuberculin test could not convey the infection.  The test, he says,\n\n\"depends on the principle that if a fluid in which tubercle bacilli\nhave grown, and which therefore contains the chemical products of\ntheir growth is injected into an animal or person suffering from\ntuberculosis, a transient increase of temperature occurs, and\nconstitutes the chief sign of a positive reaction.... Later it was\nfound that if the diluted tuberculin was placed on the surface of the\neye, there followed in tuberculous persons, a reddening or congestion\nof the eye, which might go on to the stage of mild conjunctivitis.\"[1]\n\n[1] Journal of the American Medical Association, February 28, 1914.\n\nIs this a fair summary of the dangers of the eye-test? Let us see what\nthe experimenters tell us.\n\nIn the Archives of Internal Medicine for December 15, 1908, two\nexperimenters describe their work.  When a drop of turberculin\nsolution is instilled into the eye of certain cases, there occurs,\nthey say, an infetion which varies in intensity in different\nindividuals, \"usually attended by lachrimation and moderate fibrinous\nor fibro-purulent exudation WHICH MAY GO ON TO PROFUSE SUPPURATION.\"\nThis \"profuse suppuration\" is something rather more severe than the\nsymptoms described by the apologist just quoted.\n\nThe experimenters say:\n\n\"Practically, all our patients were under eight years of age, and all\nbut twenty-sex of them were inmates of St. Vincent's Home, an\ninstitution with a population of about four hundred, COMPOSED OF\nFOUNDLINGS, ORPHANS, AND DESTITUTE CHILDREN.  The cases in the Home\nwere tested in routine by wards, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CONDITIONS FROM\nWHICH THEY WERE SUFFERING, and in the great majority of instances\nwithout any knowledge of their physical condition prior to, or at the\ntime that the tests were applied.  We purposely deferred the physical\nexamination of these children until after the tests had been applied.\"\n\nWould any medical practitioner, called to the house of a wealthy man\nto examine his ailing child, purposely defer its physical examination\nuntil after this eye-test had been applied?\n\nMany of the children were suffering from various ailments at the time\nthis test was made.  Some had rickets, some typhoid fever, some\nwhooping-cough, pleurisy, pneumonia or heart disease.  Some of them\nwere already near their end; in one case we are told that the \"tests\nwere applied within eight days of death\"; upon another emaciated\ninfant, the test was \"applied three days before death.\" Infancy earned\nno immunity from experimentation, for the eye-test was said to have\nbeen applied \"to seventeen infants, ranging in age from four weeks to\nfive months.\" In this group of cases, one infant was tested within the\nlast twenty-four hours of its pitiful and painful existence.\n\nWhat were the possible consequences of these tests upon the sight of\nthe orphans and foundlings of St. Vincent's Home? The experimenters\nfrankly confess that at the outset they did not know.\n\n\"Before beginning application of the conjunctival test, WE HAD NO\nKNOWLEDGE OF ANY SERIOUS RESULTS FROM ITS USE.... It has the great\ndisadvantage of producing a decidedly uncomfortable lesion, and it is\nnot infrequently followed by serious inflammations of the eye, which\nnot only produce great physical discomfort and require weeks of active\ntratment, BUT WHICH MAY PERMANENTLY AFFECT THE VISION, AND EVEN LEAD\nTO ITS COMPLETE DESTRUCTION.... W ehave had a number of verbal reports\nof eye complications, some of them relating to very serious\nconditions; and we are sure they are much commoner than the references\nwe have communicated would indicate.... In fact we are strongly of the\nopinion that any diagnostic procedure which will so frequently result\nin serious lesions of the eye has no justification in medicine....\"\n\nThe conclusions concernng the occasionally disastrous consequences of\nthis eye-test were shortly confirmed by other experimenters.  During\nthe following year, two Massachusetts physicians reported a study made\nin \"the out-patient clinic of the Carney Hospital and the\nMassachusetts Chartiable Eye and Ear Infirmary,\" and they add: \"We are\nmost indebted to the staff of the latter institution for allowing us\nto make use of their material.... We have discarded the conjunctival\ntest, AS BEING OCCASIONALLY PRODUCTIVE OF DISASTROUS RESULTS.\"\n\nIn May, 1909, two Baltimore physicians reported their trials with two\nforms of the tuberculin tests, \"the result of over a year of\nexperience with patients coming to the Phipps Dispensary of the Johns\nHopkins Hospital.\" A year later they make an additional report.\n\n\"In May, 1909, we reported the results of the conjunctival and\ncutaneous test in 500 patients.  The present report deals with 1,000\nadditional patients to whom these tests were administered, and who\nformed THE UNSELECTED MATERIAL OF AN AMBULANT CLINIC, the Phipps\nDispensary of the Johns Hopkins Hospital.\"\n\nThey, too, suggest the necessity for caution in making this\nexperiment.  If a drop of the tuberculin, first in one eye and then in\nthe other, produced no reaction,\n\n\"we refrained from further instillations, fearing the possible\nintensity of a reaction consequent upon a second instillation of\ntuberculin into an eye.  Our fear is based on evidence, gathered\naccidentally, that a second instillation may give a positive and even\na severe reaction in a case in which a similar test gave a negative\nresult.\n\nIn January, 1909, one of the professors connected with the College of\nPhysicians and Surgeons, New York, published a \"Report upon one\nthousand Tuberculin tests in young children.\" He says:\n\n\"The observations included in the following report were all made at\nthe Babies' Hospital upon ward patients.  Very few of the children\nwere over three years of age, the majority being under two years....\nIn the early part of the year, unless some positive contra-indication\nexisted, some test, more frequently the eye-test, was used as a\nroutine measure in order to determine whether and under what\ncircumstances reactions were obtained in HEALTHY CHILDREN, or in those\nat least PRESUMABLY NON-TUBERCULAR.\"[1]\n\n[1] Archives of Pediatrics, January, 1909.\n\nThis is perfectly plain.  Healthy children, or children presumably\nwithout any symptoms of tuberculosis, were experimented upon in order\nto see whether a positive reaction could be obtained.  Of 555 cases of\ninfants subjected to this test, who were presumably not tubercular,\nonly two gave a positive reaction, although there were seven cases in\nwhich the reaction was doubtful.\n\nWe are told by this writer that \"care was taken not to use tuberculin\nin an eye which was the seat of any form of disease, tuberculous or\notherwise,\" and to this precaution, he ascribes his freedom \"from\nunpleasant results.\" He insists that \"on account of the kind of\nobservation necessary, and the possible dangers connected with the\neye-test, it is not wise to employ it indiscriminately, as among the\nout-patients of a hospital.\" Undoubtedly this is true; and he repeats\nthe advice: the ophthalmic test \"CANNOT WELL BE USED IN AMBULATORY\nPATIENTS.\" Yet we have just seen that the test WAS thus used in the\nlarge number of cases \"who formed the unselected material of an\nambulant clinic\" from another well-known hospital dispensary.\n\nThe final judgment of the experimenter does not appear to be entirely\nfavourable to the test involving the eye, though he insists that with\nproper precautions it is safe.  Taken apart from the physical signs\nand general symptoms, the tests may mislead. \"Some failures and some\nunexplained reactions occurred with all the tests.\" Even though safe,\nyet\n\n\"an intense or prolonged reaction sometimes occurs which is not\npleasant to see; besides, in pathological conditions of the eye,\nDISASTROUS RESULTS MAY FOLLOW.  THE EYE IS TOO DELICATE AND IMPORTANT\nAN ORGAN TO BE USED AS A TEST WHEN ANY OTHER WILL ANSWER QUITE AS\nWELL.\"\n\nWith this sensible conclusion it is quite impossible to disagree.\n\nAnother question is of importance.  For these experiments upon the\neye, WERE DYING CHILDREN EVER USED AS MATERIAL?\n\nApparently, there can be no doubt of the fact.  The experimenter\ndistinctly states that \"DYING CHILDREN, or those who were extremely\nsick did not as a rule, react to any of the tests.\" The assertion is\nrepeated: \"In no case were positive reactions obtained in DYING\nCHILDREN.\"\n\nIn one of the tables, there is also a reference to dying children.\n\nWe are told that \"the hands of the children were confined during the\nfirst twelve hours, to prevent any rubbing of the eye.\"\n\nCan it be that dying children were thus treated? We are not told to\nthe contrary.  Yet it would seem that impending death might well have\nconferred immunity, not merely from such restraint but from the entire\nexperiment.  The thought of a dying child with fettered hands, is not\na picture upon which the imagination would willingly dwell.\n\nUpon these experiments involving the eye, what judgment is a plain man\nentitled to make?\n\nIn the first place, he should draw a clear distinction between the\nexperiments made upon tuberculous patients, and those made upon\nhealthy children.  Among the large number of experiments, it is\npossible that some were made upon carefully selected cases for the\npersonal benefit of the individuals concerned.  Regarding these,\nopinions may differ as to expediency; but they belong to the rightful\nprovince of medical tratment,--wise or otherwise.  But if these tests\nwere applied without discrimination, without previous inquiry into\ntheir condition; if they were made only upon the eyes of the orphans\nand foundlings, and the poor in hospital and dispensary, and not upon\nthe children of the wealthier classes; if in large numbers, men,\nwomen and children were made \"the unselected material\" for tests\nwherein their individual welfare was not sought, in experiments which\nnot only \"produced great physical discomfort\" but were liable also to\n\"permanently affect the vision, and even lead to its entire\ndestruction,\" it would seem impossible to regard them with admiration\nor approval.  Would any of us care to have his own dying child,\nseparated from its mother, and with hands confined, made the\n\"material\" for any such experiment? Should we care to have anyone dear\nto us, subjected to the risks which seem to have been so freely\nimposed upon the unfortunate, the ignorant, the poor? That is the test\nby which ultimately these experiments will be judged.\n\n  IV. The Rockefeller Institute, and Experimentation on Human Beings\n\nIn public esteem, the Rockefeller Institute undoubtedly occupies an\nexceptionally hight position.  It would seem to be generally believed,\nthat by reason of experiments made within its walls upon the lower\nanimals, discoveries of the utmost value to the human race are bing\nadded to the resources of medical science.  Possibly, a careful\nanalysis of its work might disprove this belief, but that is aside\nfrom present inquiry.  A more important question confronts us,--the\nextent to which under the authority of this Institution, human beings\nas well as animals have been used as \"material\" from researches\naltogether unconnected with their personal benefit.  If such\nexperiments have in truth been made under the authority of the\nRockefeller Institute, it would seem to be of the utmost importance\nthat the exact truth be made known.  It is not always easy to state\nmedical facts in popular language, but the attempt shall be made.\n                           ---------------\nWhen Columbus returned from his discovery of a new world, it is now\ngenerally believed that he brought to Europe the germ of one of the\nmost terrible diseases which have ever afflicted the human race.  The\nextent of its malignancy has only been known within the past century.\nThe unborn infant may be touched by it with the possibility of great\nsuffering, and the probability of an early death.  There is not an\norgan of the human body which may not become the seat of its ravages.\nThe majority of other infectious diseases leave their victim after a\ntime; this makes its home within the body and may manifest its\nmalignity after almost a lifetime of quiescence.  In its contribution\nto the sum total of suffering which disease has occasioned the human\nrace, it is probably that with one exception, syphilis stnds above\nevery other human ailment.\n\nOn March 3, 1905, a young German biologist by the name of Schaudinn\ndiscovered under the microscope what is now generally believed to be\nthe germ of this terrible disease.  It is a minute, spiral-shaped\norganism, with six or eight curves, and capable of movement in space.\nIts place in the scheme of existence is not wholly certain, but the\nprobability seems that it is a protozoan, belonging to the lowest form\nof animal life.  Its very simplicity makes it appalling; we do not\nunderstand how anything so innocent in appearance, can occasion such\nterrible ravages.  In the course of the evolution of life how came it\ninto being? We can only surmise.  But once having gained a foothold in\nthe body of a human being, the minute organism begins to multiply: and\npenetrating to any part of the body, it induces the ravages of a\ndestroyer espite all the opposing defences which Nature may raise\nagainst it.  The discoverer first called it the \"Spirochaete\npallidum,\" but later invented a new name--\"Treponema pallidum\"--by\nwhich it is at present generally known.  It is almost ceratin that in\nthis minute organism, invisible to the naked eye, we have the\ncausative agent of one of the great destroyers of the human race.\n\nA Japanese physician, connected with various phases of research work\nin the Rockefeller Institute (Dr. Hideyo Noguchi), believed it would\nbe possible to device a method for detecting the existence of these\ngerms of syphilis in certain latent and obscure cases, where the\ndisease was merely suspected.  He had no though of inventing a cure\nfor the disease; it was a method of detection only.  By ingenious\nprocedures which it is unnecessary here to describe, Dr. Noguchi\nsucceeded in cultivating these germs OUTSIDE THE HUMAN BODY; and after\ngrinding them in a sterile mortar, and subjecting them to heat with\nother manipulations, he found himself finally in possession of an\nextract or emulsion to which he gave the name of \"luetin.\" It contains\nthe germs of syphilis; but they are intended to be DEAD GERMS.  The\nexperimenter himself says:\n\n\"I have proposed the name LUETIN for an emulsion or extract of pure\nculture of Treponema pallidum, which is designed to be employed for\nobtaining in suitable cases, a specific cutaneous reaction that may\nbecome a valuable diagnostic sign in certain stages or forms of\nsyphilitic infection.\"\n\nNow, if a drop of this luetin be introduced beneath the skin of a\nchild who has inherited the disease, or of a person who has suffered\nfrom its obscurer symptoms, there may be produced a \"reaction.\" This\nmay take the form of \"a large, indurated, reddish papule\" which in a\npew days become of a dark, bluish-red colour; or the inflammation may\nbe of a severer type, resulting in a \"pustule.\" A positive result is\nmore frequently obtained when the disease is of long standing, or\ncomparatively inactive.  But may not this \"reaction\" occur in every\ncase, whether or not the individual has ever been affected by the\ndiseas? Anyone can see that if this \"reaction\" manifests itself in ALL\ncases, the luetin test has no value whatever.  And it was in the\nprosecution of this phase of research that certain experiments upon\nhuman beings were made, which have been criticized.  Dr. Noguchi and\nother physicians injected this luetin emulsion containing the dead\ngerms of syphilis, not only into persons presumed once to have been\naffected by the loathsome disease, but also into the bodies of 146\nother persons, INCLUDING CHILDREN, ENTIRELY FREE FROM THE DISEASE.  It\nwould seem that he was advised by an American physician  to make his\nexperiments on human beings rather than upon animals.  He tells us:\n\n\"...In 1910-11, I commenced my experimental work on rabbits.... While\nI was still working with the animals, PROFESSOR WELCH SUGGESTED THAT I\nMADE THE TEST ON HUMAN SUBJECTS.  Through his encouragement, I\ncommenced the work at once at different dispensaries and hospitals,\nwith the co-operation of the physicians in charge.\"\n\nWhatever criticism may attach to these experiments, it ought not to\nfall upon the Japanese investigator, encouraged and supported as he\nwas, by both Christian and Jewish physicians.  In appreciation of the\nassistance afforded him at various charitable institutions,\nDr. Noguchi says:\n\n\"Through the courtesy and collaboration of--\n\n  Dr. Martin Cohen  .. Harlem Hospital, Randall's Island Asylum, and\n                       New York Ophthalmic and Aural Institute;\n  Dr. Henderson     .. State Hospital, Ward's Island, N.Y.;\n  Dr. Lapowski      .. Good Samaritan Dispensary;\n  Dr. McDonald      .. King's County Hospital;\n  Dr. Orleman-Robinson North-Western Clinic, New York Polyclinic;\n  Dr. Pollitzer     .. German Hospital;\n  Dr. Rosenoff      .. King's Park State Hospital;\n  Dr. Satenstein    .. City Hospital, Blackwell's Island, N.Y.;\n  Dr. Schmitter     .. Capt., U.S. Army, Fort Slocum;\n  Dr. Schradieck    .. King's County Hospital;\n  Dr. Charles Schwartz California;\n  Dr. Smith  ..     .. Long Island State Hospital;\n  Dr. Strong ..     .. Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital;\n  Dr. Swinburn      .. Good Samaritan Dispensary;\n  Dr. Windfield     .. King's County Hospital;\n  Dr. Wiseman       .. King's Park State Hospital;\n\n And the Hospital of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research,\nI was enabled to apply the skin reaction to a number of human cases...\nThe total number of cases was 400.\"[1]\n\n[1] Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol.xvi.  In the original, the\nnames of the hospitals are somewhat obscured by being placed in\nbrackets, and the paragraph made continuous; they are here printed in\ncapitals, to afford the reader a better opportunity of giving these\ncharitable institutions whatever credit is due them.\n\nFour hundred patients in hospitals and dispensaries including the\nhospital attached to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research,\nwere used as \"material\" for determining the value of a test for latent\nsyphilis.  Of these, 146 were healthy individuals, used as \"controls.\"\n\nDr. Noguchi states that these \"controls\"\n\n\"include 146 normal individuals, chiefly children between the ages of\ntwo and eighteen years; and 100 individuals suffering from various\ndiseasess of a non-syphilitic nature.... In none was a positive luetin\nreaction obtained.\"\n\nOther experimenters upon human beings have made reports of their\ninvestigations in the same direction.  