{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32033/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32033","id":"gutenberg_32033","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32033","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Vivisection"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/American\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                             VIVISECTION\n\n                                  BY\n\n                       ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M. D.\n\n\n                               NEW YORK:\n                        JOHN W. LOVELL COMPANY,\n                        14 AND 16 VESEY STREET.\n\n\n                                  TO\n\n                        A Memory of Friendship.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTo the CENTURY COMPANY of New York, in the pages of whose magazine,\nthen known as \"_Scribner's Monthly_,\" the first of the following\nessays originally appeared in July, 1880, the thanks of the writer\nare due for permission to re-publish in the present form. For a like\ncourtesy on the part of the proprietors of LIPPINCOTT'S MAGAZINE, in\nwhich the second paper was first published [Aug., 1884], the writer\ndesires to make due acknowledgment.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe first of the Essays following appeared in \"SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY,\"\nin July, 1880; and immediately became honored by the attention of\nthe Medical Press throughout the country. The aggressive title of\nthe paper, justified, in great measure, perhaps, the vigor of the\ncriticism bestowed. Again and again the point was raised by reviewers\nthat the problem presented by the title, was not solved or answered\nby the article itself.\n\nAt this day, it perhaps may be mentioned that the question--\"Does\nVivisection Pay?\" was never raised by the writer, who selected as his\ntitle the single word \"Vivisection.\" The more taking headline was\naffixed by the editor of the magazine as more apt to arrest attention\nand arouse professional pugnacity. That in this latter respect it was\neminently successful, the author had the best reason to remember. With\nthis explanation--which is made simply to prevent future criticism\non the same point--the old title is retained. If the present reader\ncontinues the inquiry here presented, he will learn wherein the\nwriter believes in the utility of vivisection, and on the other hand,\nin what respects and under what conditions he very seriously questions\nwhether any gains can possibly compensate the infinitely great cost.\n\n\"What do you hope for or expect as the result of agitation in regard\nto vivisection?\" recently inquired a friend; \"its legal abolition?\"\n\n\"Certainly not,\" was the reply.\n\n\"Would you then expect its restriction during the present century?\"\n\n\"Hardly even so soon as that. It will take longer than a dozen years\nto awaken recognition of any evil which touches neither the purse nor\npersonal comfort of an American citizen. All that can be hoped in the\nimmediate future is education. Action will perhaps follow when its\nnecessity is recognized generally; but not before.\"\n\nFor myself, I believe no permanent or effective reform of present\npractices is probable until the Medical Profession generally concede\nas dangerous and unnecessary that freedom of unlimited experimentation\nin pain, which is claimed and practiced to-day. That legislative\nreform is otherwise unattainable, one would hesitate to affirm; but it\nassuredly would be vastly less effective. You must convince men of the\njustice and reasonableness of a law before you can secure a willing\nobedience. Yielding to none in loyalty to the science, and enthusiasm\nfor the Art of Healing, what standpoint may be taken by those of the\nMedical Profession who desire to reform evils which confessedly exist?\n\nI. We need not seek the total abolition of all experiments upon living\nanimals. I do not forget that just such abolition is energetically\ndemanded by a large number of earnest men and women, who have lost\nall faith in the possibility of restricting an abuse, if it be favored\nby scientific enthusiasm. \"Let us take,\" they say, \"the upright and\nconscientious ground of refusing all compromise with sin and evil, and\nmaintaining our position unflinchingly, leave the rest to God.\"[A]\nThis is almost precisely the ground taken by the Prohibitionists\nin national politics; it is the only ground one can occupy,\nprovided the taking of a glass of wine, or the performance of any\nexperiment,--painless or otherwise,--is of itself an \"evil and a sin.\"\nThere are those, however, who believe it possible to oppose and\nrestrain intemperance by other methods than legislative prohibition.\nSo with the prohibition of vivisection. Admitting the abuses of the\npractice, I cannot yet see that they are so intrinsic and essential\nas to make necessary the entire abolition of all physiological\nexperiments whatsoever.\n\n    [A] Report of American Anti-Vivisection Society, Jan'y 30,\n    1888.\n\nII. We may advocate (and I believe we should advocate)--_the total\nabolition, by law, of all mutilating or destructive experiments upon\nlower animals, involving pain, when such experiments are made for the\npurpose of public or private demonstration of already known and\naccepted physiological facts_.\n\nThis is the ground of compromise--unacceptable, as yet, to either\nparty. Nevertheless it is asking simply for those limitations and\nrestrictions which have always been conceded as prudent and fair by\nthe medical profession of Great Britain. Speaking of a certain\nexperiment upon the spinal nerves, Dr. M. Foster, of Cambridge\nUniversity, one of the leading physiological teachers of England,\nsays: \"I have not performed it and have never seen it done,\" partly\nbecause of horror at the pain necessary. And yet this experiment has\nbeen performed before classes of young men and young women in the\nMedical Schools of this country! Absolutely no legal restriction here\nexists to the repetition, over and over again, of the most atrocious\ntortures of Mantegazza, Bert and Schiff.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis is the vivisection which does not \"pay,\"--even if we dismiss\naltogether from our calculation the interests of the animals\nsacrificed to the demand for mnemonic aid. For the great and perilous\noutcome of such methods will be--finally--an atrophy of the sense of\nsympathy for human suffering. It is seen to-day in certain hospitals\nin Europe. Can other result be expected to follow the deliberate\ninfliction of prolonged pain without other object than to see or\ndemonstrate what will happen therefrom? Will any assistance to memory,\ncounterweigh the annihilation or benumbing of the instinct of pity?