A physician of St. Louis in a\nmedical journal, tells us of forty-four cases in which the Noguchi\nluetin was applied, and he expresses his obligation to eight\nphysicians of that city (naming them), \"for the privilege of using\nTHEIR CASES FOR THE WORK.\"[1] Whether these \"CASES\" were the private\npatients of the accomodating physicians, we are not informed.  This\nexperimenter had not completed his investigations and announced his\nintention of \"trying it out thoroughly\" in a certain St. Louis\nhospital, which he names.\n\n[1] New York Medical Record, May 25, 1912.\n\nThe same experiments appear to have been made in other institutions.\nIn the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital for August, 1912, there\nappears an account of this luetin test, made upon patients suffering\nfrom such ailments as rheumatic fever, typhoid fever and consumption.\nWe see that the practice has extended to some of the leading hospitals\nof the United States.\n\nThe defence of all hospital experimentation upon children and adults,\nother than procedures for their own benefit, is usually grounded upon\n(1) the absence of any severe injury, and (2) the value of the results\nobtained.  The defenders of the Noguchi experiments insist that the\ndisease was not transmitted; that there was no severe pain or\npermanent injury; and that the inoclation with dead germs of syphilis\ncould not have caused an infection with the dread disease.  This is\nprobably true; although the excuse of painlessness cannot be fairly\nput forward regarding the tuberculin experiments upon the eye.  But\nshould we overlook the fact that these tests, at first were purely\nexperimental in character? No absolute assurance of results could have\nbeen declared in advance; if certainty existed beforehand, what would\nbe the use of experimenting upon so many human beings? Are experiments\nupon man only reprehensible when injury follows? Do we apply this rule\nto the engineer of a passenger-train, who again and again runs by a\ndanger-signal, and yet escapes a tragedy?\n\nThe utility of experimentation is urged.  Only by experiments upon\nhuman beings, it is said, could the value of either the tuberculin\ntest or the Noguchi emulsion be definitely determined.  But surely\nevery thinking man must realize that utility cannot exculpate, or\njustify the use of any method which is otherwise wrong in itself.  A\nmurder is not regarded as pardonable, because thereby the interests of\nreligion are advanced.  Dr. Noguchi for instance, admits that although\nit is almost certain that the germs which Schaudinn discovered and\nwhich he has isolated and grown outside the human body, are the cause\nof specific disease, yet scientific certainty can only be acquired by\nproducing the ailment from the artificially cultivated germs.  He\nsays:\n\n\"While there are few, to-day, who would deny that the Treponema\npallidum is the causitive agent of syphilis, YET THE FINAL PROOF CAN\nONLY BE BROUGHT FORTH THROUGH THE REPRODUCTION OF SYPHILITIC LESIONS\nBY MEANS OF PURE CULTURES OF THE MICRO-ORGANISM.\"[1]\n\n[1] \"Studies of the Rockefeller Institute,\" vol. xiv., p. 100.\n\nA scientific experiment upon a human being of greater interest than\nthis it is hardly possible to imagine.  With germs invisible to the\nnaked eye, grown in a flask, will some future experimenter be able to\nproduce in a human being all the terrible symptoms of this worst\nscourge of the human race? That the experiment will be tried, there\ncan be no doubt; experiments involving the inoculation of the same\nhorrible disease, have been made both in America and in Europe.  But\ndoes anyone think that the utility of this suggested experiment of\nDr. Noguchi would justify its being made upon an unsuspicious patient\nin a charity hospital? Would it be likely to meet general approbation,\neven in our day, if it were performed upon an infant in a Babies'\nHospital? And yet why should it be criticized, if utility to science\nis a sufficient excuse?\n\nIt is a significant fact, that every writer who attempts to defend or\nto excuse the experiments here described and others of the same type,\nalways evades the principal reason for their condemnation.  The\ncondemnation of what may be called \"human vivisection\" rests chiefly\nupon its incurable injustice.\n\nALL SUCH EXPERIMENTS VIOLATE ONE OF THE MOST SACRED OF HUMAN RIGHTS.\nEvery man, not a criminal, has the inherent right to the inviolability\nof his own body, except for his own personal benefit.  Apply this to\nthe experiments herein described.\n\nTHEY IMPLY A SUPPRESION OF THE TRUTH.  Is it probably that any mother,\nbringing to a hospital her ailing child, would leave it there without\napprehension if she were distinctly informed that when it had partly\nrecovered, it would be used for experimentation relating to a test for\nsyphilis?\n\nTHEY IMPLY A PHASE OF DECEPTION, so far as a formal \"consent\" is ever\nobtained without a full and complete statemnet of possible dangers.\nCan we imagine Mary Rafferty to have consented to Bartholow's\nexperiments upon her brain, if, in full possession of her intellectual\nfaculties, she had known--as he knew,--what risks they involved? It is\nthe performance of experiments upon dying children, upon infants for\nno urpose of individual benefit, upon men and women all unconscious of\nthe character of the investigation; the imposition upon the ignorant\nand confiding of unknown risks; the utilization for experimentation\nunder cover of treatment for their ailments, of the poor, the feeble-\nminded, the unfortunate, without their full, intelligent and adequate\nconsent, that makes the practice abhorrent to every conception of\nmorality, and every ideal of honour.\n\nHow such experiments are coming to be regarded, we may see in a recent\narticle from the pen of Dr. Francis H. Rowley, president of the\nMassachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:\n\n\"The use of children in hospitals, or anywhere else, as material for\nexperimentation is not to be tolerated for a moment, in our judgment,\nby any right-minded man or woman.  Whatever is conscientiously done\nfor the benefit of the child itself, to save it from disease or to\nlessen its suffering, though it may cause it temporarily more or less\npain, is nothing against which objection should be made.  But to use\nthe child, even when no permanent harm may result to it, as a subject\nupon which to try out certain theories, or to test the efficacy of\ncertain drugs, so long as this is not absolutely for the good of the\nindividual child treated rather than for children in general, is\nabhorrent to the most of us.  To cause a helpless baby one hour's\ndistress, to say nothing of suffering, for the sake even of other\nchildren, when that baby has been brought to the hospital by its\nparents or guardians solely for what may be done for its benefit, we\nhold to be a breach of trust on the part of hospital authorities and\nphysicians that hasn't the slightest defence either in morals or in\nlaw.\n\n\"We write these words not because we believe that any physician is so\nfar fallen below the lowest levels of our common humanity as to inject\ninto a defenceless child the active germs of a loathsome or possibly\nfatal disease, but because our moral sense is outraged at any\ntreatment of the child such as we should refuse to permit were the\nchild our own.  We believe he universal assertial of parents would be\nthat, if having taken their child to a hospital for tratment, they\nlearned that it had beenused for experimentation, though no lasting\nharm could come to it from the experiment, someone would pay the\npenalty for the unwarranted deed, if money or influence or, these\nfailing, muscle, could reach far enough to find the offender.\"\n\nDoes such condemnation of experimentation upon the hospital patient or\nchildren tend to block scientific advance? Not at all.  A recent\nwriter tells us that \"once it is evident that man himself must be the\nexperimental animal, the scientist volunteer is always ready.\" If this\nbe so, why should not the human \"material\" be acquired always in a way\nto which the charge of unjust procedure would never be applicable? If\nassurance could have been given that the luetin test implied no risk\nof any kind, might not the Rockefeller Institute have secured any\nnumber of volunteers by the offer of a gratuity of twenty or thirty\ndollars as a compensation for any discomfort that might be endured? Of\nthe thousands of medical students in the State of New York, are there\nnot hundreds who would have offered with eagerness to submit to a test\ndevoid of peril, in the interests of scientific research? And even if\nan experiment implied danger, might there not be sufficient\ncompensation for all risks? Every year firemen lose their lives in the\nflames, and policemen are murdered.  The compensation they receive\ninduces them to incur risks that might not otherwise be assumed.  A\ngreat theologian is said to have affirmed that a man, perishing from\nstarvation, had the moral right to take a loaf of bread that did not\nbelong to him, if only thus he could preserve his life.  Is Science\never in such straits of necessity that in a single instance it is\nobliged to take from any man his supreme right of inviolability, and\nto make its experiments within the wards of the hospital, upon the\neyes of the dying, upon the bodies of the ignorant and the poor?\n\nThere is yet another method by which perhaps we may test the morality\nof the practice.  A great philosopher of another century seeking to\nfind some criterion of man's duty toward his fellow-men, based\nobligation upon a universal law.  \"Act,\" said Kant, \"as if the motive\nof thy conduct were to become by thy will a universal law.\" Suppose we\napply this maxim of Kant to the use of human beings for research\npurposes.  An experimenter in a hospital makes dying children his\nmaterial.  Is he willing that the maxim of his act should be\nuniversal, and apply to experiments upon his own child, when it lies\nat the point of death? He plunges needle-electrodes into the brain of\na simple-minded and perhaps friendless servant-girl.  Can we imagine\nhim willing that the motive of his deed should govern and justify\nexperiments of the same kind made upon his mother or his wife?\nFollowing Ringer, he tests the actions of poisons upon patients in\nsome hospital under his control.  Would he be willing that the law be\nuniversal, and that the action of such drugs should first be tested\nupon himself? He suggests the use of healthy children as \"controls\" in\ntests with the dead germs of a horrible disease.  Is there anyone\nconnected with the Rockefeller Institute, for example, who would be\nwilling that such act should establish a universal precedent, and that\nhis own children should be taken, and without his knowledge, made the\n\"material\" for such research?\n\nAdmitting that some experiments upon human being may be ethically\npermissible, and that other phases of such investigations are morally\nwrong, how are we to distinguish between them? May it not be possible\nto indicate principles which would be generally accepted, according to\nwhich the line may be drawn? Let us make the attempt.\n\nI. Justifiable Experimentation upon Man\n\n1. All experiments made by intelligent and conscientious physicians or\nsurgeons upon their patients for some definite purpose pertaining to\nthe personal benefit of the patient himself, and when practicable, in\ncase of risk, with his or her consent.\n(This rule is intended to include every possible experiment made by a\nmedical practitioner for the benefit of the patient, with a distinct\nameliorative purpose in view.)\n\n2. All experiments made with an intelligent purpose by a scientific\nman or medical practitioner upon himself.\n\n3. All experiments made with their consent upon physicians, surgeons,\npathologists, medical students or other scientific men, who, aware of\nthe nature of the investigation and of possible results, voluntarily\noffer themselves as \"material.\"\n\n4. All experiments made upon men or women of ordinary intelligence\nwho, having been fully informed of the nature of the investigation and\nof whatever distressing or dangerous consequences are obviously liable\nto result, acknowledge the receipt of satisfactory compensation for\nall risks, and give in writing their full and free consent.\n\n5. All psychological experiments or tests which involve neither fear,\nfright, nor mental distress of any kind.\n\nII. Unjustifiable Experimentation upon Human Beings.\n\nExperiments upon human beings which would seem to be immoral, because\nobviously a violation of human rights, are as follows:\n\n1. ALL EXPERIMENTS, TESTS OR OBSERVATIONS, LIABLE TO INVOLVE ANY\nDEGREE OF PAIN, DISCOMFORT, OR DISTRESS, MADE UPON DYING CHILDREN, OR\nCHILDREN APPARENTLY NEAR DEATH, FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THEIR\nPRESENT PERSONAL RELIEF.\n\n2. The use of new-born babes as material for research; the use as\nmaterial for research of any other defenceless children, in\norphanages, asylums, or in their own homes, for any purpose whatever\nother than the direct personal benefit of the child upon whom the\nexperiment is made.  Especially objectionable would seem to be\nexperiments of this character made in connection with the study of\nsyphilis, whether or not any obvious injury is the result.\n\n3. All experiments liable to cause discomfort or distress, made\nwithout purpose of definite individual benefit upon the insane, the\nfeeble-minded, the aged and infirm or upon other unfortunate human\nbeings, who, for any reason, are incapable of giving an intelligent\nconsent or of adequately comprehending what is done to them.\n\n4. All experiments of any kin, upon other adults, whether patients or\ninmates of public institutions or otherwise, if made without direct\nameliorative purpose and the intelligent personal consent of the\nperson who is the MATERIAL for the research.\n\n5. The experimental exploitation without their free consent, of men,\ntemporarily under command or control of an authority which they have\nbeen led to suppose they are not at liberty legally to disobey.\n\nLet us repeat.  THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO EXPERIMENTS UPON HUMAN\nBEINGS, WHEN THERE IS NO INVASION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.  The medical\nstudent, who, out of zeal for Science, offers his body for any\nexperimental test; the patient in the hosptial, who with adeuqate\ncompensation for what he is asked to undergo, grants consent to some\ninvestigation which may help others, though not himself; the poor man\nwho is satisfactorily compensated for all risks, and therefore willing\nto aid research,--such varieties of human experimentation do not\nnecessarily offend the moral sense.  It is the incurable injustice of\nexperimentation upon infancy that can offer no protest but a cry; of\nexperimentation upon the dying child, of experimentation upon the\npoor, the ignorant, the feeble-minded, the defenceless,--it is\nexperimentation like this which surely deserves the condemnation of\nmankind.\n\nWhat is the remedy for human vivisection? It lies in such legislation\nas shall protect those who, because of infancy, or by reason of\nignorance cannot effectively protect themselves.  By penalties so\nheavy that they cannot be safely ignored, the State must forbid the\niniquitous exploitation of man by man.  No such law need interfere in\nthe slightest degree with the rights of the true physician to aid his\nfellow-beings; nor can we doubt that the medical profession will\nfinally favour a reform that will indicate the broad line of\ndemarcation separating the unquestioned privilege from the\nunjustifiable abuse.\n\n\n                        CHAPTER XIX\n\n                        CONCLUSION\n\nIn the preceding pages, the attempt has been made to throw light here\nand there, upon a great and perplexing problem.  It has been seen that\nconcerning the past history of experimentation upon living beings,\nmuch ignorance still exists; that too implicit and unquestioning trust\nin the statements of those favourable to unlimited experimentation\nhas, unfortunately, not always conduced to the attainment of truth;\nthat misstatements tinged with inaccuracy have too frequently found\nacceptance; and that growing out of the unrestricted use of animals in\nscientific inquiry, the extension of the method, by the use of human\nmaterial, in certain hospitals has become an accepted procedure.\n\nIt is, indeed, an ethical problem, that confronts society, to-day.  It\nwould be no less a problem, if every claim of utility made in behalf\nof human and animal experimentation were proven beyond the possibility\nof a doubt.  Even then, the ethical question would persist.  The\nultimate decision regarding it remains the personal duty of every man.\n\n\nAttention has been called, in the preceding pages, to many statements,\nwhich a close examination would seem to prove to be misleading and\ninaccurate.  But every discerning reader should recognize that\ninaccuracy or untruth does not imply the moral obliquity that pertains\nto intentional falsehood.  An experimenter, for example, makes an\nassertion regarding the absolute painlessness of his vivisections.\nSuch statement may be demonstrated, let us say, to be exceedingly\ndoubtful, if not quite untrue.  That is as far as legitimate criticism\ncan easily go.  It is quite impossible to demonstrate a conscious\nintent to deceive.  To interpret motives, to impute falsehood is to go\nbeyond facts into regions where facts are not to be found, except in\nexceedingly exceptional cases.  One of thet Royal Commissioners\nexpressed this position very clearly. \"While I feel bound,\" wrote\nDr. George Wilson, \"to accept the assurances of all the expert\nwitnesses who appeared before us, as assurances of their honest\nconviction that vivisectional or cutting experiments can be, and are\ncarried out without the infliction of pain from the moment the first\nwound is made, ... I can only accept them AS OPINIONS, to which the\ngreatest weight should be attached, AND NOT AS STATEMENTS OF ABSOLUTE\nFACT so far as specific instances are concerned.\" This is exactly the\nattitude for any critic of vivisection to take.  A distinguished\nphysician, testifying before the Commissioners, declared that it was\nentirely possible to keep a dog in a state of anaesthesia for a week,\nif necessary.  Experimentation in this direction, in all probability\nwould prove the assertion to be untrue, but although such\ndemonstration would be proof of inaccuracy and carelessness, it could\nnot justify, in any way, the charge of dishonourable motives.  In no\ninstance, therefore, in the illustrations of inaccuracy given in the\npreceding pages, is there any imputation of perverse and intentional\ninveracity.\n\n\nI have made sufficiently clear, I hope, my disagreement with the views\nof the extreme antivivisection party concerning all phases of\nbiological experimentation.  The weakest point in the antivivisection\nposition has always seemed to me the condemnation of every kind of\nexperimentation on animals, however painless.  Yet how is it possible\nto expect public agreement with this position in every case? A few\nweeks ago, it was announced in the public press, that in one of the\ndepartments of Columbia University in New York, a series of\nexperiments were being made to determine, if possible, the comparative\nfood value of two articles in general use.  If, for instance, a\ncertain number of mice were fed from day to day upon pure butter, and\nan equal number upon the artificial product known as \"oleo-margarine,\"\nwould there be any perceptible difference in growth and general\ncondition, and, if so, in favour of which group? This is an experiment\nupon animals; but it is one against which it would be difficult to\nbring forward any objection which the general public would very\neagerly endorse.  Distinctions must be made, between that which is\ncruel and that which is humane. \"AGAINST PERFECTLY PAINLESS\nEXPERIMENT,\" said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, \"carried out for\npurely experimental and great objects by men who themselves regret the\nnecessity or expediency, and who only act under a strict sense of\nduty, no reasonable mind can raise an objection.\"\n\nOn the other hand, let me reiterate acknowledgment of the vast\nindebtedness which the cause of humaneness owes to the opponents of\nall vivisection.  Always and everywhere, the extremist helps in the\nprogress of reform.  But for a few hated and despised abolitionists,\nnegro slavery might still be a recognized American institution; it was\nnot Henry Clay or Daniel Webster who did most to hasten its downfall.\nThat antivivisectionists have made mistakes, perhaps their most ardent\nadvocate would be willing to concede.  On the other hand, how great\nhas been their service! But for extremists such as Frances Power Cobb\nof England and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps-Ward of America and a host of\nothers whose hearts were aflame with indignation at cruelty and at the\nseeming duplicity which denied its existence, the whole question would\nhave sunk into the abeyance in which in France or Germany, it to-day\nexists.  They kept it alive.  And what have not the antivivisectionists\nsuffered by detraction, by ridicule, by misrepresentation and personal\nabuse! The most eloquent woman to whom I have ever listened, English\nonly by adoption, faced without flinching some of the most skilled\nvivisectors and controversialists of Great Britain, who endeavoured in\nvain to weaken the force of her testimony; and the examination of Miss\nLind-ap-Hageby by certain of the vivisecting members of the Royal\nCommission seems to me a more brilliant instance of the presentation\nof ideals under adverse circumstances than is afforded by any similar\nexamination of man or woman in modern times.  Personal disagreement\nwith universal condemnation of all vital experimentation has been\nsufficiently stated; but one view of the antivivisectionists applies\nequally to the prohibition of painful experiments. \"I believe,\" said\nMiss Lind, \"that the abolution of vivisection will be accompanied by\ngreat changes and great developments in the whole science of medicine;\nthat new methods of healing will come in, and higher methods, as we\nknow that the coarser medication and the coarser drugging are going\nout of fashion.\"[1] The same view was expressed by Dr. Kenealy,\nanother witness, regarding the prohibition of all animal\nexperimentation. \"I think it would give the finest possible impulse to\nmedical science; that we are surrounded by all these problems of\ndisease and degeneration and suffering in human kind; and that if we\nwere to devote our attention to man, and to all the valuable human\nmaterial surrounding us, instead of wasting valuable time and talent\non dogs and guinea-pigs, we should make rapid and immense advance in\nthe relief of human suffering.\"[2] Somewhat the same sentiment has\nbeen expressed by others not opposed to animal experimentation. \"It\nmay be admitted,\" said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, whose scientific\nzeal, no one can question, \"that whether painful experimentation be\nuseful or useless, it has had one indifferent effect; it has diverted\nthe minds of men too strongly from methods of research that not only\nlie open to the curious mind, but which lie temptingly open.\" And\nspeaking of medical treatment for disease, he says: \"Treatment at this\ntime is a perfect Babel.... Two men scarcely ever write the same\nprescription for the same disease or the same symptom.  I have watched\nthe art of prescribing for fifty years, and I am quite sure that\ndivergence of treatment is at this moment far greater than it ever was\nin the course of that long period.  The multiplication of remedies,\nbegotten of experiment, is the chief reason of so much disagreement...\n... The modern student has before him a new duty.  The experiment of\nexperiment that lies before him therapeutically, is to learn what\ndiseases will recover by mere attention to external conditions without\nany medicines, and what will not.\"[3]\n\n[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Q. 7,627\n[2] Ibid., Q. 6,776\n[3] \"Biological Experimentation,\" by Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson,\nF.R.S.  Pp. 73, 109.\n\nThe unpleasant accompaniment of all criticism is misunderstanding.  A\nprotest, a remonstrance of any kind can gain a hearing only after it\nhas been repeated again and again, and even then it is quite as liable\nas otherwise to be wholly misconstrued.  It has been with very great\nregret that for many years, I have found myself in disagreement with\nso large a number of medical writers, who have left behind them the\nconservatism of earlier opinions in the English-speaking world, to\nfollow the newer lights of Continental freedom and irresponsibility.\nThe regret is the more poignant, because, speaking from the vantage of\nseventy years, I believe that the highest realization of human hopes\nfor the welfare of our race, must come through medical science.  It\nis, however, to preventive medicine that the world must learn to look,\nnot to the conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums.  There are\nailments, which every year in England and America are responsible for\nthousands of preventable deaths.  That fifty years hence, these\nscourges of humanity will be curable by the administration of any\nremedy, to be hereafter discovered by experimentation on animals,--in\nthe Rockefeller Institute, for instance,--I have not the slightest\nfaith.  It is not through the torment of living creatures, not through\nthe limitless sacrifice of laboratory victims, not through the\nutilization of babes as \"material\" for research, that medical science\nwill yet achieve for humanity its greatest boon,--the prevention of\ndisease.  I venture with confidence, to make that forecast of the\nfuture, leaving recognition of its truth to those who shall come after\nus, when all now living shall have passed away.\n\n\n\n                        APPENDIXES\n\n\n                      SECOND EDITION\n\n                         --------\n\n\n                        APPENDIX I\n\n           \"ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND MEDICAL\n                    PROGRESS\"--A REVIEW\n\nBy a curious coincidence, two books relating to vivisection were\npublished in America at almost the same time.  One, under the above\ntitle, was a collection of essays and contributions to various\nperiodicals from the pen of Dr. William W. Keen, which have appeared\nduring the past thirty years.  The other was the first edition of the\npresent work.\n\nThe volume to which the reader's attention is called is chiefly an\nexposition of the author's views on the scientific value of biological\nexperimentation.  With some of his conclusions, there will be little\nor no dispute among members of the medical profession.  But in\ndefending the moethods of physiological experiment, has he been\nscrupulously accurate and uniformly fair? Is there to be discerned any\ntendency to exaggeration, to over-statement or to suppression of vital\nfacts? Eager as he is to charge inaccuracy upon others, has he been\nalways accurate himself? Has any authority cited been \"garbled,\" so\nthat quotation conveys an impression inconsistent with the general\ntenor of a writer's views? What cruelties of past experimentation has\nthis author emphatically condemned? What experimenters upon human kind\nhas he held up to the reprobation of the public? In the entire volume,\ncan one find a single instance wherein a cruel experiment has been\ncensured, or a cruel experimenter been condemned by name? Except in a\nvolume, it would be impossible to indicate all points to which\nattention should be given; it must suffice here, to direct attention\nonly to a few.\n\n                                I.\n\nA personal criticism of the writer by Dr. Keen makes necessary a\nrecord of the facts.  Referring to a certain experiment of a German\nvivisector, Goltz, Dr. Keen says:\n\n\"In 1901 Professor Bowditch called Dr. Leffingwell's attention to the\nfact that no such operation was ever done.  In Dr. Leffingwell's\ncollected essays, entitled \"The Vivisection Question,\" on p. 169 of\nthe second revised edition (1907), there is, in a footnote a\ncorrection admitting that no such operation was ever done(!), but on\np. 67 of the same edition, A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION still\nremains uncorrected, six years after Bowditch's letter had been\nreceived and the misstatement acknowledged.\"[1]\n\n[1] Keen's \"Animal Experimentation,\" p. 271.\n\nTruth and untruth are sadly intermingled in this paragraph.  Let us\nattempt to disentangle them.\n\nOn March 7, 1901, while the collection of essays, known as \"The\nVivisection Question\" was in the printer's hands and on the eve of\npublication, a note was received from Professor Bowditch of Harvard\nMedical School, courteously asking the authority for one particular\nprocedure in the long account of the Goltz experiment--the ablation of\nthe breast.  In reply to Professor Bowditch, the name of Dr. Edward\nBerdoe of London was given as the authority upon which the author of\n\"The Vivisection Question\" had confidently relied.  A letter was at\nonce sent to Dr. Berdoe--a well-known English physician--telling him\nthat one procedure mentioned in the description of the Goltz\nexperiment had been questioned, and asking him for an immediate and\ncareful study of the case.  Dr. Berdoe's investigation made it evident\nthat a mistake had been made by the translator upon whose accuracy he\nhad relied; and in the next edition of \"The Vivisection Question\" at\np. 169--(the only page to which Dr. Bowditch had invited attention)--\nan acknowledgment was inserted.  That it had even the briefest\nreference elsewhere, was not recalled by the author of the book, for\nhe had not seen it for years.\n\nNor was this all.  To the London Zoophilist and to the Journal of\nZoophily in this country, a communication was at once sent.  In the\nlatter periodical, the following letter appeared in its issue for\nJuly, 1901:\n\n                To the Editor of the Journal of Zoophily\n\nMADAM,--A German vivisector, Dr. Goltz of Strasburg, reporting certain\nexperiments he had made upon a dog, declared that it was \"marvellous\nand astonishing\" to find maternal instinct manifested after various\nsevere mutilations.  One of these operations was reported to have been\nexcision of the breasts, so that it could no longer nurse its young,\nand to this phase of the experiment I have referred in some of my\nwritings.\n\nRecently, Dr. Bowditch of Harvard University has called my attention\nto this particular mutlation, questioning its occurrence; and on\nreferring the matter ot Dr. Berdoe of London, who was my authority, he\nfinds, after a most painstaking and careful examination at the College\nof Surgeons, that a mistake in comprehending a phrase was actually\nmade by the translator, upon whose accuracy and acquaintance with the\nGerman language dependence seemed secure.\n\nAll the details of this Goltz experiment are too horrible to quote;\nthis is not a case where a single experiment has been magnified into a\ngreat cruelty; the truth itself is bad enough.[1] It is a fact,\nhowever, that one particular mutilation ascribed to Goltz--the\nablation of the breasts--did not in this instance occur.\n\nIt has always seemed to me of the utmost importance that in all\ncriticism of vivisection our facts should be absolutely reliable, and\nthat whenever inaccuracies occur, they should be corrected.  All that\nwe want is the truth, without concealment of abuse on the one hand, or\nmisstatement on the other.  In this case, I am especially glad to make\ncorrection.  For many years I have been acquainted with the writings\nof Dr. Berdoe, and I have never found therein the slightest\noverstatement or exaggeration of any kind.  In the twenty-one years I\nhave written in advocacy of some measure of reform in regard to\nvivisection, this, too, IS THE FIRST INSTANCE IN WHICH AN INACCURACY\nOF ANY STATEMENT OF MINE REGARDING ANY EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN POINTED\nOUT.\n                                        ALBERT LEFFINGWELL.\n\n   BROOKLYN,\n     May 31, 1901.\n\n[1] No advocate of unrestricted experimentation, so far as known, has\never dared to print the full details of this Goltz experiment.\n\nIn the only essay to which Professor Bowditch has called attention,\nthe statement had been corrected; the fact that an allusion of five or\nsix words in an earlier essay gave an erroneous suggestion, was quite\noverlooked.  But Dr. Keen will have it that there was a \"REVISED\"\nedition, and that in this \"A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION\" was\ngiven.\n\nThere are here two misstatements.  There is not the slightest reason\nfor calling it a \"revised\" edition.  Was there a \"description given\"?\nLet us quote the entire passage, written nearly a quarter of a century\nago, in order to see what Dr. Keen ventured to call a \"description of\nthis same operation.\"\n\n\"We are almost at the beginning of the twentieth century.\nCivilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve,\nnew dangers to confront, new hopes to realize.  It is useless to deny\nthe increasing ascendancy of that spirit, which in regard to the\nproblems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but\ncontinues its search for solution; it is equally useless to shut our\neyes to the influence of this spirit upon those beliefs which for many\nages have anchored human conduct to ethical ideals.  Regret would be\nfutile; and here, perhaps is no occasion for regret.  To the new\nspirit, which perhaps is to dominate the future, this longing for\ntruth, not for what she gives us in the profit that the ledgers\nreckon, but for what she is herself--this high ambition to solve the\nmysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries\nthat shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely\nmore glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final\nrecord History is so soon to end.\n\n\"But all real progress in civilization depends upon man's ethical\nideals.... What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to\nassume in coming years? What are the ideals held up before American\nstudents in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to\nfire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and\nsimilar success? Is it Richet, `bending over palpitating entrails,\nsurrounded by groaning creatures,' not, as he tells us, with any\nthought of benefit to mankind, but simply `to seek out a new fact, to\nverify a disputed point?' Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, `con\nmulto amore e patience moltissima,'--with much patience and pleasure--\nthe agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Sequard, ending a\nlong life devoted to the torment of living things with the investion\nof a nostrum that earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of\nStrasburg, noting with wonder that mother love and yearning solicitude\ncould be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off,\nand whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for\ncataract and plunging the needle to the bottom of the patient's eye,\nthat by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of\nirritating the retina? ... Surely, in these names, and such as these,\nthere can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that\nunselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the\namelioration of the world.\"\n\nIn this passage, there is an allusion of JUST SIX WORDS to one phase\nof experimentation which was subsequently found to be inaccurate, and\ncorrected, as Dr. Keen has shown.  But was it in accord with truth to\nrefer to this passing reference as \"A DESCRIPTION of the same\noperation\"? No reader of Dr. Keen's pages would be likely to\ninvestigate the statement.  Was it fair to permit his readers to\nunderstand that a DESCRIPTION EXISTED, WHERE THERE WAS NONE?\n\nThere is yet another point to be noted.  Referring to the experiments\nof Goltz, the impression seems to be given that not only was ablation\nof the breast mistakenly ascribed to the Strasburg vivisector, but\nthat such a vivisection was imaginary: \"NO SUCH OPERATION WAS EVER\nDONE.\" This is also untrue.  Experiments of the kind have been done by\nother vivisectors, and they are recorded in their own reports.  For\nexample, de Sinety of Paris tells us in his \"Manuel Pratique de\nGynecologie\" (Paris, 1879, p. 778), that upon female guinea-pigs, he\nhad practised \"l'ablation de ces glands pendant la lactation.\"[1]\nAnother French vivisector, Dr. Paul Bert, states that he had not only\nperformed \"l'ablation des mamelles chez une femelle de cochon d'Inde,\"\nbut that he had succeeded in performing the operation on a female\ngoat.  The poor creature recovered from the vivisection, and later,\ngave birth to a kid, which was placed with the mother.  What would\nhappen to a new-born animal placed at the side of a mother whose\nbreasts had been cut off?\n\n\"Le petit, animal, voulant teter, et trouvant pas de mamelles, a donne\nde violent coups de te^te dans le re'gion mammaire....\"[2]\n\n[1] In a reference to de Sinety's vivisections at page 171, in the\npresent volume, there is a slight mistake.  Although de Sinety, as\nshown above, had practised the ablation of the mammary glands during\nlactation, it would seem that mutilation rather than complete ablation\npreceded his experiments on the innervation of the mammary nerve.  The\nsentence should read \"cut into the breasts,\" and not \"removed the\nbreasts.\" He tells us that he made a considerable number of\nexperiments of the kind upon female guinea-pigs.  In one of them, for\nexample, he laid bare the nerve and isolated it with a thread,--\"le\nnerf mammaire d'un co^te est mis a` nu, et isole,\" and that when the\nelectric current was used, extreme pain,--\"un douleur tre`s vivre\" was\nexcited, notwithstanding which the excitation was continued for ten\nminutes. (Gazette Me'd. de Paris, for 1879, p. 593).