\n\nUpon this subject of utility of painful experiments in class\ndemonstrations or private study, I would like to appeal for judgment\nto the physician of the future, who then shall review the experience\nof the medical student of to-day. In his course of physiological\ntraining, he or she may be invited to see living animals cut and\nmutilated in various ways, eviscerated, poisoned, frozen, starved, and\nby ingenious devices of science subjected to the exhibition of pain.\nOn the first occasion such a scene generally induces in the young man\nor young woman a significant subjective phenomenon of physiological\ninterest; an involuntary, creeping, tremulous sense of horror emerges\ninto consciousness,--and is speedily repressed. \"This feeling,\" he\nwhispers to himself, \"is altogether unworthy the scientific spirit in\nwhich I am now to be educated; it needs to be subdued. The sight of\nthis inarticulate agony, this prolonged anguish is not presented to me\nfor amusement. I must steel myself to witness it, to assist in it, for\nthe sake of the good I shall be helped thereby to accomplish, some\nday, for suffering humanity.\"\n\nPraiseworthy sentiments, these are, indeed. Are they founded in\nreality? No. The student who thus conquers \"squeamishness\" will not\nsee one fact thus demonstrated at the cost of pain which was unknown\nto science before; not one fact which he might not have been made to\nremember without this demonstrative illustration; _not one\nfact_--saddest truth of all--that is likely to be of the slightest\npractical service to him or to her in the multiplied and various\nduties of future professional life. Why, then, are they shown? To help\nhim to remember his lesson! Admit the value to the student, but what\nof the cost?\n\nIn one of the great cities of China, I was shown, leaning against the\nhigh wall of the execution ground, a rude, wooden frame-work or cross,\nold, hacked, and smeared with recent blood-stains. It was used, I was\ntold, in the punishment of extreme offenses; the criminal being bound\nthereto, and flayed and cut in every way human ingenuity could devise\nfor inflicting torture before giving an immediately mortal wound. Only\nthe week before, such an execution had taken place; the victim being a\nwoman who had poisoned her husband. A young and enthusiastic physician\nwhom I met, told me he had secured the privilege of being an eye\nwitness to the awful tragedy, that he might verify a theory he had\nformed on the influence of pain; a theory perhaps like that which led\nto Mantegazza's crucifixion of pregnant rabbits with _dolori\natrocissimi_.[A] Science here caught her profit from the punishment of\ncrime, but the gain would have been the same had her interest alone\nbeen the object. There is _always_ gain, always some aid to\nmemory;--_but what of the cost?_\n\n    [A] See Appendix, page 83.\n\nIt cannot be expected that any Medical College, of its own accord and\nwithout outside pressure, will restrict or hamper its freedom of\naction. As a condition of prosperity and success it cannot show less\nthan is exhibited by other medical schools; it must keep abreast of\n\"advanced thought,\" and do and demonstrate in every way what its\nrivals demonstrate and do. There can be no question but that there is\nto-day a strong public demand for continental methods of physiological\ninstruction. Who make this demand? You, gentlemen, students of\nmedicine, and they who follow in your pathway. This year it is you\nwho silently request this aid to your memory of the physiological\nstatements of your text books; another year, another class of young\nmen and young women, occupying the same benches, or filling the same\nlaboratory, repeats the demand for the same series of illustrations.\nYou, perhaps, will have gone forward to take your places in active\nlife, to assume the real burdens of the medical profession. To those\nsucceeding years of thought, reflection and usefulness, let me\nappeal, respecting the absolute necessity of all class demonstrations\nand laboratory work involving pain. Postpone if you please, the ready\ndecision which, fresh from your class-room, you are perhaps only too\nwilling to give me to-day; I do not wish it. But some time in the\nfuture, after years have gone by, remembering all you have seen and\naided in the doing, tell us if you can, exactly wherein you received,\nin added potency for helping human suffering and for the treatment of\nhuman ills, the equivalent of that awful expenditure of pain which you\nare now demanding, and which by unprotesting acquiescence, you are\n_to-day_ helping to inflict.\n\n  BOSTON, MASS.,\n    _March, 1889_.\n\n\n\n\n[_From_ SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY, _July, 1880_.]\n\nDOES VIVISECTION PAY?\n\n\nThe question of vivisection is again pushing itself to the front. A\ndistinguished American physiologist has lately come forward in defense\nof the French experimenter, Magendie, and, parenthetically, of his\nmethods of investigation in the study of vital phenomena. On the other\nhand, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made an\nunsuccessful attempt, in the New York Legislature last winter, to\nsecure the passage of a law which would entirely abolish the practice\nas now in vogue in our medical schools, or cause it to be secretly\ncarried on, in defiance of legal enactments. In support of this bill\nit was claimed that physiologists, for the sake of \"demonstrating to\nmedical students certain physiological phenomena connected with the\nfunctions of life, are constantly and habitually in the practice of\ncutting up alive, torturing and tormenting divers of the unoffending\nbrute creation to illustrate their theories and lectures, but without\nany practical or beneficial result either to themselves or to the\nstudents, which practice is demoralizing to both and engenders in the\nfuture medical practitioners a want of humanity and sympathy for\nphysical pain and suffering.\" How far these statements are true will\nbe hereafter discussed; but one assertion is so evidently erroneous\nthat it may be at once indicated. _No_ experiment, however atrocious,\ncruel and, therefore, on the whole, unjustifiable, if performed to\nillustrate some scientific point, was ever without \"any beneficial\nresult.\" The benefit may have been infinitesimal, but every scientific\nfact is of some value. To assert the contrary is to weaken one's case\nby overstatement.\n\nLeaving out the brute creation, there are three parties interested\nin this discussion. In the first place, there are the professors and\nteachers of physiology in the medical colleges. Naturally, these\ndesire no interference with either their work or their methods. They\nclaim that were the knowledge acquired by experiments upon living\norganisms swept out of existence, in many respects the science of\nphysiology would be little more than guesswork to-day. The subject of\nvivisection, they declare, is one which does not concern the general\npublic, but belongs exclusively to scientists and especially to\nphysiologists. That the present century should permit sentimentalists\nto interfere with scientific investigations is preposterous.