\n[2] Comptes Rendus de la Soc. de Biologie, Paris, 1883, p. 778.\n\nThere is no need of completing the description.  It was an experiment\nabsolutely useless and without justification.  We may confess that we\nread of such useless cruelties of experiment only with infinite\ndisgust.\n\nNo matter how careful a writer may be, it is very rare that he\nescapes, from unfriendly readers, the imputation of inaccuracy.\nAgainst writers of history--men like Froude, Macaulay, or Carlyle--the\nsame charge has been made.  But a critic whose microscopic eye\ndiscerns inaccuracy in others should be very careful to make no\nsimilar errors himself.  The mistake upon which he has dwelt, was due\nto reliance upon the translation of another man.  It may be of\ninterest to point out that in his own writings Dr. Keen has made a\nprecisely similar mistake; and that although it was pointed out and\nits untruth confessed many years ago, yet the false imputation appears\nagain in the pages of his book, without correction or intimation of\nits utter untruth, on the page where it firs tis given to the reader\nof to-day.\n\nIn a pamphlet published during the closing years of the last century\nby the American Humane Association, there appeared a strong\ncondemnation of experiments made by a Dr. Sanarelli, apparently upon\nhospital patients, temporarily under his care.  In an Italian\nperiodical, the young scientist described his researches with\nremarkable frankness.  He tells of the various symptoms of yellow\nfever, which by his serum he had caused his victims to suffer--the\ncongestions, the haemorrhage, the delirium, the fatty degeneration,\nthe collapse; and all these, he adds, \"I have seen unrolled before my\neyes, THANKS TO THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF THE YELLOW-FEVER POISON MADE\nIN MY LABORATORY.\"\n\nSo terrible a confession of human vivisection, it was eemed best by\nsome English translator to suppress; and in various medical journals,\nboth in England and America, the sentence here italicized did not\nappear.  Finding it quoted only by the pamphlet that condemned human\nvivisection, Dr. Keen, without consulting the original, made the\ndishonouring imputation that perhaps it had been \"DELIBERATELY ADDED\"\nby some one of his opponents, and this, too, notwithstanding he had\nreferred to the original authority where the words were to be\nfound. \"Unfortunately,\" he explained at a later period, \"I am not an\nItalian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original\narticle\"; he had placed dependence for his statement upon a\n\"friend.\"[1] Who could have been this \"friend\" who pretended that he\nhad read the article of Sanarelli in the original, and deceived him\ninto making a charge of forgery, for the truth of which there was not\na particle of foundation? But the thing of which his readers have a\nright to complain is not that his \"friend\" deceived him, for that may\nhappen to anyone.  It is this: that the imputation of forgery, the\nuntruth of which was admitted long ago, still remains in the essay\nwhere it first appeared, and without there being the slightest\ndisclaimer of the false insinuation.  Let the reader turn to p. 125 of\nthe work under review.  There is the suggestion that Sanarelli's\nallusion to the poisons fabricated in his laboratory may have been\n\"DELIBERATELY ADDED\"--an imputation of forgery.  WHERE ON THIS PAGE,\nIN THE TEXT OR BY FOOTNOTE, HAS THE AUTHOR WITHDRAWN THAT INSINUATION?\nIT CANNOT BE FOUND.\n\n[1] \"Animal Experimentation,\" pp. 143-144.\n\n                                II.\n\nOne of the most serious offences against literacy accuracy which this\nwriter has apparently committed appears in the garbling of the\nopinions of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University, on the subject\nof vivisection.  The case is of especial interest not only because the\nfacts are so clear, but because they bring into relief certain methods\nof controversy, which by some seem to be regarded as entirely\njustifiable.\n\nA sketch of the life of Dr. Bigelow, with extended quotations from his\nwritings, will be found in the ninth chapter of the work now in the\nreader's hands.  The opinions there expressed regarding vivisection\nare by no means extreme.  No past writer on this subject has left\nbehind him more abundant evidence of his position in this\ncontroversy.  It was not animal experimentation that he condemned, but\nthe cruelty that sometimes accompanies it, and to which, if\nvivisection be unregulated by law, it is so often liable.\n\nHow may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his\ngrave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that\nalthough for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow\nreally knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had\nchanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions\nindicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes.  It might be\nasserted, indeed, that \"in his later life,\" the great advocate of\nreform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new\nattitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a\npainless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the\nparagraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse.\n\nIs not this exactly what the author of \"Animal Experimentation\" has\ndone in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests?\nHe tells his readers that \"the opponents of research\" quote the\nHarvard professor's earliest utterances \"based on the suffering he saw\nat Alfort,\" but that they carefully omit this expression of his later\nopinions:\n\n\"The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to\nbe criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which no one\nobjects.  The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment\nwhich does not cause pain--either because the experiment itself is\npainless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or\nbecause it is a trivial one and gives little suffering--has done great\ndamage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of\nvivisection at a great disadvantage.... A painless experiment on an\nanimal is unobjectionable.\"\n\nThis is all true enough.  But can anyone call this paragraph a fair\nstatement of Dr. Bigelow's \"later views\" on animal experimentation? It\nis merely a wise caution.  Compare this brief quotation with the ninth\nchaper of the book in the reader's hands.  Will anyone, after reading\nthat chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A\nFAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS?\n\nThe reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow,\nsomething appears to have been omitted before the final sentence.  On\nturning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated\nfrom the foregoing quotation.\n\n\"IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN\nCHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION.\"[1]\n\n[1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372.\n\nPrecisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author\nof \"Animal Experimentation,\" the reader will discover another most\nsignificant passage which was suppressed by the author of \"Animal\nExperimentation\":\n\n\"The extreme vivisector claims the liberty to inflict at his\ndiscretion, PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN upon any number of dogs,\nhorses, rabbits, guinea-pigs and other animals.  The interest or\nhonest enthusiasm he may happen to feel in some subject of physiology,\nhowever important, justifies in his mind THE EXHIBITION OF THIS\nEXCESSIVE PAIN TO CLASSES, AND ITS REPETITION BY MEDICAL STUDENTS,\nPRACTICALLY AT THEIR OPTION.  THIS IS AN ABUSE.  Inasmuch as the\nreform of any abuse needs remedial measures, such measures have been\ninaugurated by permanently organized societies, which, even though\nthey may not have been always and wholly right and temperate in their\naction, HAVE ERRED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.\"\n\nWhat was the reason for these suppressions? Why this garbling of\nBigelow's \"later views\"? Do we find it impossible to comprehend why\nhis comparison of physiological experiments with the painless\nprocedures of chemistry should have been cut from the contecxt, or why\nthe references to \"PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN\" and the\n\"exhibition of excessive pain to classes\" should have been omitted?\nHow could a writer, sincerely desirous of presenting his readers with\na fair expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions, have cut out every\nreference to the abuses of vivisection? How could he have omitted to\nquote such passages as the following, which appear in essays written\nduring the last year of his life:\n\n\"In short, although vivisection, like slavery, may embrace within its\npractice what is unobjectionable, what is useful, what is humane, and\neven what is commendable, it may also cover, like slavery, what is\nnothing less than hideous.  I use this word in no sensational sense,\nand appeal to those who are familiar with some of the work, in\nlaboratories and out of them, to endorse it as appropriate in this\nconnection.\" (368)[1]\n\n\"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain it\ninflicts.\" (368)\n\n\"No society, however extreme in its views or action, can legitimately\nobject to painless experimentation, provided it is really painless.\nBUT ANAESTHESIA SHOULD BE REAL, AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR FORMAL.\"\n(374)\n\n\"Vivisection will always be the better for vigilant supervision.\"\n(368)\n\n\"There is little in the literature of what is called the horrors of\nvivisection, which is not well grounded on truth.  For a description\nof the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature.\" (363)\n\nThe necessity for brevity of quotation, no one can dispute.  But the\nethics of controversy are clear.  One or two detached sentences should\nnever be given as a fair representation of an opponent's views, if the\ngeneral tenor of his writings would convey a contrary impression.\nThus to suppress and eliminate, what is it but to garble? In any young\nwriter, would not such offences against veracity invite the severest\ncondemnation?\n\n[1] Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Anaesthesia.  Figures following quotations\nindicate the pages.  Italics not in original.\n\n                                III.\n\nAnother illustration of the unreliability of the volume under review\nmay be found in its references to the Report of the Royal Commission\non Vivisection.  We are told, in the first place--and the untrue\nstatement is thrice repeated with slightly different phraseology--that\n\"on the Commission, the antivivisectionists were represented, and\njoined in this unanimous report.\"[2] It would be difficult to make an\naffirmation more notoriously untrue.  In 1906, when the Commission was\nfirst named, it was a matter of common knowledge that NO\nANTIVIVISECTIONIST WAS REPRESENTED THEREON.  This shoudl be evident to\nanyong, one reading the following paragraph of the Commission's\nreport:\n\n\"After full consideration, we are led to the conclusion that\nexperiments upon animals, ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY LAW FAITHFULLY\nADMINISTERED, ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY\nLEGISLATION.\"[1]\n\n[2] Keen, \"Animal Experimentation,\" p. 294.  For repetitions of the\nerroneous statement, see pp. xviii and 241.\n[1] Report of Commission, p. 57, par. 97.\n\nHow could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any\nantivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation? Possibly the\nwords here italicized explain why this paragraph was not quoted by the\nauthor of \"Animal Experimentation.\" It referred to the conditions of\npermissible experimentation which, as yet, do not exist in any\nAmerican state.\n\nOf this important report, but a single brief paragraph of two\nsentences appears to have attracted the attention of Dr. Keen.  It\nimpresses him so strongly that he parades it no less than three times\nin various parts of his book:\n\n\"We desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations\nof operations inflicted on animals which are freely circulated by\npost, advertisement, or otherwise, are IN MANY CASES calculated to\nmislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in\nquestion were not under an anaesthetic.  To represent that animals\nsubjected to experiments IN THIS COUNTRY are WANTONLY TORTURED would,\nin our opinion, be absolutely false.\" (Italics not in original.)\n\n\"This clear statement,\" adds the author of \"Animal Experimentation\" to\none of his three quotations, \"should end this calumny\" (p. 241.) To\nwhat \"CALUMNY\" can he allude? The Commissioners are referring only to\nexperimentation in England, where unauthorized painful experimentation\nis contrary to law--certainly not to America, where no Government\nsupervision of any kind is to be found.  Even in England, the words\n\"IN MANY CASES\" limit the application of condemnation.  Would the\nauthor have its readers believe that painful or unjustifiable\nexperiments are never performed? ON THE VERY PAGE OF THE REPORT TO\nWHICH HE REFERS US, in a paragraph immediately following that just\nquoted, there is reference to a London physiologist of distinction,\nwho had testified that \"he had performed PAINFUL experiments upon\nanimals both in Germany and in this country.\" The Commission\nunanimously condemned his position as \"untenable, and in our opinion,\nABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE.\" Would the author of \"Animal\nExperimentation\" regard this protest against certain experiments made\nby the men named in that paragraph, as a \"calumny\"?\n\nThe unfairness of giving out to the world merely two sentences as\nrepresentative of the conclusions of an important Commission will\nbecome evident to anyone who reads other of the unanimous conclusions\nof this report.  Take the following: \"WE STRONGLY HOLD THAT LIMITS\nSHOULD BE PLACED TO ANIMAL SUFFERING in the search for physiological\nor pathological knowledge, though some have contended that such\nconsiderations should be wholly subordinated to the claims of\nscientific research, or the pursuit of some material good for man.\"[1]\nDoes this conclusion bear out the contention that animal suffering in\nthe laboratory is a MYTH? Or take the recommendations of the\nCommission concerning CURARE, a drug which is used in every\nlaboratory, but which, curiously enough, finds no mention in the index\nof Dr. Keen's book.  The Report says: \"Some of us are of the opinion\nthat the use of CURARE should be altogether prohibited; but we are all\nagreed that if its use is to be permitted at all, an Inspector or some\nperson nominated by the Secretary of State should be present from the\ncommencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the\nanimal is, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EXPERIMENT AND UNTIL ITS DEATH, IN A\nSTATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA.\"[2] Why was this recommendation made,\nif the use of CURARE is never associated with painful experimentation?\nOr read yet further: \"We are of the opinion that ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS\nAGAINST PAIN MIGHT BE PROVIDED, without interfering with legitimate\nresearch.\" These recommendations are incorporated in the final report\nof the Commissioners, not one of whom was an Antivivisectionist.  Why\nwere they not quoted by Dr. Keen.\n\n[1] Report, p. 57, par. 96.\n[2] Ibid., p. 61, par. 114.\n\nThe Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, together with the\nevidence produced before it, constitutes the most important document\nrelating to the subject which has appeared in a quarter of a century.\nIt is greatly to be regretted that the author of \"Animal\nExperimentation\" should have given his readers no idea whatsoever of\nthis report, except a warning of two sentences, that could have been\nmeant for England alone.  By omission of all its other conclusions,\nespecially those relating to painful experiments, has the author been\nfair to his readers? Do such significant omissions illustrate an\nimpartial reliability that commands our admiration? Does it denote an\naccuracy that should inspire our trust?\n\n                                IV.\n\nWhat judgment does the author pass upon scientific experimentation\nupon human beings? In his volume on animal vivisection, he has\nreprinted various articles on the subject written by himself during a\ncontroversy which raged quite fiercely at the beginning of the present\ncentury; of course in his book we find nothing of the points made\nagainst his arguments by his various opponents of that day.  The\nsubject is an important one, and some day will have a volume devoted\nto its discussion.\n\nIn the eighteenth chapter of the present work, a careful distinction\nis drawn between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem\nto be entirely proper, and those other phases which ought to be\ncondemned:\n\n\"It is of course to be expected, that certain experimenters upon human\nbeings will endeavour to confound both phases of inquiry in the public\nestimation; yet there is no difficulty in drawing clear distinctions\nbetween them.\n   I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being,\nconscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely\nfor the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and,\nif practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and\nright.... So long as the amelioration of the patient is the one\npurpose kept in view, it is legitimate treatment.\n   II. Human vivisection is something different.  It has been defined\nas the practice of submitting to experimentation human beings, usually\ninmates of public institutions, by methods liable to involve pain,\ndistress, injury to health or even danger to life, without any full,\nintelligent personal consent, for no object relating to their\nindividual benefit, but for the prosecution of some scientific\ninquiry.... THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE\nPERSONAL WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE\nEXPERIMENT IS MADE.\"[1]\n\n[1] Pp. 289-290.\n\nAll distinctions of this kind the author of \"Animal Experimentation\"\napparently sweeps aside.  A writer suggested that upon natives of\nIndia who, when bitten by poisonous serpents, almost invariably die,\nthere would be no objection to trying \"every variety of antidote that\ncan be discovered.\" This humane suggestion the author of \"Animal\nExperimentation\" holds up as \"FLAT-FOOTED ADVOCACY OF HUMAN\nVIVISECTION!\" The absurdity of such pronouncement must be evident to\neveryone of common sense.  