\n\nBehind these stand the majority of men belonging to the medical\nprofession. Holding, as they do, the most important and intimate\nrelations to society, it is manifestly desirable that they should\nenjoy the best facilities for the acquirement of knowledge necessary\nto their art. To most, the question is merely one of professional\nprivilege against sentiment, and they cannot hesitate which side to\nprefer. In this, as in other professions or trades, the feeling of\n_esprit de corps_ is exceedingly strong; and no class of men likes\ninterference on the part of outsiders. To most physicians it is wholly\na scientific question. It is a matter, they think, with which the\npublic has no concern; if society can trust to the profession its sick\nand dying, they surely can leave to its feeling of humanity a few\nworthless brutes.\n\nThe opinion of the general public is therefore, divided and confused.\nOn the one hand, it is profoundly desirous to make systematic and\nneedless cruelty impossible; yet, on the other, it cannot but hesitate\nto take any step which shall hinder medical education, impede\nscientific discovery, or restrict search for new methods of treating\ndisease. What are the sufferings of an animal, however acute or\nprolonged, compared with the gain to humanity which would result from\nthe knowledge thereby acquired of a single curative agent? Public\nopinion hesitates. A leading newspaper, commenting on the introduction\nof the Bergh bill, doubtless expressed the sentiment of most people\nwhen it deprecated prevention of experiments \"by which original\ninvestigators seek to establish or verify conclusions which may be of\npriceless value to the preservation of life and health among human\nbeings.\"\n\nThe question nevertheless confronts society,--and in such shape, too,\nthat society cannot escape, even if it would, the responsibility of a\ndecision. Either by action or inaction the State must decide whether\nthe practice of vivisection shall be wholly abolished, as desired by\nsome; whether it shall be restricted by law within certain limits and\nfor certain definite objects, as in Great Britain; or whether we are\nto continue in this country to follow the example of France and\nGermany, in permitting the practice of physiological experimentation\nto any extent devised or desired by the experimentalist himself. Any\ninformation tending to indicate which of these courses is best cannot\nbe inopportune. Having witnessed experiments by some of the most\ndistinguished European physiologists, such as Claude Bernard (the\nsuccessor of Magendie), Milne-Edwards and Brown-Sequard; and, still\nbetter (or worse, as the reader may think), having performed some\nexperiments in this direction for purposes of investigation and for\nthe instruction of others, the present writer believes himself\njustified in holding and stating a pronounced opinion on this subject,\neven if it be to some extent, opposed to the one prevailing in the\nprofession. Suppose, therefore, we review briefly the arguments to be\nadduced both in favor of the practice and against it.\n\nTwo principal arguments may be advanced in its favor.\n\nI. It is undeniable that to the practice of vivisection we are\nindebted for very much of our present knowledge of physiology. This is\nthe fortress of the advocates of vivisection, and a certain refuge\nwhen other arguments are of no avail.\n\nII. As a means of teaching physiological facts, vivisection is\nunsurpassed. No teacher of science needs to be told the vast\nsuperiority of demonstration over affirmation. Take for instance, the\ncirculation of the blood. The student who displays but a languid\ninterest in statements of fact, or even in the best delineations and\ncharts obtainable, will be thoroughly aroused by seeing the process\nactually before his eyes. A week's study upon the book will less\ncertainly be retained in his memory than a single view of the opened\nthorax of a frog or dog. There before him is the throbbing heart; he\nsees its relations to adjoining structures, and marks, with a wonder\nhe never before knew, that mystery of life by which the heart, even\nthough excised from the body, does not cease for a time its rhythmic\nbeat. To imagine, then, that teachers of physiology find mere\namusement in these operations is the greatest of ignorant mistakes.\nThey deem it desirable that certain facts be accurately fixed in\nmemory, and they know that no system of mnemonics equals for such\npurpose the demonstration of the function itself.\n\nJust here, however, arises a very important question. Admitting the\nbenefit of the demonstration of scientific facts, _how far may one\njustifiably subject an animal to pain for the purpose of illustrating\na point already known_? It is merely a question of cost. For instance,\nit is an undisputed statement in physical science that the diamond is\nnothing more than a form of crystallized carbon, and, like other forms\nof carbon, under certain conditions, may be made to burn. Now most of\nus are entirely willing to accept this, as we do the majority of\ntruths, upon the testimony of scientific men, without making\ndemonstration a requisite of assent. In a certain private school,\nhowever, it has long been the custom once a year, to burn in oxygen a\nsmall diamond, worth perhaps $30, so as actually to prove to the\npupils the assertion of their text-books. The experiment is a\nbrilliant one; no one can doubt its entire success. Nevertheless, we\ndo not furnish diamonds to our public schools for this purpose.\nExactly similar to this is one aspect of vivisection--it is a question\nof cost. Granting all the advantages which follow demonstration of\ncertain physiological facts, the cost is pain--pain sometimes\namounting to prolonged and excruciating torture. Is the gain worth\nthis?\n\nLet me mention an instance. Not long ago, in a certain medical college\nin the State of New York, I saw what Doctor Sharpey, for thirty years\nthe professor of physiology in the University Medical College, London,\nonce characterized by antithesis as \"Magendie's _infamous_\nexperiment,\" it having been first performed by that eminent\nphysiologist. It was designed to prove that the stomach, although\nsupplied with muscular coats, is during the act of vomiting for the\nmost part passive; and that expulsion of its contents is due to the\naction of the diaphragm and the larger abdominal muscles. The\nprofessor to whom I refer did not propose to have even Magendie's\nword accepted as an authority on the subject: the fact should be\ndemonstrated again. So an incision in the abdomen of a dog was made;\nits stomach was cut out; a pig's bladder containing colored water was\ninserted in its place, an emetic was injected into the veins,--and\nvomiting ensued. Long before the conclusion of the experiment the\nanimal became conscious, and its cries of suffering were exceedingly\npainful to hear. Now, granting that this experiment impressed an\nabstract scientific fact upon the memories of all who saw it,\nnevertheless it remains significantly true that the fact thus\ndemonstrated had no conceivable relation to the treatment of disease.\nIt is not to-day regarded as conclusive of the theory which, after\nnearly two hundred repetitions of his experiment, was doubtless\nconsidered by Magendie as established beyond question. Doctor Sharpey,\na strong advocate of vivisection, by the way, condemned it as a\nperfectly unjustifiable experiment, since \"besides its atrocity, it\nwas really purposeless.\" Was this repetition of the experiment which\nI have described worth its cost? Was the gain worth the pain?\n\nLet me instance another and more recent case. Being in Paris a year\nago, I went one morning to the College de France, to hear\nBrown-Sequard, the most eminent experimenter in vivisection now\nliving--one who, Doctor Carpenter tells us, has probably inflicted\nmore animal suffering than any other man in his time. The lecturer\nstated that injury to certain nervous centers near the base of the\nbrain would produce peculiar and curious phenomena in the animal\noperated upon, causing it, for example, to keep turning to one side in\na circular manner, instead of walking in a straightforward direction.\nA Guinea-pig was produced--a little creature, about the size of a\nhalf-grown kitten--and the operation was effected, accompanied by a\nseries of piercing little squeaks. As foretold, the creature thus\ninjured did immediately perform a \"circular\" movement. A rabbit was\nthen operated upon with similar results. Lastly, an unfortunate\npoodle was introduced, its muzzle tied with stout whip-cord, wound\nround and round so tightly that it must necessarily have caused severe\npain. It was forced to walk back and forth on the long table, during\nwhich it cast looks on every side, as though seeking a possible avenue\nof escape. Being fastened in the operating trough, an incision was\nmade to the bone, flaps turned back, an opening made in the skull,\nand enlarged by breaking away some portions with forceps. During\nthese various processes no attempt whatever was made to cause\nunconsciousness by means of anaesthetics, and the half-articulate,\nhalf-smothered cries of the creature in its agony were terrible to\nhear, even to one not unaccustomed to vivisections. The experiment was\na \"success\"; the animal after its mutilation _did_ describe certain\ncircular movements. But I cannot help questioning in regard to these\ndemonstrations, _did they pay_? This experiment had not the slightest\nrelation whatever to the cure of disease. More than this: it teaches\nus little or nothing in physiology. The most eminent physiologist in\nthis country, Doctor Austin Flint, Jr., admits that experiments of\nthis kind \"do not seem to have advanced our positive knowledge of the\nfunctions of the nerve centers,\" and that similar experiments \"have\nbeen very indefinite in their results.\" On this occasion, therefore,\nthree animals were subjected to torture to demonstrate an abstract\nfact, which probably not a single one of the two dozen spectators\nwould have hesitated to take for granted on the word of so great a\npathologist as Doctor Brown-Sequard. Was the gain worth the cost?\n\nThis, then, is the great question that must eventually be decided by\nthe public. Do humanity and science here indicate diverging roads? On\nthe contrary, I believe it to be an undeniable fact that _the highest\nscientific and medical opinion is against the repetition of painful\nexperiments for class teaching_. In 1875, a Royal Commission was\nappointed in Great Britain to investigate the subject of vivisection,\nwith a view to subsequent legislation. The interests of science were\nrepresented by the appointment of Professor Huxley as a member of this\ncommission. Its meetings continued over several months, and the report\nconstitutes a large volume of valuable testimony. The opinions of many\nof these witnesses are worthy of special attention, from the eminent\nposition to the men who hold them. The physician to the Queen, Sir\nThomas Watson, with whose \"Lectures on Physic\" every medical\npractitioner in this country is familiar, says: \"I hold that no\nteacher or man of science who by his own previous experiments, * * *\nhas thoroughly satisfied himself of the solution of any physiological\nproblem, is justified in repeating the experiments, however\nmercifully, to appease the natural curiosity of a class of students or\nof scientific friends.\" Sir George Burroughs, President of the Royal\nCollege of Physicians, says: \"I do not think that an experiment should\nbe repeated over and over again in our medical schools to illustrate\nwhat is already established.\"[A] Sir James Paget, Surgeon\nExtraordinary to the Queen, said before the commission that\n\"experiments for the purpose of repeating anything already ascertained\nought never to be shown to classes.\" [363.] Sir William Fergusson, F.\nR. S., also Surgeon to her Majesty, asserted that \"sufferings\nincidental to such operations are protracted in a very shocking\nmanner\"; that of such experiments there is \"useless repetition,\" and\nthat \"when once a fact which involves cruelty to animals has been\nfairly recognized and accepted, there is no necessity for a continued\nrepetition.\" [1019.] Even physiologists--some of them practical\nexperimenters in vivisection--join in condemning these class\ndemonstrations. Dr. William Sharpey, before referred to as a teacher\nof physiology for over thirty years in University College, says: \"Once\nsuch facts fully established, I do not think it justifiable to repeat\nexperiments causing pain to animals.\" [405.] Dr. Rolleston, Professor\nof Physiology at Oxford, said that \"for class demonstrations\nlimitations should undoubtedly be imposed, and _those limitations\nshould render illegal painful experiments before classes_.\" [1291.]\nCharles Darwin, the greatest of living naturalists, stated that he had\nnever either directly or indirectly experimented on animals, and that\nhe regarded a painful experiment without anaesthetics which might be\nmade with anaesthetics as deserving \"detestation and abhorrence.\"\n[4672.] And finally the report of this commission, to which is\nattached the name of Professor Huxley, says: \"With respect to medical\nschools, we accept the resolution of the British Association in 1871,\nthat experimentation without the use of anaesthetics is not a fitting\nexhibition for teaching purposes.\"\n\n    [A] \"Report of the Royal Commission on the Practice of\n    Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments for Scientific\n    Purposes.\" Question No, 175. Reference to this volume will\n    hereafter be made in this article by inserting in brackets,\n    immediately after the authority quoted, the number of the\n    question in this report from which the extract is made.