We should think very little of any surgeon\nconfronted with the case of a native suffering from a snake-bit, who,\nfinding ordinary remedies of no avail, refused to try \"EVERY VARIETY\nOF ANTIDOTE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED.\" This is not the \"human\nvivisection\" to which objection is made; for such experimentation is\nfor the personal benefit of the man himself.\n\nTake, for illustration, the experiments made by the author of \"Animal\nExperimentation\" and other investigators some years since, upon\nsoldiers in an Army hospital.  The author of the pamphlet which first\nbrought these experiments on soldiers before the public, states\ndistinctly that \"just so far as the experiments were made upon\nsuffering men IN THE HOPE OF GIVING RELIEF FROM PAIN, and at the same\ntime contributing to medical knowledge, THERE CAN BE NOTHING TO\nCRITICIZE IN ANY WAY.\"[2] Surely the experimenters should ask no\nclearer exculpation from all blame, so far as relates to permissible\nexperimentation on man.  The critic, however, suggested that in some\ncases, the enthusiastic experimenters went beyond this, and quotes\nfrom the original article the following descriptions of their work:\n\n\"We finally entered upon A DELIBERATE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTS with the\nintention of ascertaining in what respect ... the two drugs in\nquestion were antagonistic.... The experiments which we shall now\nrelate were most of them made upon soldiers, who were suffering from\npainful neuralgic diseases, or from some cause of entailing pain.  In\nsome cases, however, CONVALESCENT MEN WERE THE SUBJECTS OF OUR\nOBSERVATIONS, but in no instance were they allowed to know what agents\nwe used.... SOME WERE MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH, suspected of\nmalingering.  The patient was kept recumbent some time before and\nduring the observation.\"\n\n[2] Taber, \"Illustrations of Human Vivisection,\" Chicago, 1906,\npp. 13-14.\n\nIt is unnecessary to give the full description of these experiments.\nWe are informed of \"series of experiments,\" of \"two other sets of\nexperiments,\" of the \"effect on the eye\" or \"the effect of the two\ndrugs upon the cerebral functions\"; the material was abundant.  The\nreviewer of this experimentation says:\n\n\"How these experiments will be palliated and excused it is easy to\nforetell.  We shall undoubtedly be told that all this happened some\nyears ago; that the American soldiers, thus used as material suffered\nno permanent injury from the experiments to which they were subjected;\nthat the investigators were purely disinterested; that the scientific\nquestions involved were of great interest and that results might\npossibly have been obtained which would have proved of great service\nto medical science.  But even if we grant all this, and accord to\nthese gentlemen the purest of personal motives, can we say that in\nsuch defence they touch the chief point at issue in this matter of\nhuman vivisection? Here were a number of human beings who, for a brief\nperiod, on account of misfortune, were temporarily in their power.\nWHAT MORAL RIGHT had these medical gentlemen thus to experiment upon\nthe eye, the pulse, the brain of a single soldier of the Republic?\n... Even granting the utility, who confers upon anyone the moral right\nto test poisons on his fellow-men?\n\nIn his recent work, the author of \"Animal Experimentation\" refers to\nthese investigations of earlier years, and insists that most of the\npatients thus operated on \"were sorely in need of relief.\" What, he\nasks, would his critics have had them do? \"Sit idly by, and let these\npoor fellows suffer torments, because if we tried various drugs we\nwere `experimenting' on human beings?\" Is not this a little\ndisingenuous, in view of the very careful distinctions made by his\ncritic concerning the experiments performed for the relief of\nsuffering men? Assuredly, there was no objection to these; it was\nregarding the \"deliberate course of experiments,\" the \"series of\nexperiments\" made upon \"MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH\" that criticism was\nsuggested.  Were all these experiments upon soldiers in the Army\nhospital made for the relief of their pains? If so, they undoubtedly\ndeserve our warmest approval.  Were any of a purely scientific\ncharacter, having no regard to the necessities of the individual upon\nwhom they were made? If so, we may leave the question of condemnation\nor approval to the reader's judgment.\n\n                                V.\n\nWhat is the attitude of the author toward cruelty in animal\nexperimentation, or to the secrecy of the laboratory? So far as one\ncan see, there is no admission anywhere that vivisection ever\ntranscends the limits of what is entirely permissible.  Except as\nregards human beings, the word \"cruelty\" is not found in the index of\nhis work.  At one place he tells his readers that \"whenever an\noperation would be painful, an anaesthetic is ALWAYS given\";[1] on\nanother page, we read that in modern researches, \"ether or other\nanaesthetics are ALMOST always given.\"[2] two statements that are\nslightly incompatible.  We are informed that certain American\nsocieties have passed resolutions favorable to the \"UNRESTRICTED\nperformance\" of vivisections by proper persons;[3] but the writer\nneglects to inform his readers that unrestricted and unregulated\nexperimentation of the kind is not only contrary to the law in\nEngland, but that it is condemned there by the leaders of the medical\nprofession.  We find it apparently implied--but without positive\nstatement--that there is little or no secrecy in animal\nexperimentation, and that anyone may find admittance to a laboratory\nat any time.[4] So far as England is concerned, this is untrue; and we\ndo not believe that in America a stranger would be welcomed at any\nphysiological laboratory when experimentation by students was going\non, although of course there are times when there would be no trouble\nin obtaining admittance.  It would apparently seem that in the opinion\nof Dr. Keen, animal experimentation is always practised without\ncruelty or abuse.\n\n[1] \"Animal Experimentation,\" p. 232.\n[2] Ibid., p. 245.\n[3] Ibid., p. xviii.\n[4] Ibid., pp. viii-ix.\n\nA considerable part of the volume under review is devoted to the\nhistory of medical progress.  Were it not for the unfortunate tendency\neverywhere to magnify or exaggerate, this part of the book would have\nhad distinct value.  Of the advances made by modern surgery, for\nexample, there can be no doubt; it is probable also, that without to\nsome researches upon living animals, the results would not have been\nattained.  This by no means justifies everything that has been done.\nThe members of the Royal Commission--all of them favourable to\nvivisection--state the case with scientific restrain.  After giving\nthe question full consideration they decide:\n\n\"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time to have been\nproved by experiments upon living animals and alleged to have been\nbeneficial in preventing or curing disease, HAVE, ON FURTHER\nINVESTIGATION AND EXPERIENCE, BEEN FOUND TO BE FALLACIOUS OR USELESS.\n\n\"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge HAS BEEN\nACQUIRED in regard to physiological processes and the causation of\ndisease, and that useful methods for the prevention, cure and\ntreatment of certain diseases have resulted from experimental\ninvestigations upon living animals.\n\n\"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that without\nexperiments made upon animals, mankind would, at the present time,\nhave been in possession of such knowledge.\"[1]\n\n[1] Final Report of Royal Commision, p. 47.\n\nIt is open, of course, to an antivivisectionist to deny the right of\nscience to profit by the exploitation of animals, but this is not the\nposition of a large number who seek only to prevent the cruelty which\nhas often accompanied it.\n\nThe greatest defect of the volume, aside from the points to which\nallusion has been made, is the exaggerated advocacy that characterizes\nthe work throughout.  One can hardly find a dozen pages in which a\ncareful reader would not discover some inaccuracy or over-statement.\nIf the author had only been content to demonstrate utility within the\nlimits that scientific accuracy prescribes; if everywhere he had been\nready to concede--what thirty years ago he so frankly admitted--that\nvivisection was a \"MANY-SIDED QUESTION;\"[1] if he had admitted\nanywhere that in the past excesses have taken place, and that the\npractice has sometimes been carried to unjustifiable extremes which\nshould be condemned; if he had contented himself with pointing out the\nmistakes of the critics of animal experimentation, without impugning\ntheir character, or sneering at their efforts to lessen the infliction\nof pain; if everywhere he had made fair distinctions between the anti-\nvivisectionists who oppose and condemn all exploitation of animal\nlife, and restrictionists like Dr. Bigelow, Dr. Wilson, Dr. William\nJames, and a host of others who share their views; if, in short, the\nconstant aim of the author had seemed to be, not to secure a polemical\nsuccess, but reliability as an authority that time would confirm--it\nis certain that his book would have attained some degree of deserved\nand lasting repute.  For such a result, no reasonable expectation can\nnow be entertained.  The unreliability of the volume as an authority\nwill become more and more evident as time goes on, and in the judgment\nof the world it will gradually find its rightful place.\n\n[1] See first page of \"Animal Experimentation.\"\n\nIn bringing to a close this inadequate review of the book something\nyet remains to be said.  It should be unnecessary to repeat that in\npointing out literary defects and mistakes, we do not touch the honour\nof the writer in any way.  How can one measure the weight of a life-\nlong prejudice, or determine its influence upon conduct or opinion?\n\"Tout comprende est tout pardonner.\" Within a few weeks, the author of\n\"Animal Experimentation,\" if living, will enter upon his eightieth\nyear.  The errors of judgment, the inaccuracies of statement, the\ntendency to exaggerate utility--these and all other literary defects\nof the volume before us must be recognized and deplored, but they\nshould be ascribed only to causes which do not affect the honour of\nthe man.  We may be confident that after he has passed away, the world\nwill quickly forget the too zealous defender of unrestricted\nvivisection, and remember, finally, only the wise teacher, the skilled\nsurgeon, the trusted friend.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX II\n\nIn the acquirement of knowledge concerning vivisection, and for the\nprevention of abuses, it is essential that in every institution where\nexperiments are performed a register of all animals received be\ncarefully and accurately kept.  Each one should have a serial number,\nunder which all particulars should be entered.  The book used for this\npurpose should have printed in the first column of each double page\nthe required details concerning which a record is to be kept; the\nblanks should be written in ink by someone responsible for its\naccuracy.  Some such form as the following outline might perhaps be\nused for such register:\n\nREGISTER OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION IN THE\n    CARNEGIE LABORATORY DURING THE YEAR 1920.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n| Serial number ..   ..   ..  |      801     |      802    |    803    |\n| Date     ..   ..   ..   ..  | Feb. 1, 1920 | Feb. 1, 1920|Feb 2, 1920|\n|-----------------------------|--------------|-------------|-----------|\n| Species  ..   ..   ..   ..  | Dog          | Dog         |    ---    |\n| Variety  ..   ..   ..   ..  | Mongrel      | Spaniel     |    ---    |\n| Apparent age  ..   ..   ..  | Two years    | Very old    |    ---    |\n| Sex ..   ..   ..   ..   ..  | Male         | Female      |    ---    |\n| Colour   ..   ..   ..   ..  | Yellow       | White       |    ---    |\n| Condition     ..   ..   ..  | Good         | Poor        |    ---    |\n| From whom received ..   ..  | Bradson      | Burns       |    ---    |\n| Address  ..   ..   ..   ..  | 45, Canal St.| 22, Mill St.|    ---    |\n| Amount paid him    ..   ..  | 75 cents     | 50 cents    |    ---    |\n| How acquired by him     ..  | Found        | Founds      |    ---    |\n| Kept by us for redemption   | 15 days      | 15 days     |    ---    |\n| Delivered to  ..   ..   ..  | Dr. Sharp    | Dr. Ball    |    ---    |\n| Redeemed or died   ..   ..  |    ---       |    ---      |    ---    |\n|                             |              |             |           |\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nFrom such a register as the foregoing, it would not be difficult to\ncompile a report at the end of each quarter-year, somewhat after the\nfollowing form:\n\nREPORT OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION AT THE\n    CARNEGIE INSTITUTE, DURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n|                         |      |      |        | Other  |       |\n|                         | Dogs.| Cats.|Monkeys.|Mammals.| Total.|\n|-------------------------|------|------|--------|--------|-------|\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n| On hand, January 1   .. |  20  |   4  |    2   |   14   |   40  |\n| Acquired      ..     .. |  91  | 142  |   11   |  132   |  376  |\n|                         |------|------|--------|--------|-------|\n| Total         ..     .. | 111  | 146  |   13   |  146   |  416  |\n|                         |======|======|========|========|=======|\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n| Redeemed by owners   .. |  11  |   0  |    0   |    0   |   11  |\n| Died before use      .. |   2  |   0  |    1   |    0   |    3  |\n| Used for experiment  .. |  84  |  76  |   10   |   98   |  268  |\n| On hand at date      .. |  14  |  70  |    2   |   48   |  134  |\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n|                         |------|------|--------|--------|-------|\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n| Total                   | 111  | 146  |   13   |  146   |  416  |\n|                         |      |      |        |        |       |\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                   (Signed)  A. B.,\n                                         REGISTRAR OF LABORATORY.\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK.\n   CITY OF NEW YORK.  SS.\n\nOn this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally\ncame A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the\nforegoing report signed by him is a full, true, and complete statement\nof all the animals of the species named therein, which were either on\nhand on the first day of the quarter, or which have been received at\nthe Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute for experimental purposes,\nand the disposition thereof, for the quarter-year ending March 31,\n1920.\n\n                                        ...................\n                                                   NOTARY PUBLIC.\n\n\nIt is necessary not only to know what animals are received at any\nlaboratory; we must be able to follow them to the end.  Each\nindividual instructor, professor or assistant-professor, or other\nperson who performs experiments of any kind should be required to\nstate what he has done.  The following is an outline of a report which\nmight be made to the Director in charge of the laboratory.\n\n                     --------------------\n\nA REPORT OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTATION, EITHER BY\nMYSELF OR UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION IN ........... LABORATORY,\nDURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n|                       |      |      | Mon- |Guinea-| Other  |       |\n|                       | Dogs.| Cats.| keys.| Pigs. |Animals.| Total.|\n|-----------------------|------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|\n|                       |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|  I. Number of animals |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|       used solely for |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|     original research |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n| II. Number of animals |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|   used for demonstra- |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n| tion before students, |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|of physiological facts |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|III. Number of animals |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|  experimented upon by |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|  students   ..   ..   |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|                       |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|\n|    Total    ..   ..   |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|                       |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|\n|IV.Number of above ani-|      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|    mals, in experimen-|      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|    tation upon which  |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|    CURARE was used    |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n|                       |      |      |      |       |        |       |\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                (Signed)  ........................\n                                      ASSISTANT IN PHYSIOLOGY.\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK.\n   CITY OF NEW YORK.  SS.\n\nOn this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally\ncame A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the\nforegoing report was signed by him, and that it is a true, full and\ncomplete statement of all mammalian animals used by him or under his\npersonal supervision for experimental purposes in the ...........\nLaboratory during the quarter ending March 31, 1920.\n\n                                    ......................\n                                                NOTARY PUBLIC.\n\nSuggested form of report, to be made quarterly by the responsible head\nof each Institution wherein animal experimentation is authorized.\n\n                     --------------------\n\nA REPORT OF THE DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL\nPURPOSES IN ALL LABORATORIES OF CARNEGIE INSTITUTE DURING QUARTER\nENDING MARCH 31, 1920.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n|                                 |      |      | Mon-| Other  |       |\n|            Animals.             | Dogs.| Cats.|keys.|Animals.| Total.|\n|---------------------------------|------|------|-----|--------|-------|\n|  I. Number used for original    |      |      |     |        |       |\n|       research only, by:        |      |      |     |        |       |\n|         Dr. X.   ..   ..   ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n|         Dr. Y.   ..   ..   ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n| II. Number used for demonstra-  |      |      |     |        |       |\n|      tions before students, by: |      |      |     |        |       |\n|         Dr. A.   ..   ..   ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n|         Dr. B.   ..   ..   ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n|III. Number used by students for |      |      |     |        |       |\n|       observation of physiolog- |      |      |     |        |       |\n|       ical phenomena, etc. ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n|                                 |------|------|-----|--------|-------|\n|         Total    ..   ..   ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n|                                 |------|------|-----|--------|-------|\n| Number of above animals to      |      |      |     |        |       |\n| which curare was given, in      |      |      |     |        |       |\n| course of experimentation  ..   |      |      |     |        |       |\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                    (Signed)  .....................\n                                             DIRECTOR OF LABORATORY.\n\nSTATE OF NEW YORK.\n   CITY OF NEW YORK.  SS.\n\nOn this 1st day of April, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally\ncame C. D., known to me, who, being duly sworn, declared that the\nforegoing report signed by him, is a full, true and complete statement\nof the disposition of all animals experimented upon in the\nlaboratories of the Carnegie Institute, during the quarter-year ending\nMarch 31, 1920, to the best of his knowledge and belief.\n\n                                   .....................\n                                                NOTARY PUBLIC.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX III\n\nIt is exceedingly probably that no young physician or medical student\ncould testify to cruelties witnessed in any physiological laboratory,\nif they involved his instructors or fellow-students, without injuring\nand perhaps ruining altogether his professional career.  Only in later\nyears, when success and independence have been attained, can he\nventure to speak freely of what he has seen.  Some men have thus\nspoken.  The testimony of two is here given:\n\nRev. Frederic Rowland Marvin, M.D., Albany, N.Y.:\n\n\"Though now a Minister of the Gospel, I was educated to the profession\nof medicine, and was graduated from the College of Physicians and\nSurgeons (Medical Department of Columbia College) New York, in 1870.\nIn the class-room I SAW VIVISECTIONS SO UNQUALIFIEDLY CRUEL THAT EVEN\nNOW THEY REMAIN IN MY MEMORY AS A NIGHTMARE.\"\n                (From letter to The American Humane Association.)\n\n\"All medical students in America know that similar outrages are\nperpetrated in our medical colleges every winter.  I have witnessed\nvivisections SO CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY THAT I AM ASHAMED TO REMEMBER\nTHAT THEY WERE UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MY ALMA MATER.\"\n                     (From sermon preached at Portland, Oregon.)\n\nDr. Henry M. Field, Professor Emerituss of Therapeutics, Dartmouth\nMedical School, Dartmouth College, writes:\n\n\"I well remember my experience as a student of medicine at the College\nof Physicians and Surgeons, New York.... I well remember the poor\ndogs, brought out from their dungeon, perhaps famished and tortured\nwith thirst, should the experiment require such condition; their\nappealing eyes and trembling limbs, I shall never forget.... Indeed,\nSOME FORM OF TORTURE AND ATROCITY WAS EXPECTED AT EVERY LECTURE, AND\nSURE TO BE APPLAUDED.... The student who found entertainment in the\nunnecessary torture of animals, learned something besides physiology;\nhis humane nature was perverted....\"\n                  (From letter to the Vivisection Reform Society,\n                                       dated April 28, 1905.)\n\n\n                        APPENDIX IV\n\n                A LETTER OF DR. JOHN BASCOM,\n        LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.\n\n        To the Editor of the \"Springfield Republican.\"\n\nSIR,--In the complexity of our many social problems, it does not quite\ndo to extemporize an opinion.  In a recent issue the Republican came\nvery near falling into this fault.  Taking as its text a striking\nexample of locating a clot of blood in the brain, and referring the\nknowledge by which this was done to vivisection, it spoke lightly of\nthe limitation which many have sought to put upon this practise.  It\nis noot the assertion of the opponents of vivisection, that itis\nalways useless, but that it has been carried much beyond the demands\nof any desirable and humane purpose.  Even the example given is not so\nstriking if we remember that it has long been known that each half of\nthe body is governed not by the adjacent, but by the opposite, lobe of\nthe brain.\n\nConsidering the uncertainty, and the costly nature, of the knowledge\ngained by vivisection, and the great abuse the practice has suffered,\nits opponents demand that animals should not be subjected to this\nsuffering except in view of some definite and important question to be\nanswered; that the pain involved in such an investigation should be\nreduced to its lowest possible terms; that experiments once\nsatisfactorily made should not be indefinitely repeated; and that\nvivisection should not be left in the hands of every tyro acquiring\nthe rudiments of knowledge.  These claims are almost as much a demand\nof accuracy in knowledge as of humanity in temper.  The pain involved\nin vivisection often creates such an abnormal state as to weaken or\ninvalidate the conclusions drawn in connection with it.  The careless\nstudent may easily confirm, as he thinks by observation, opinions not\nwell grounded.\n\nVivisection has been objected to not theoretically or sentimentally\nsimply, but on account of the monstrous abuses that have been\nassociated with it.  In Europe men of distinguishing ability have\nseemed to revel in this form of inquiry and to have prosecuted it\nwithout the slightest reference to the cruel and revolting features\nassociated with it.  They have made of it a school of Nero in which\nbrutality became a passion of the mind.\n\nOne of the most deadly sins of men has been cruelty, cruelty to\nanimals, to children, to women, to men.  The basest of these forms is\nin some respects cruelty to animals, since animals are so thoroughly\ncommitted into our hands.  It is not easy to devise a more hardening\nprocess than careless vivisection; and the claim that it is done in\nthe name of knowledge is, unless it is profoundly and deeply true, an\naggravation of the offence.  Inhumanity is the worst possible temper\nfor the medical profession to entertain, and the worst possible\nsuspicion to attach to them.  If the physicians cannot approach all\nsuffering with an intense desire to relieve it, he is not true to his\ncalling.  It is with more or less fear that the defenceless human\nsubject is committed to them lest they should make of him an\nexperiment.\n\n                                                JOHN BASCOM.\n\n        Williamstown,\n            December 15, 1902.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX V\n\nAmong American physicians, probably the most distinguished medical\nwriter of to-day is Dr. George M. Gould, author of several medical\nworks, and formerly editor of various medical journals.  His\nopposition to antivivisection ideals has always been pronounced; but\nit has not prevented recognition of the abuses of the unlimited\npractice of animal experimentation.  Some extracts from an address\ndelivered by Dr. Gould before the American Academy of Medicine are\nhere presented.  The reader should understand that they are extracts\nonly, and that they represent but one aspect of the speaker's views.\nPerhaps they are the more valuable in that they are the utterances of\nthe most pronounced American critic of antivivisection of the present\ntime.\n\n        THE LIMITATIONS AND ERRORS OF THE VIVISECTIONISTS\n\nThe first that strikes one is an exaggeration of the importance and\nextent of the vivisection method.  As valuable an aid as it is, it is\nnot the only, and perhaps it is not the chief, method of ascertaining\nmedical truth.  It has without doubt often been used when other\nmethods would have been productive of more certain results.  This has\narisen from what a large and broad culture of the human mind perceives\nto flow from a recent and rather silly hypertrophy of the scientific\nmethod, and a limitation of that method to altogether too material or\nphysical aspects of the problem....\n\nAlmost every point over which the controversy has raged most fiercely\nhas been in relation to one or all of the three or four questions:\n\n1. What is a vivisection experiment?\n2. By whom should it be performed?\n3. For what purpose should it be performed?\n4. By what methods should it be carried out?\n\nIn reference to all of these questions, scientific men should unite\nand establish a common set of principles or answers.  In my judgment\ntheir failure to do so at all, and besides this, their frequent\nexaggeration of logical limits and just calims, has been one of the\nunfortunate causes of useless and wasteful wrangling.....\n\n(2) I believe scientific men have made a grave mistake in opposing the\nlimitations of vivisection (not mortisection) experimentation to those\nfitted by education and position to properly choose and properly\nexecute such experimentations.  No harm can come, and I believe much\ngood would come, from our perfect readiness to accede to, nay, to\nadvocate, the antivivisectionist desire to limit all experimentations\nto chartered institutions or to such private investigators as might be\nselected by a properly chosen authority.... At present the greatest\nharm is done true science by men who conduct experiments without\npreliminary knowledge to choose, without judgement to carry out,\nwithoutout true scientific training or method, and only in the\ninterest of vanity.  It takes a deal of true science and patience to\nneutralize with good and to wash out of the memory the sickening,\ngoading sense of shame that follows the knowledge that in the name of\nscience a man could, from a height of 25 feet, drops 125 dogs upon the\nnates (the spine forming a perpendicular line to this point) and for\nfrom forty-one to one hundred days observe the results until slow\ndeath ended the animals' misery.  While we have such things to answer\nfor, our withers are surely not unwrung, and in the interests of\nscience, if not from other motives, we have a right to decide who\nshall be privileged to do them.\n\nI have adduced this single American experiment, but purposely refrain\nfrom even mentioning the horrors of European laboratories.  This is\nnot because I would avoid putting blame where it belongs, but because\nsuch things are peculiarly prone to arouse violent language and\npassion, clouding the intellect and making almost impossible a\ndesirable judicial attitude of mind.  The Teutonic race is to be\ncongratulated that it is guilty of at least but few examples of the\natrocities that have stained the history of Latin vivisection, and\nbefore which, as before the records of Roman conquest and slavery, or\nof the \"Holy Inquisition,\" one shudders at the possibilities of mental\naction in beings that bore the human form and feature....\n\nTo jeer at and deride \"sentimentality\" while pretending to be working\nfor the good of humanity is hypocritic and flagrant self-\ncontradiction.  This attitude of mind on the part of a few men does\nmore to arouse the indignation of opponents than any cruelty itself.\nScientific men should root out of their ranks such poor\nrepresentatives.  They are enemies in the scientific household.\nDr. Klein, a physiologist, before the Royal Commission, testified that\nhe had no regard at all for the sufferings of the animals he used, and\nnever used anaesthetics, except for didactic purposes, unless\nnecessary for his own convenience, and that he had no time for\nthinking what the animal would feel or suffer.  It may be denied, but\nI am certain a few American experimenters feel the same way, and act\nin accordance with their feelings.  But they are not by any means the\nmajority, and they must not only be silenced, but their useless and\nunscientific work should be stopped.  They are a disgrace both to\nscience humanity....\n\nAnd this brings me to what I can but conceive as a grave and profound\nmistake on the part of the experimentalists--their secrecy.  A truly\nscientific man is necessarily a humane man, and there will be nothing\nto conceal from the public gaze of anything that goes on in his\nlaboratory.\n\nIt is a mistake to think our work cannot bear the criticism of such\nenlightened public sentiment as exists here and now; if there is\nnecessary secrecy, there is wrong.  People generally are not such poor\njudges as all that.... I would go even further.  Every laboratory\nshould publish an annual statement setting forth plainly the number\nand kind of experiments, the objects aimed at, and most definitely the\nmethods of conducting them.  At present the public somewhat\nludicrously but sincerely enough grossly exaggerates the amount and\nthe character of this work, and by our foolish secrecy we feed the\nflame of their passionate error.  As organized, systematic, and\nabsolute frankness, besides self-benefit, would at once, as it were,\ntake the wind out of our opponents' saiils.  Do not let us have\n\"reform forced upon us from without\" in this contention, but by going\nmore than half-way to meet them, by the sincerest publicity, show that\nas wel as scientists and lovers of men we are also lovers of animals.\nFaith, hope, and love--these three.  To faith in knowledge, to hope of\nlessening human evil, we add love--love of men, and of the beautiful\nliving mechanisms of animal bodies placed in our care.\n\nAs it appears to me, this most unfortunate controversy, filled with\nbitterness, misrepresentation, and exaggeration, is utterly\nunnecessary.  Both of the sharp-divided, hate-filled parties are at\nheat, if they but knew it, agreed upon essentials and furiously\nwarring over non-essentials and errors.  I frankly confess that one\nside is about as much at fault as the other, and that the whole\nwretched business is a sad commentary upon the poverty of common\ncharity and good sense....\n\n\n                        APPENDIX VI\n\n        THE REGULATION OF EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN BEINGS\n\nA Bill for the regulation of the practice of experimentation upon\nhuman beings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere has been drawn,\nand will shortly be introduced in the Senate of the United States.  An\noutline of the proposed Bill is here given, but in some respects it\nmay be enlarged or modified before its final introduction.  It is\nbelieved that a law may be framed which shall prohibit only those acts\nwhich are contrary to justice, and which should be forbidden by common\nconsent.\n                ---------------------------\nA Bill for the Regulation of Scientific Experimentation upon\nHuman Beings in the District of Columbia and in the Territories and\nDependencies of the United States.\n\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United\nStates of America in Congress assembled:\n\nSECTION 1. That hereafter no person shall make upon any human being\nany scientific, medical or surgical experiment or operation, EXCEPT\nFOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON EXPERIMENTED UPON, unless the\nintelligent, personal consent of such latter person shall previously\nhave been obtained.  Every such consent, to be valid, must be in\nwriting and must be preceded by a full and correct written statement\nsetting forth to the person whose consent is sought whatever painful,\ninjurious or dangerous consequences are obviously liable to result\nfrom the proposed experimentation, and such statement shall be signed\nboth by the experimenter and the person to be experimented upon.\n\nSECTION 2. That experiments or operation of this nature shall be\nundertaken only by one of the responsible head-physicians or surgeons\nof some hospital or public instiution or by his special written\nauthorization; provided only that nothing herein contained shall apply\nto scientific investigations incapable of causing injury, made by\ndirection of authorities in charge of any institution of learning,\nupon students, with their consent, for the purpose of testing\nacuteness of mental action, or for the purpose of investigating other\nmental or physical phenomena.\n\nSECTION 3. That no scientific, medical or surgical experiment of any\nkind, liable to cause pain or distress or injury to health or danger\nto life, shall be permissible under any circumstances upon any\nnew-born babe, or upon any infirm or aged or feeble-minded person, or\nupon anyone whose mental faculties are impaired, either temporarily or\npermanently, or upon any woman during pregnancy or within a year after\nher confinement, or upon any child under fifteen years of age, unless\nit be undertaken for the sole benefit of the person to be experimented\nupon; and the consent of any such person to any such experiment or\noperation shall not constitute such legal consent as is required by\nthis act, but shall be null and void.\n\nSECTION 4. That the responsible head of any hospital or public\ninstitution, in which any experiment or operation of any kinds\nmentioned in Section 1 of this Act shall have been made, shall on or\nbefore the first day of February in each year make a written report,\nattested by oath, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia of\nall such experiments and operations that shall have been made in such\nhospital or public institution during the calendar year next\npreceding, which report shall contain copies of the statements and of\nthe consents required by said Section 1, together with detailed\naccounts of such experiments and operations and the results thereof;\nand such reports shall be printed annually.\n\nSECTION 5. That any person who authorizes, performs or assists in\nperforming an experiment or operation in violation of any provision of\nthis Act shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one\nthousand dollars ($1,000) and shall thereafter be incapable of legally\nengaging in the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia or in\nany territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and of\nholding any official position of any kind under the Government of the\nUnited States\n\nSECTION 6. That all sections of this Act shall be applicable to the\nDistrict of Columbia and to all other territory under the jurisdiction\nor military control of the United States.