\n\nIt must be noted that hardly any of these opinions touch the question\nof vivisection so far as it is done without the infliction of pain,\nnor object to it as a method of original research; they relate simply\nto the practice of repeating painful experiments for purposes of\nphysiological teaching. We cannot dismiss them as \"sentimental\" or\nunimportant. If painful experiments are necessary for the education of\nthe young physician, how happens it that Watson and Burroughs are\nignorant of the fact? If indispensable to the proper training of the\nsurgeon, why are they condemned by Fergusson and Paget? If requisite\neven to physiology, why denounced by the physiologists of Oxford and\nLondon? If necessary to science, why viewed \"with abhorrence\" by the\ngreatest of modern scientists?\n\nAnother objection to vivisection, when practiced as at present without\nsupervision or control, is the undeniable fact that habitual\nfamiliarity with the infliction of pain upon animals has a decided\ntendency to engender a sort of careless indifference regarding\nsuffering. \"Vivisection,\" says Professor Rolleston of Oxford, \"is very\nliable to abuse. * * * It is specially liable to tempt a man into\ncertain carelessness; the passive impressions produced by the sight\nof suffering growing weaker, while the habit and pleasure of\nexperimenting grows stronger by repetition.\" [1287.] Says Doctor\nElliotson: \"I cannot refrain from expressing my horror at the amount\nof torture which Doctor Brachet inflicted. _I hardly think knowledge\nis worth having at such a purchase._\"[A] A very striking example of\nthis tendency was brought out in the testimony of a witness before the\nRoyal Commission,--Doctor Klein, a practical physiologist. He admitted\nfrankly that as an investigator he held as entirely indifferent the\nsufferings of animals subjected to his experiments, that, except for\nteaching purposes, he never used anaesthetics unless necessary for his\nown convenience. Some members of the Commission could hardly realize\nthe possibility of such a confession.\n\n    [A] \"Human Physiology,\" by John Elliotson, M. D., F. R. S.\n    (page 448).\n\n\"Do you mean you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the lower\nanimals?\"\n\n\"_No regard at all_,\" was the strange reply; and, after a little\nfurther questioning, the witness explained:\n\n\"I think that, with regard to an experimenter--a man who conducts\nspecial research and performs an experiment--he has _no time, so to\nspeak, for thinking what the animal will feel or suffer_!\"\n\nOf Magendie's cruel disposition there seems only too abundant\nevidence. Says Doctor Elliotson: \"Dr. Magendie, in one of his\nbarbarous experiments, which I am ashamed to say I witnessed, began by\ncoolly cutting out a large round piece from the back of a beautiful\nlittle puppy, as he would from an apple dumpling!\" \"It is not to be\ndoubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position\nas physiologists. _We have seen that it was so in Magendie._\" This is\nthe language of the report on vivisection, to which is attached the\nname of Professor Huxley.\n\nBut the fact which, in my own mind, constitutes by far the strongest\nobjection to unrestrained experiments in pain, is their questionable\nutility as regards therapeutics. Probably most readers are aware that\nphysiology is that science which treats of the various functions of\nlife, such as digestion, respiration and the circulation of the blood,\nwhile therapeutics is that department of medicine which relates to the\ndiscovery and application of remedies for disease. Now I venture to\nassert that, during the last quarter of a century, infliction of\nintense torture upon unknown myriads of sentient, living creatures,\n_has not resulted in the discovery of a single remedy of acknowledged\nand generally accepted value in the cure of disease_. This is not\nknown to the general public, but it is a fact essential to any just\ndecision regarding the expediency of unrestrained liberty of\nvivisection. It is by no means intended to deny the value to\ntherapeutics of well-known physiological facts acquired thus in the\npast--such, for instance, as the more complete knowledge we possess\nregarding the circulation of the blood, or the distinction between\nmotor and sensory nerves, nor can original investigation be\npronounced absolutely valueless as respects remote possibility of\nfuture gain. What the public has a right to ask of those who would\nindefinitely prolong these experiments without State supervision or\ncontrol is, \"What good have your painful experiments accomplished\nduring the past thirty years--not in ascertaining facts in physiology\nor causes of rare or incurable complaints, but in the discovery of\nimproved methods for ameliorating human suffering, and for the cure\nof disease?\" If pain could be estimated in money, no corporation\never existed which would be satisfied with such waste of capital\nin experiments so futile; no mining company would permit a\nquarter-century of \"prospecting\" in such barren regions. The usual\nanswer to this inquiry is to bring forward facts in physiology thus\nacquired in the past, in place of facts in therapeutics. Thus, in a\nrecent article on Magendie to which reference has been made, we are\nfurnished with a long list of such additions to our knowledge. It may\nbe questioned, however, whether the writer is quite scientifically\naccurate in asserting that, were our past experience in vivisection\nabolished, \"it would blot out _all_ that we know to-day in regard to\nthe circulation of the blood, * * the growth and regeneration of bone,\n* * * the origin of many parasitic diseases, * * * the communicability\nof certain contagious and infectious diseases, and, to make the list\ncomplete, it would be requisite * * to take _a wide range in addition\nthrough the domains of pathology and therapeutics_.\" Surely somewhat\nabout these subjects has been acquired otherwise than by experiments\nupon animals? For example, an inquiring critic might wish to know a\nfew of the \"many parasitic diseases\" thus discovered; or what\ncontagious and infectious diseases, whose communicability was\npreviously unknown, have had this quality demonstrated solely by\nexperiments on animals? And what, too, prevented that \"wide range into\ntherapeutics\" necessary to make complete the list of benefits due to\nvivisection? In urging the utility of a practice so fraught with\ndanger, the utmost precaution against the slightest error of\noverstatement becomes an imperative duty. Even so distinguished a\nscientist as Sir John Lubbock once rashly asserted in Parliament that,\n\"without experiments on living animals, we should never have had the\nuse of ether\"! Nearly every American school-boy knows that the\ncontrary is true--that the use of ether as an anaesthetic--the grandest\ndiscovery of modern times--had no origin in the torture of animals.\n\nI confess that, until very recently, I shared the common impression\nregarding the utility of vivisection in therapeutics. It is a belief\nstill widely prevalent in the medical profession. Nevertheless, is it\nnot a mistake? The therapeutical results of nearly half a century of\npainful experiments--we seek them in vain. Do we ask surgery? Sir\nWilliam Ferguson, surgeon to the Queen, tells us: \"In surgery I am not\naware of any of these experiments on the lower animals having led to\nthe mitigation of pain or to improvement as regards surgical\ndetails.\" [1049.] Have antidotes to poisons been discovered thereby?\nSays Doctor Taylor, lecturer on Toxicology for nearly half a century\nin the chief London Medical School (a writer whose work on Poisons is\na recognized authority): \"I do not know that we have as yet learned\nanything, so far as treatment is concerned, from our experiments with\nthem (_i.e._ poisons) on animals.\" [1204.] Doctor Anthony, speaking of\nMagendie's experiments, says: \"I never gained one single fact by\nseeing these cruel experiments in Paris. _I know nothing more from\nthem than I could have read._\" [2450.] Even physiologists admit the\npaucity of therapeutic results. Doctor Sharpey says: \"I should lay\nless stress on the direct application of the results of vivisection to\nimprovement in the art of healing, than upon the value of these\nexperiments in the promotion of physiology.\" [394.] The Oxford\nprofessor of Physiology admitted that Etiology, the science which\ntreats of the causes of disease, had, by these experiments, been the\ngainer, rather than therapeutics. [1302.] \"Experiments on animals,\"\nsays Doctor Thorowgood, \"already extensive and numerous, cannot be\nsaid to have advanced therapeutics much.\"[A] Sir William Gull, M. D.,\nwas questioned before the commission whether he could enumerate any\ntherapeutic remedies which have been discovered by vivisection, and he\nreplied with fervor: \"The cases bristle around us everywhere!\" Yet,\nexcepting Hall's experiments on the nervous system, he could enumerate\nonly various forms of disease, our knowledge of which is due to\nHarvey's discovery, two hundred and fifty years ago! The question was\npushed closer, and so brought to the necessity of a definite reply, he\nanswered: \"I do not say at present our therapeutics are much, but\nthere are lines of experiment which _seem to promise_ great help in\ntherapeutics.\" [5529.] The results of two centuries of experiments, so\nfar as therapeutics are concerned, reduced to a seeming promise!\n\n    [A] \"Medical Times and Gazette,\" October 5, 1872.\n\nOn two points, then, the evidence of the highest scientific\nauthorities in Great Britain seems conclusive--first, that experiments\nupon living animals conduce chiefly to the benefit of the science of\nphysiology, and little, if at all, at the present day, to the\ntreatment of disease or the amelioration of human suffering; and,\nsecondly, that repetition of painful experiments for class-teaching in\nmedical schools is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Do these\nconclusions affect the practice of vivisection in this country? Is it\ntrue that experiments are habitually performed in some of our medical\nschools, often causing extreme pain, to illustrate well-known and\naccepted facts--experiments which English physiologists pronounce\n\"infamous\" and \"atrocious,\" which English physicians and surgeons\nstigmatize as purposeless cruelty and unjustifiable--which even Huxley\nregards as unfitting for teaching purposes, and Darwin denounces as\nworthy of detestation and abhorrence? I confess I see no occasion for\nany over-delicate reticence in this matter. Science needs no secrecy\neither for her methods or results; her function is to reveal, not to\nhide, facts. The reply to these questions must be in the affirmative.\nIn this country our physiologists are rather followers of Magendie and\nBernard, after the methods in vogue at Paris and Leipsic, than\ngoverned by the cautious and sensitive conservatism in this respect\nwhich generally characterizes the physiological teaching of London and\nOxford. In making this statement, no criticism is intended on the\nmotives of those responsible for ingrafting continental methods upon\nour medical schools. If any opprobrium shall be inferred for the past\nperformance of experiments herein condemned, the present writer asks a\nshare in it. It is the future that we hope to change. Now, what are\nthe facts? A recent contributor to the \"International Review,\"\nreferring to Mr. Bergh, says that \"he assails physiological\nexperiments with the same blind extravagance of denunciation as if\nthey were still performed without anaesthetics, as in the time of\nMagendie.\" In the interests of scientific accuracy one would wish\nmore care had been given to the construction of this sentence, for it\nimplies that experiments are not now performed except with\nanaesthetics--a meaning its author never could have intended to convey.\nEvery medical student in New York knows that experiments involving\npain are repeatedly performed to illustrate teaching. It is no secret;\none need not go beyond the frank admissions of our later text-books on\nphysiology for abundant proof, not only of this, but of the extent to\nwhich experimentation is now carried in this country. \"We have long\nbeen in the habit, in class demonstrations, of removing the optic lobe\non one side from a pigeon,\" says Professor Flint, of Bellevue Hospital\nMedical College, in his excellent work on Physiology.[A] \"The\nexperiment of dividing the sympathetic in the neck, especially in\nrabbits, is so easily performed that the phenomena observed by Bernard\nand Brown-Sequard have been repeatedly verified. _We have often done\nthis in class demonstrations._\"[B] \"The cerebral lobes were removed\nfrom a young pigeon in the usual way, an operation * * _which we\npractice yearly as a class demonstration_.\"[C] Referring to the\nremoval of the cerebellum, the same authority states: \"Our own\nexperiments, which have been very numerous during the last fifteen\nyears, are _simply repetitions of those of Flourens, and the results\nhave been the same without exception.\"[D] We have frequently removed\nboth kidneys_ from dogs, and when the operation is carefully performed\nthe animals live for from three to five days. * * Death always takes\nplace with symptoms of blood poisoning.\"[E] In the same work we are\ngiven precise details for making a pancreatic fistula, after the\nmethod of Claude Bernard--\"one we have repeatedly employed with\nsuccess.\" \"In performing the above experiment it is generally better\n_not_ to employ an anaesthetic,\"[F] but ether is sometimes used. In the\nsame work is given a picture of a dog, muzzled and with a biliary\nfistula, as it appeared the fourteenth day after the operation, which,\nwith details of the experiment, is quite suggestive.[G] Bernard was\nthe first to succeed in following the spinal accessory nerve back to\nthe jugular foramen, seizing it here with a strong pair of forceps and\ndrawing it out by the roots. This experiment is practiced in our own\ncountry. \"We have found this result (loss of voice) to follow in the\ncat after the spinal accessory nerves have been torn out by the\nroots,\" says Professor John C. Dalton, in his Treatise on Human\nPhysiology.