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX VII\n\n                     SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS\n\nA few years ago, Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, M.D., a Fellow of the\nRoyal Society and a distinguished sanitarian, was asked to express his\nopinion regarding experiments upon animals.  He was a member of the\nmedical profession; for some years he had been a lecturer on\nphysiology in a medical school; he had been a practical experimenter,\nand his discoveries of new agents and methods for the prouction of\nanaesthesia had given him a high place in the scientific world.  His\nreply to a series of questions was embodied in a volume entitled:\n\"Biological Experimentation; its Function and Limits.\" Certain\nextracts from this work,--in some cases slightly abbreviated,--are\nhere given.  They are of special value, as the views of an eminent\nphysician, a scientific discoverer, and a practical physiologist.\n                        ---------------------\nIf in creation there was no pain, if no pain could be extorted except\nby a physiologist, a physiologist inflicting pain, even for the cure\nof disease would be an accepted criminal by the general voice of\nmankind.  But Nature is a laboratory of pain on the most gigantic\nscale; she stands at nothing in the way of infliction, spares  nothing\nthat is sentient.  She inflicts pain for her own purposes, and she\nkeeps it going....  If man inflicted such painful diseases as Nature\ninflicts, he would be a monster.  Man rebels against these\ninflictions.  Shall he add to pain by his rebellion?\n                        ---------------------\nIn Science, there is no one method that can be considered\nindispensable.  Attributes are indispensable; observation, industry,\naccuracy are indispensable; methods are not.  Methods may be\nconvenient, they may be useful, they may be expedient, but nothing\nmore.  Celsus tells us that Erasistratus and the school he founded\nlaid open the bodies of criminals in order to study by direct\nobservation, the action of the intestinal organs during existence.\nThe act at that date of civilization probably shocked no one; it was\nno doubt in accord with the spirit of the time.  In a day not very\nremote from our own, a criminal sentenced to death for some trivial\ncrime, was given over to William Cheselden, surgeon to George the\nFirst, for experiment.  The criminal was deaf and the experiment\nintended was that of making a puncture through the drum of the ear, in\norder to discover if an opening through the drum would enable the deaf\nto hear.  At the last moment, Cheselden, a man of fine feeling, and\nbrilliant as an operating surgeon, declined the experiment, on which\nthe criminal, whose life had been conditionally spared, was set free.\nFor his generosity of mind, for shrinking from an experiment on\nanother human being, Cheselden lost caste at Court, and was considered\npitiable by those who lived on courtly favours.\n\nThe argument is taking now the same direction against experiments by\nman conducted on the lower animals for the purposes of discovery; and\nwhen from the history of the past we gather what has been achieved by\nsuch experiments, there is but one answer--namely: that such\nexperiments, although they may achieve what was expected of them, were\nnot indispensable.  They may have expedited discovery; they may have\nled to discovery; but they were not indispensable.\n                        ---------------------\nIn the discovery of anaesthesia, general and local, painful experiment\non animals has played no indispensable part whatever.\n\nThe lower animals have been permitted to share, more than equally with\nman, in the blessing of anaesthetic discovery, for by it, many of them\nhave been saved the agonies of painful death, but they have (not) been\nsubjected to painful experiment in the course of discovery.... The\ninstauration of general anaesthesia came from experiments made on man\nalone.  There is no suspicion of any experiment on a lower animal in\nconnection with it....  On the contrary, there is a most notable fact\nin relation to experiments under chloroform made on lower animals,\nwhich suggests that if they had ever been relied on,--chloroform would\nnever have been introduced into practice.  Flourens, the eminent\nFrench physiologist, tried the effect of chloroform on inferior\nanimals, and in consequence of its powerful and fatal influence on\nthem, put it aside as an anaesthetic.\n                        ---------------------\nThere are methods of producing local insensibility to pain which have\nbeen tried, and which deserve notice.\n\nIn 1862, I made an attempt to carry out local anaesthesia by\nexhaustion of blood from a part.  I noticed that when three round\ncupping-glasses were applied to the body very close to each other, the\nclear triangular space left free within the rim of the mouths of the\nglasses was rendered white, brawny-like and insensible, when the\nsuction of the glasses was complete.  This was obviously due to the\nlocal abstraction of blood from the part; and I thought, consequently,\nthat if I could exhaust the blood from the extremity of a limb, the\nexhausted part might be operated upon without pain....  I tried the\nprocess on myself, and finding it succeed, the operation of removing\nthe nail of the greta toe, was tried on a patient, quite painlessly,\nthe patient looking on and feeling nothing.  But the proceeding was\ntoo long and cumbersome to admit of introduction into practice\ngenerally, though it indicated an important principle which may in\nsome future day be utilized.  In this research, no experiment on a\nlower animal was resorted to; I was myself the victim in all\npreliminary experiments.\n                        ---------------------\nThe most numerous and extensive efforts for local anaesthesia have\nbeen those in which extreme cold has been employed to produce the\nbenumbing effect.  The earliest applications of cold originated\nbetween two and three hundred years ago in the fencing schools of\nNaples.  A Neapolitan professor of training placed crushed ice in a\nflash of thin glass, and then applied the chilled glass to the skin,\nand held it there until the skin was frozen, in order that the\ncautery could be employed, or other small operations performed without\nthe infliction of pain.  The proceeding must have been most\nsuccessful, and why it became lost is one of the mysteries of\nscientific research.  It did remain lost until our own time....  I\ninvented for the same purpose the ether spray process, in which a\nbenumbing cold was produced by projecting a volatile liquid like ether\nor amylene, or a stream of compressed gas ... on the part to be\nanaesthetized.  These methods have been so widely adopted that I need\nnot enter into any description of them.  I have merely to say that\nthey were made without any aid of experiments of a painful kind on the\nlower animals....  The earliest experiment with ether spray was made\non my own arm.\n                        ---------------------\nIt is fortunate for me that I have been an eye-witness of the progress\nmade in this department from its practical instauration.  I recall the\ndays when operations were performed without the aid either of general\nor local methods for abolishing pain.  I have myself introduced new\nmethods of anaesthesia, generally and locally; I have brought to trial\na large number of new anaesthetics.  By the invention of the lethal\nchamber I have had the delightful privilege of removing the taste and\npain of death from probably a million of those friends of man, the\nfaithful dogs.  I write this not boastfully but truthfully.... Painful\nexperiments have played no indispensible part in the discovery of\nanaesthesia.\n                        ---------------------\nIt is a curious fact that every method of research which is most\nenduring, most intellectual and most free from moral evil is farthest\naway from any and every thing that shocks the conscience or raises a\ndoubt as to necessity, in sensitive minds.  If mathematics had to be\ncultivated through experiments on living animals, it would never have\nsucceeded in unfolding the magnificent mysteries of the universe.  The\nsame applies to the work of the science of chemistry, of botany, and\nof physics generally.  In my opinion, every man who studies natural\nthings by experiments on living subjects of any species, feels the\ntruth of what I am saying.  I know in my own case, that my mind during\nsuch experiments has always been in a different state according to the\nline of experiment.  When the experiment has been conducted on dead or\ninanimate matter, the return obtained from the labour demanded has\nalways been not only satisfacdtory, but pleasant to the mind.  On the\ncontrary, when the experiment has been conducted on living or animate\nmatter, the labour, whether affirmative or negative in its results has\nnever, at any point of it been pleasant.  The results may, and often\nhave excited curiousity; they may have been important, and they may\nhave opened the way to new inquiry, but they have never been free of\nanxiety nor of a sense that whatever came from them, THERE WAS\nSOMETHING THAT WAS NOT RIGHT.  I do not believe I am more sentimental\nthan any of my colleagues; yet I never proceeded to any experiment on\na living animal, though to the best of my ability doing everything\npossible to save all pain, without feeling--what I think is the proper\nexpression,--COMPUNCTION.\n                        ---------------------\nIn the hands of the teacher, it (vivisection) may be rankly abused; of\nscientific pursuits, it is the one most liable to error; it suggests\nno end to itself, but seems to grow by what it feeds on, becoming by\nrepetition and contest more and more extended and multiplied; it is of\nall pursuits the most disliked by the educated community; it brings\nits best and most self-sacrificing professors into scorn; and for all\nsuch reasons, even if it be occasionally useful, is calculated to lead\nto what would be esignated intellectual and moral evil.  At the same\ntime, let it be understood that I do not include in the criticisms\nexperiments which being devoid of pain, may cause the death even for\nthe service of man.  Above all, I could not for a moment object to\nexperiment by a truly competent man for the purpose of inquiry into\nsome great theory that has been leisurely formed, and can be proved or\ndisproved by no other means, as for example, whether an important\nsurgical operation can or cannot be performed for the saving of human\nsuffering or human life.\n                        ---------------------\nThere are some simple and painless experiments which may be\ndemonstrated to any set of pupils, although living animals are the\nsubjects of them.  The demonstration of the circulation through the\nweb of the frog; the demonstration of the different natural\ntemperatures of the bodies of animals, including man; the influence of\nvarious anaesthetic vapours; the collection of the breath of various\nanimals for the purpose of analysis,--these are all free from\nobjection.... In a word, all experiments which are painless and\nharmless, are, as I assume the most humane would admit, free from any\ncharge of error.  But when we come to consider the application of\nexperiment of a severe kind as a means of education of pupils who are\nmaking a study of physiological problems, there is a reason for\nhesitation.  In my student days, such an experiment was never dreamed\nof.  The professor of physiology would relate the facts derived from\nexperiment, on which some important theories were founded; he would,\nfor instance, explain what experiments were made by Harvey in order to\ndescribe the circulation of the blood, but he would not attempt to\nrepeat those experiments in the lecture-room.  He would describe, in\nhis remarks on the functions of the nervous system, the researches of\nSir Charles Bell, ... but he would never think of repeating Bell's\nexperiment of division of the nerves in the column, alleging forcibly\nBell's own objection to its repetition.  It was the same on every\npoint.  He would relate the theory; relate the pros and cons; relate\npossibly his own independent inquiries, or what he had seen\nexperimentally performed by other independent investigators; but with\nthat explanation, he would be content.\n                        ---------------------\nWhen I was teaching physiology as I did teach it in a medical school\nfor many years, I abstained for a long period from the direct\nexperimental method.  I found no difficulty, and my classes worked\nsatisfactorily.  The students had the credit of becoming good\nphysiologists, and I am sure there was nothing shirked.  In the latter\npart of my time, I followed occasionally the plan of making a few\nexperiments in the way of demonstration; and although these were\nrendered painless, the innovation was not the success that was\nexpected.... Intellectually, I do not think my classes were assisted,\nin the main, by the experimental demonstration.  I am sure it limited\nmy sphere of usefulness, by leading me, in the limited time at my\ncommand, to omit some parts of physiology of a simpler, less\ncontroversial, and more useful kind.  I am bound to say that, morally,\nI do not recall the effect as producing all that could be wished.... I\ngave up experiments in my classes, not from any sentiment, but BECAUSE\nI GOT ON BETTER WITHOUT THEM.  I did not omit the facts derived from\nexperiment, I did not omit the report of my own experimental\nendeavours; but I omitted repeating, for the mere sake of\ndemonstrating, what seemed to have been proved....  Were I again to\ndeliver a course of physiological lectures to qualified hearers, I\nshould make the experimental demonstrations on living animals as few\nand far between as was compatible with duty.  They would be\nexceptional of exceptional, and painless from beginning to end.\n                        ---------------------\nI recommend, as the best method of obtaining the great aims of\nmedicine,--sanitation and the prevention of disease,--first, to make\nmedicine the grand master and teacher of universal cleanliness, and to\nmake everyone of the community a disciple and follower of the same\nlaw.  The minister of medical art should be prepared to devote his\nlife to this simple duty.  He needs no higher calling, no nobler\nvocation, and a world that knew its own interests should sustain him\nin the task.  At present, the rage is for experimentation, although it\nseems least wanted, for which rage THE SELFISH AND IGNORANT WORLD IS\nMOST TO BE BLAMED.  The world now, as in the days of Naaman the leper,\nwants to be healed and protected by elaborate processes, when th\nesimplest and surest remedy is in its own hands.\n\nFrom a long experience as a teacher of physiology and of public\nhealth, I am convinced that a school or university of preventive\nmedicine would fill an important want.  It would tend to make every\nman and woman a sanitarian, and would help to bring the principles of\nhealth into every home.  It would be of direct and practical utility;\nit would instil an exalted comprehension of natural laws, of the\nadvantages of following those laws, and of the danger and folly of\nsetting them at ignorant defiance....  The end would be the\naccomplishment of the great aim, the development of the health of the\npeople; the art of preventive medicine without inflicting pain on any\nliving thing.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX VIII\n\nSince the preceding pages were in type, the United States Department\nof Agriculture has adopted new regulations governing the inspection of\nmeat.  The rules ordered to be applicable to meat derived from animals\naffected by cancer or malignant disease, are as follows (italics not\nin original):\n\nRegulation II.  Disposal of Diseased Carcasses, etc.\n\nSECTION 7.--ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART OF A CARCASS AFFECTED WITH\nCARCINOMA OR SARCOMA shall be condemned.  In case the carcinoma or\nsarcoma involves any internal organ TO A MARKED EXTENT, or affects the\nmuscles, skeleton, or body lymph glands even primarily, the carcass\nshall be condemned.  In case of metastasis to any other organ or part\nof a carcass, or if metastasis has not occurred, but there are present\nsecondary changes in the muscles ... the carcass shall be condemned.\n\nSECTION 9.--All slight, well-limited abrasions on the tongue and inner\nsurface of the lips and mouth, when without lymph-gland involvement,\nSHALL BE CAREFULLY EXCISED, leaving only sound, normal tissue WHICH\nMAY BE PASSED.\n\nANY ORGAN OR PART of a carcass which ... is affected by a TUMOUR, an\nabscess, or a suppurating sore shall be condemned; and when the\nlesions are of such character or extent as to affect the whole\ncarcass, the whole carcass shall be condemned.\n\n\nIt will be seen that the criticism suggested (pp. 269-270) concerning\nthe regulations in force for many years past is not annulled or\nobviated by the new rules.  That which formerly was vague is now more\nclearly and distinctly set forth.  The new regulation most carefully\ncondemns for food purposes \"ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART\" of a carcass\naffected with carcinoma or sarcoma (cancer), and such condemnation\napplies to the carcass, if the malignant disease has involved other\nparts \"to a marked extent.\" The fact that an animal is suffering from\ncancer does not of itself compel its rejection for human food.  The\nentire rule would seem to have been drawn so as to permit meat\naffected by cancer to pass inspection as \"sound, healthful, wholesome,\nand fit for human food,\" provided the inspector in charge can declare\nthat in his judgment the malignant disease had not affected the meat\n\"to a marked extent.\"\n\nIn view of the mystery that still surrounds the causation of cancer,\nthis regulation of the Department of Agriculture should be entirely\nchanged.  Its basis is regard for financial considerations rather than\nthe public welfare.  No part or portion of any animal found to be\naffected by malignant disease should ever be permitted to be sold for\nhuman food.  The regulation should read:\n\nSection 7.--Any animal or carcass of any animal found upon inspection\nto be affected, however slightly, with malignant disease (carcinoma or\nsarcoma) shall be wholly condemned as unfit for human food.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX IX\n\nEngland and Wales: Deaths of Females from Cancer at Different\nAge-Periods, and the Ratio to Population, during Twelve Years of this\nCentury.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n|Year.|Under 35.|35-44.|45-64.|65 and|Total.|Rate per Million|\n|     |         |      |      | over.