[H] \"This operation is difficult,\" writes Professor Flint,\n\"but we have several times performed it with entire success;\" and his\nassistant at Bellevue Medical College has succeeded \"in extirpating\nthese nerves for class demonstrations.\"[I] In withdrawal of blood from\nthe hepatic veins of a dog, \"avoiding the administration of an\nanaesthetic\" is one of the steps recommended.[J] The curious experiment\nof Bernard, in which artificial diabetes is produced by irritating the\nfloor of the fourth ventricle of the brain, is carefully described,\nand illustrations afforded both of the instrument and the animal\nundergoing the operation. The inexperienced experimenter is here\ntaught to hold the head of the rabbit \"firmly in the left hand,\" and\nto bore through its skull \"by a few lateral movements of the\ninstrument.\" It is not a difficult operation; it is one which the\nauthor has \"often repeated.\" He tell us \"_it is not desirable to\nadminister an anaesthetic_,\" as it would prevent success; and a little\nfurther we are told that \"we should avoid the administration of\nanaesthetics in all accurate experiments on the glycogenic\nfunction.\"[K] It is true the pleasing assurance is given that \"this\nexperiment is almost painless\"; but on this point, could the rabbit\nspeak during the operation, its opinion might not accord with that of\nthe physiologist.\n\n    [A] A Text-book of Human Physiology, designed for the use of\n    Practitioners and Students of Medicine, by Austin Flint, Jr.,\n    M. D. D. Appleton & Co. New York: 1876 (page 722).\n\n    [B] Page 738.\n\n    [C] Page 585.\n\n    [D] Page 710.\n\n    [E] Page 403.\n\n    [F] Pages 269-70.\n\n    [G] Page 282.\n\n    [H] Page 489.\n\n    [I] Page 629.\n\n    [J] Page 463.\n\n    [K] Pages 470-71.\n\nThere is one experiment in regard to which the severe characterization\nof English scientists is especially applicable, from the pain\nnecessarily attending it. Numerous investigators have long established\nthe fact that the great sensory nerve of the head and face is endowed\nwith an exquisite degree of sensibility. More than half a century ago,\nboth Magendie and Sir Charles Bell pointed out that merely exposing\nand touching this fifth nerve gave signs of most acute pain. \"All who\nhave divided this root in living animals must have recognized, not\nonly that it is sensitive, but that its sensibility is far more acute\nthan that of any other nervous trunk in the body.\"[A] \"The fifth\npair,\" says Professor John C. Dalton, \"is the most acutely sensitive\nnerve in the whole body. Its irritation by mechanical means _always\ncauses intense pain_, and even though the animal be nearly unconscious\nfrom the influence of ether, any severe injury to its large root is\nalmost invariably followed by cries.\"[B] Testimony on this point is\nuniform and abundant. If science speaks anywhere with assurance, it\nis in regard to the properties of this nerve. Yet every year the\nexperiment is repeated before medical classes, simply to demonstrate\naccepted facts. \"This is an operation,\" says Professor Flint,\nreferring to the division of this nerve, \"that we have frequently\nperformed with success.\" He adds that \"it is difficult from the fact\nthat one is working in the dark, and it requires a certain amount of\ndexterity, _to be acquired only by practice_.\" Minute directions are\ntherefore laid down for the operative procedure, and illustrations\ngiven both of the instrument to be used, and of the head of a rabbit\nwith the blade of the instrument in its cranial cavity.[C] Holding the\nhead of our rabbit firmly in the left hand, we are directed to\npenetrate the cranium in a particular manner. \"Soon the operator feels\nat a certain depth that the bony resistance ceases; he is then on the\nfifth pair, and the cries of the animal give evidence that the nerve\nis pressed upon.\" This is one of Magendie's celebrated experiments;\nperhaps the reader fancies that in its modern repetitions the animal\nsuffers nothing, being rendered insensible by anaesthetics? \"_It is\nmuch more satisfactory to divide the nerve without etherizing the\nanimal, as the evidence of pain is an important guide in this delicate\noperation._\" Anaesthetics, however, are sometimes used, but not so as\nwholly to overcome the pain.\n\n    [A] Flint: \"Text Book on Human Physiology\" (page 641).\n\n    [B] Dalton's \"Human Physiology\" (page 466).\n\n    [C] Flint (pages 639-40).\n\nTestimony of individuals, indicating the extent to which vivisection\nis at present practiced in this country might be given; but it seems\nbetter to submit proof within the reach of every reader, and the\naccuracy of which is beyond cavil. No legal restrictions whatever\nexist, preventing the performance of any experiment desired. Indeed, I\nthink it may safely be asserted that, in the city of New York, in a\nsingle medical school, more pain is inflicted upon living animals as a\nmeans of teaching well-known facts, than is permitted to be done for\nthe same purpose in all the medical schools of Great Britain and\nIreland. And _cui bono_? \"I can truly say,\" writes a physician who\nhas seen all these experiments, \"that not only have I never seen any\nresults at all commensurate with the suffering inflicted, but I cannot\nrecall a single experiment which, in the slightest degree, has\nincreased my ability to relieve pain, or in any way fitted me to cope\nbetter with disease.\"\n\nIn respect to this practice, therefore, evidence abounds indicating\nthe necessity for that State supervision which obtains in Great\nBritain. We cannot abolish it any more than we can repress dissection;\nto attempt it would be equally unwise. Within certain limitations,\ndictated both by a regard for the interest of science and by that\nsympathy for everything that lives and suffers which is the highest\nattribute of humanity, it seems to me that the practice of vivisection\nshould be allowed. What are these restrictions?\n\nThe following conclusions are suggested as a basis for future\nlegislation:\n\n_I. Any experiment or operation whatever upon a living animal, during\nwhich by recognized anaesthetics it is made completely insensible to\npain, should be permitted._\n\nThis does not necessarily imply the taking of life. Should a surgeon,\nfor example, desire to cause a fracture or tie an artery, and then\npermit the animal to recover so as to note subsequent effects, there\nis no reason why the privilege should be refused. The discomfort\nfollowing such an operation would be inconsiderable. This permission\nshould not extend to experiments purely physiological and having no\ndefinite relation to surgery; nor to mutilation from which recovery is\nimpossible, and prolonged pain certain as a sequence.