|      |   Population   |\n|-----|---------|------|------|------|------|----------------|\n| 1901|   695   | 1,811| 8,263| 5,827|16,596|       985      |\n| 1902|   701   | 1,872| 8,229| 5,972|16,774|       986      |\n| 1903|   702   | 1,896| 8,490| 6,202|17,290|     1,006      |\n| 1904|   703   | 1,934| 8,511| 6,448|17,596|     1,010      |\n| 1905|   719   | 1,904| 8,683| 6,445|17,751|     1,011      |\n| 1906|   740   | 1,921| 8,945| 6,805|18,411|     1,038      |\n| 1907|   731   | 1,956| 8,841| 7,018|18,546|     1,035      |\n| 1908|   658   | 1,943| 9,026| 7,189|18,816|     1,036      |\n| 1909|   701   | 1,952| 9,466| 7,671|19,790|     1,082      |\n| 1910|   780   | 2,030| 9,376| 7,578|19,764|     1,070      |\n| 1911|   730   | 2,080| 9,485| 8,018|20,313|     1,088      |\n| 1912|   695   | 2,009| 9,926| 8,505|21,135|     1,117      |\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe foregoing table strikingly illustrates the increasing prevalence\nof cancer in England during the present century.  Among women it will\nbe seen that the rate of mortality has increased from 985 to 1,117 per\nmillion living within almost a single decade.  The slow and yet\nregular recurrence year after year of a slightly increased mortality\nfrom cancer at each period of life after the thirty-fifth year is\npeculiarly ominous.  The connection between increase of cancer and the\npermitted utilization for food purposes of animals suffering from\ncancerous ailments is a problem that awaits solution.\n\n\n                        APPENDIX X\n\nIn the spring of 1915, the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in\nAnimal Experimentation decided to ascertain whether certain of the\nprincipal facts connected with vivisection would be freely given if\ncourteously asked.  Accordingly, to the directors of laboratories in\nover a hundred institutions of higher learning in America, the\nfollowing letter was sent by Mr. F. P. Bellamy, the counsel for the\nSociety:\n\n                                                Brooklyn, N.Y.\n\nDEAR SIR,--One of the criticisms urged against the practice of animal\nexperimentation in America at the present time is the laack of any\nreliable information concerning its extent.  Believing that the remedy\nof this defect lies within the power of the laboratories, I venture to\nask whether you would be willing to fill out the accompanying blank\nform, returning it to me as soon as practicable? If so, I should be\nglad if you would state whether the figures are based upon a register\ngiving exact numbers or whether they are simply the best estimate you\nare able to give.  If impossible to supply the details asked, can you\nnot give the total number of each species of animals?\n\nI may add that this Society is not opposed to vivisection when the\npractice is properly safeguarded against any cruelty.\n\nI enclose an addressed and stamped envelope for your reply; and\nthanking you for whatever information you can afford, I am,\n\n                                        Yours faithfully,\n                                            FREDERICK P. BELLAMY.\n\nA few details concerning the result of this experimental inquiry may\nbe of interest.\n\nThe Department of Physiology of the University of Minnesota reported\nthat the material used for the demonstration of physiological and\npathological phenomena before students consisted of 88 dogs, 74 cats,\nand 420 other animals, making a total of 582 for the year 1914.\n\nThe Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Medico-Chirurgical\nCollege of Philadelphia reported using \"about\" 124 rabbits and guinea-\npigs, chiefly for research purposes.  No report, however, was received\nfrom the Department of Physiology.\n\nThe North-Western University Medical School of Chicago sent a\ncourteous reply, stating that it would be hardly possible to make any\nreport \"as to the number of animals used in experimental work in our\nlaboratories.\" Research work was carried on \"in at least four\nlaboratories of the Medical School, and in the work dogs, rabbits, and\nguinea-pigs particularly are used.... As the work of research varies\nmaterially from time to time in the several laboratories, we have no\nway of making even an approximate estimate which would be of value\" of\nthe number of animals used.  Probably this is the case with most other\nlarge laboratories in this country.\n\nThe Eclectic Medical University reported the use of but six small\nanimals in its research work.  The director says:\n\n\"Our laboratories lead the world in cancer research, yet we have never\nused an animal for this purpose.  We are the second laboratory in the\nworld in research of pellagra, and have used only four animals.... We\nhave achieved the above results because we believe in clinical and not\nin experimental research.\"\n\nFrom some thirteen institutions, chiefly belonging to the South or\nWest, vague or imperfect reports were received.  Some of them\ndisclaimed the use of living animals in teacher, or the use of animals\nhigher in the scale than turtles or frogs.\n\nTwo institutions refused to give any information whatever.  An\nofficial connected with Rush Medical College of Chicago wrote:\n\n\"The statement that your society is not opposed to vivisection may\ndeceive the uninitiated.  Either vivisection is a good thing and hence\nshould not be interfered with, or it is a nefarious business and\nshould be stopped.... You and your society are either honestly\nmisinformed, suffer from delusions, or are lying bigots.  In my\nopinion, mainly the latter.  You are my enemy, and the enemy of every\nman of intelligence interested in the well fare (sic) of mankind and\nanimals.  I will give no information to wilfull (sic) falsifiers, the\ninsane, or those too lazy or stupid to inform themselves of facts.\"\n\nSome further study of a primary spelling-book might be recommended to\nthis representative of an institution of learning.\n\nThe institutions making no reply of any kind numbered eighty-eight, or\nabout 83 per cent. of those addressed.\n\nThe inquiry resulted in confirming previous impressions.  It was not\nbelieved that information concerning the number of animals used would\nbe generally given.  The experiment of courteous inquiry, however, was\ndeemed worthy of a trial.  The result would seem to demonstrate that\neven the simplest facts concerning the practice of animal\nexperimentation in the United States cannot be obtained except through\ninquiry instituted by the authority of the State.\n\n\n                      AN ETHICAL PROBLEM\n                              OR\n         SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION\n                     UPON MAN AND ANIMALS\n                       ---------------\n                        PRESS NOTICES\n\n\"Dr. Leffingwell has probably done more than any other one man for the\neducation of the public to a right attitude on the vivisection\nquestion.\"--Dallas News.\n\n\"The author has studied this question for forty years.  He shows by\nthe material gathered in this volume and the interesting conclusions\nreached, the careful consideration of long years of study.\"--Detroit\nNews Tribune.\n\n\"The author's moderation in discussing this burning question will\nappeal to a much wider circle of scientific readers than a policy that\ndemands complete annihilation of all animal experimentation.\"--The\nOpen Door, New York.\n\n\"The volume deals with vivisection, and the author holds that it is to\npreventive medicine that the world must learn to look, not to the\nconquest of disease by new drugs or new serums.... He enters deeply\ninto the question, and shows the result of long and careful research\nwork.\"--Norwich Bulletin\n\n\"In an elaborate discussion of the vexed question of vivisection,\nDr. Leffingwell tries to take a mediating position.  He is strong in\nshowing that there has been a vast amount of needless and useless\nsuffering to animals caused by vivisection.... Some of his quotations\nare amazing in showing the indifference and even cold-blooded cruelty\nof some surgeons.\"--New York Watchman.\n\n\"One of the most thorough books on vivisection yet published is by\nDr. Albert Leffingwell, entitled `An Ethical Problem.' It is not the\nbook of an extremist or a crank.  Dr. Leffingwell admits the necessity\nof vivisection in certain circumstances and for certain purposes.  His\nendeavour is not so much to get rid of vivisection as to prove that\nthe problem connected with it is an ethical one; that the practice\nshould be regulated and guided by public authority.  His book is\nthorough, ingenious, and, for the most part, very temperate in\nexpression.\"--The New York Evening Mail.\n\n\"Readers of Dr. Leffingwell's earlier books will expect to find this\none written in the same quiet tone, with the same care and accuracy,\nand they will not be disappointed.  The book begins with a history of\nvivisection in which the reader's chief suprise will be in finding\nthat medical opinion a generation ago was much more humane than now.\nThe humane protests of the last generation seem incredible to-day,\nwhen the profession almost to a man stands for the secvret and\nunlimited exploitation of animals.\"--S. N. Cleghorn, in Journal of\nZoophily.\n\n\"This book is devoted to a study and discussion of medical\nexperimentation upon both man and animals.  The writer is forced in\nhis literary style, and has long commanded special attention on this\nparticular subject.  In a skilful and scholarly manner he treats of\nthe historical development of the agitation in favour of restricted\nand regulated experimentation.  The book should be read by every\nperson interested in the discussion, whether in favour of restriction\nor not.... All who desire to be placed in touch with the latest word\nin regard to this important humanitarian question should secure a copy\nof Dr. Leffingwell's scholarly book.\"--National Humane Review.\n\n\"Dr. Leffingwell analyzes the results of vivisection in America in a\nmasterly way.  Many methods of experimentation he finds not only\nextremely cruel, but valueless.  For instance, the raising of the\nblood-pressure of a dog by scorching its paws, one after the other, so\nthat the blood-pressure might be maintained for twenty minutes. `Of\nwhat possible value was such an experiment?' he asks. `Does anyone\nbelieve than in a human being, blood-pressure will ever be maintained\nby slowly scorching the hands and feet of the patient?' ... The matter\nis clearly presented, and is interesting to the layman as well as to\nthe student of physiology.\"--Hartford Post.\n\n\"The ethical problem of which Dr. Leffingwell writes in his\ninteresting and instructive book, is that which arises from the\nprevailing practice of experimentation for scientific purposes upon\nanimals and human beings.... The book discusses what vivisection is,\nand what have been the mistakes and abuses done in its name, as well\nas the present unhappy conditions which surround the practice.  The\nauthor demonstrates that much of all this vivisection work is not only\nunnecessary, but absolutely valueless to science.  The book is to be\ncommended to all who would know something of what vivisection is, what\nit does, and what is being done and should still be done to prevent\nits present useless cruelty.\"--The Christian Register.\n\n\"Perhaps no other man in America has so good a right to speak on\nvivisection, from the standpoint of an expert, as Dr. Leffingwell.  To\nour mind, he has here gathered in a forceful way the last sane word to\nbe said on this sensitive question.  In these nineteen chapters he has\ndiscussed almost every phase of the problem.  Dr. Leffingwell has\noccupied a difficult position, standing as he does midway between the\ncontending parties.... He discovers the law of cruelty, and applies it\nmercilessly.  He also discovers the law of sacrifice, and would apply\nit humanely.  In short, this book may well be taken as an\nencyclopaedia on vivisection, looked at from the standpoint of the\nmoralist and the physician.  There are illminating appendices giving\ntechnical information, and the chapters are characterized by vigorous\nEngland, and a lively sense of a physician's obligations.\"\n--Chicago Unity\n\n\"If nothing else in the book were to be remembered, it would be\nvaluable that all earnest people should consider the careful analysis\nof the various positions which have been taken in regard to this\nposition, and the critical definition with which Dr. Leffingwell has\nstriven to replace the varied and unsatisfactory definitions which\nhave been given for the term `vivisection.' ... The stand taken by\nDr. Leffingwell represents the best-founded position of those\ninterested in protecting animals from needless pain.  He contends that\nvivisection should be restricted rather than abolished.  There should\nbe no effort made to prevent those experiments which involve no\nsuffering for animals, and all animal experimentation should be\nbrought under the direct supervision and control of the State. `The\npractice, whether in public or private, should be restricted by law to\ncertain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard\nagainst license and abuse.' That this is not an aim impossible of\nattainment has been attested by so famous a scientist as Herbert\nSpencer, and by a large number of prominent American and English\nphysicians and scientists.\"--Boston Transcript.\n\n\"It is greatly to be regretted that the general public is not more\nintelligent on the subject of vivisection.  It is charged that to-day,\nin American physiological laboratories and in medical schools as well,\nhelpless animals are subjected to torture.... The testimony to this\nseems irrefutable; and one is more disposed to give it credence when\nhe knows of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in other\ncountries, and learns that the practice of vivisection is unregulated\nhere....\n\n\"It is fortunate that there is available such a book as that just\nissued by Dr. Albert Leffingwell, a veteran advocate of legal\nregulation, not prohibition, of vivisection.  Persons who would be\nconversant with a question that ought to receive much more general\nconsideration than it does should read `An Ethical Problem.'\n\n\"One of the most shocking facts with respect to unlimited\nvivisection--and that is the kind we have in this country--is that\nman's two most intelligent dumb friends, the dog and the horse, have\nbeen subjected to countless hours of inexpressible agony, and often\nnot for the sake of investigation, but simply that students might\nbecome proficient in operating on living flesh, or witness the cruel\ndemonstration of physiological facts already well establish.... The\nmaterial presented in the book quoted makes the reader feel that in\nsome respects scientific men have retrograded till they stand about on\na level with the Iroquois Indian of two centuries ago.\"\n--Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.\n\n\"The volume is exceedingly precise and well written, fortifying itself\nwith abundant particulars.  It touches the hideous cruelties and\ndevilish atrocities which are done upon various animals, and behind\nwell-closed doors.  One reads it with intense pain and a disgust which\ncombines nausea with indignation toward the ruthless experimenters\nwho, disclaiming the hindering use of anaesthetics, exhibit all the\nphenomena of nervous torment.  Monsters of research would sneer aside\nall critics of such infernal `physiological' laboratories....\n\n\"The book is a protest against the careful and subterranean silence\nand concealment which seem to conspire to resist all legal\ninspection.  To evade or baulk investigation while causing pain in\norder to exploit it, to jeer at the humane shudder of the layman, to\nutilize feeble-minded paupers and friendless young children, to\nsophisticate a too credulous public with an austere formula as to the\nsacred secrecy of the laboratory--all this is an attempted HYPNOSIS of\ncritics who really want to be fair, but who as citizens insists upon\nthe right to know what is doing.\n\n\"The title of the book--`An Ethical Problem'--is indeed justified by\nits array of evidence and argument.  Particularly is it shown that on\nthis question America is still in the dark ages.  Reform demands a\nfrank exactitude as to the practices which, if Dr. Leffingwell is\nsubstantially accurate, are a disgrace to humanity.  State control\ncannot always be avoided by ridiculing the `sentimentality' of those\nwho insist upon strict regulation.  Painless vivisection for\ninvestigation may have its legitimate place; but to illustrate what is\nalready well ascertained by exhibiting animals in agony is both\nsuperfluous and debasing, repellant to every mind not seared by a\nmorbid curiousity.\"--Hamilton College Record\n\n\"`An Ethical Problem,' by Albert Leffingwell, M.D., is by far the most\njudicial and unimpassioned contribution to the study of the question\nthat it has been our privilege to read.  Dr. Leffingwell has long been\nknown both in this country and Europe, as a writer upon this theme.\nNo one, so far as we know, has brought to it at once so calm and\nbalanced a judgment as he, or a more exact knowledge of the whole\nfield in which biological investigation plays so large a part.  This\nlatest publication from his pen is the result of years of study, of\nunremitting toil in the great libraries of this country and abroad\nwhere every facility was at hand to obtain data and to verify facts.\nIt is a book written without bitterness ... which seeks to carry\nconviction, not by the force of unverified quotations, or the\nrepetitions of utterances often made in the heat of controversy, but\nby arguments based upon demonstrable fact, and supported by\nauthorities to which you are referred, chapter and verse....\n\n\"The time must come when physiologists as a body--as Professor James\ndeclares they should have done long ere this--will meet public opinion\nhalf-way, `and admitting that the situation is a genuinely ethical one\n... give up the preposterous claim that every scientist has an\nunlimited right to vivisect, for the amount or mode of which no man,\nnot even a colleague, can call him to account.' When that time comes,\nand we believe it is not far distant, some legal regulation of animal\nexperimentation will be had.  For this end, the book we have reviewed\nhas been written; and when at last such regulation is attained, none\nwill have a larger share in the gratitude of all who will rejoice in\nit, than the author whose notable book we have been considering.\"\n--Dr. F. H. Rowley, in Our Dumb Animals.\n                        ---------------------\n\"Dr. Leffingwell's `Ethical Problem' is vivisection, TO WHICH HE IS\nIMPLACABLY OPPOSED, and which he describes as antivivisectionists\ngenerally do.\"--The Syracuse Post-Standard.\n\n\"Probably the best-considered treatise on the subject now in print.\nThe author does not take the position that experimentation upon\nanimals is always wrong.  He maintains, however, in the most\nconvincing way, that such experiments should be permitted only by\ngenuine scientists.... Anyone interested in this vital question will\nfind much that is stimulating, suggestive, and convincing in\nDr. Leffingwell's book.\"--Universalist Leader.","title":"An ethical problem; or, Sidelights upon scientific experimentation on man and animals","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":110845}