\n\n_II. Any experiment performed thus, under complete anaesthesia, though\ninvolving any degree of mutilation, if concluded by the extinction of\nlife before consciousness is regained should also be permitted._\n\nTo object to killing animals for scientific purposes while we continue\nto demand their sacrifice for food, is to seek for the appetite a\nprivilege we refuse the mind. It is equally absurd to object to\nvivisection because it dissects, or \"cuts up.\" If no pain be felt, why\nis it worse to cut up a dog, than a sheep or an ox? Such experiments\nas the foregoing might be permitted to any extent desired in our\nmedical schools.\n\nFar more difficult is the question of painful experimentation.\nUnfortunately, it so happens that the most attractive original\ninvestigations are largely upon the nervous system, involving the\nconsciousness of pain as a requisite to success. Toward this class of\nexperiments the State should act with caution and firmness. It seems\nto me that the following restrictions are only just.\n\n_III. In view of the great cost in suffering, as compared with the\nslight profit gained by the student, the repetition, for purposes of\nclass instruction of any experiment involving pain to a vertebrate\nanimal should be forbidden by law._\n\n_IV. In view of the slight gain to practical medicine resulting from\ninnumerable past experiments of this kind, a painful experiment upon\na living vertebrate animal should be permitted solely for purposes of\noriginal investigation, and then only under the most rigid\nsurveillance, and preceded by the strictest precautions._ For every\nexperiment of this kind the physiologist should be required to obtain\nspecial permission from a State board, specifying on application (1)\nthe object of the proposed investigation, (2) the nature and method of\nthe operation, (3) the species of animal to be sacrificed, and (4) the\nshortest period during which pain will probably be felt. An officer of\nthe State should be given an opportunity to be present; and a report\nmade, both of the length of time occupied, and the knowledge, if any,\ngained thereby. If these restrictions are made obligatory by statute,\nand their violation made punishable by a heavy fine, such experiments\nwill be generally performed only when absolutely necessary for\npurposes of scientific research.\n\nIn few matters is there greater necessity for careful discrimination\nthan in everything pertaining to this subject. The attempt has been\nmade in this paper to indicate how far the State--leaning to mercy's\nside--may sanction a practice often so necessary and useful, always so\ndangerous in its tendencies. That is a worthy ideal of conduct which\nseeks\n\n  \"Never to blend our pleasure or our pride\n  With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels.\"\n\nIs not this a sentiment in which even science may fitly share? Are we\njustified in neglecting the evidence she offers, purchased in the past\nat such immeasurable agonies, and in demanding that year after year\nnew victims shall be subjected to torture, only to demonstrate what\nnone of us doubt? That is the chief question. For, if all compromise\nbe persistently rejected by physiologists, there is danger that some\nday, impelled by the advancing growth of humane sentiment, society may\nconfound in one common condemnation all experiments of this nature,\nand make the whole practice impossible, except in secret and as a\ncrime.\n\n\n\n\n[_From_ LIPPINCOTT'S MAGAZINE, _August, 1884_.]\n\nVIVISECTION.\n\n\nOmitting entirely any consideration of the ethics of vivisection, the\nonly points to which in the present article the attention of the\nreader is invited are those in which scientific inquirers may be\nsupposed to have a common interest.\n\nI. One danger to which scientific truth seems to be exposed is a\npeculiar tendency to underestimate the numberless uncertainties\nand contradictions created by experimentation upon living beings.\nJudging from the enthusiasm of its advocates, one would think that\nby this method of interrogating nature all fallacies can be\ndetected, all doubts determined. But, on the contrary, the result of\nexperimentation, in many directions, is to plunge the observer into\nthe abyss of uncertainty. Take, for example, one of the simplest and\nyet most important questions possible,--the degree of sensibility in\nthe lower animals. Has an infinite number of experiments enabled\nphysiologists to determine for us the mere question of pain? Suppose\nan amateur experimenter in London, desirous of performing some severe\noperations upon frogs, to hesitate because of the extreme painfulness\nof his methods, what replies would he be likely to obtain from the\nhighest scientific authorities of England as to the sensibility of\nthese creatures? We may fairly judge their probable answers to such\ninquiries from their evidence already given before a royal\ncommission.[A]\n\n    [A] The contradictory opinions ascribed to most of the\n    authorities quoted in this article are taken directly from\n    the \"Report of the Royal Commission on the Practice of\n    Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments for Scientific\n    Purposes,\"--a Blue-Book Parliamentary Report.\n\nDr. Carpenter would doubtless repeat his opinion that \"frogs have\nextremely little perception of pain;\" and in the evidence of that\nexperienced physiologist George Henry Lewes, he would find the\ncheerful assurance, \"I do not believe that frogs suffer pain at all.\"\nOur friend applies, let us suppose, to Dr. Klein, of St. Bartholomew's\nHospital, who despises the sentimentality which regards animal\nsuffering as of the least consequence; and this enthusiastic\nvivisector informs him that, in his English experience, the experiment\nwhich caused the greatest pain without anaesthetics was the\ncauterization of the cornea of a frog. Somewhat confused at finding\nthat a most painful experiment can be performed upon an animal that\ndoes not suffer he relates this to Dr. Swaine Taylor, of Guy's\nHospital, who does not think that Klein's experiment would cause\nsevere suffering; but of another--placing a frog in cold water and\nraising the temperature to about 100 deg.--\"that,\" says Doctor Taylor,\n\"would be a cruel experiment: I cannot see what purpose it can\nanswer.\" Before leaving Guy's Hospital, our inquiring friend meets Dr.\nPavy, one of the most celebrated physiologists in England, who tells\nhim that in this experiment, stigmatized by his colleague as \"cruel,\"\nthe frog would in reality suffer very little; that if we ourselves\nwere treated to a bath gradually raised from a medium temperature to\nthe boiling point, \"I think we should not feel any pain;\" that were we\nplunged at once into boiling water, \"even then,\" says the enthusiastic\nand scientific Dr. Pavy, \"I do not think pain would be experienced!\"\nOur friend goes then to Dr. Sibson, of St. Mary's Hospital, who as a\nphysiologist of many years' standing, sees no objection to freezing,\nstarving, or baking animals alive; but he declares of boiling a frog,\n\"That is a horrible idea, and I certainly am not going to defend it.\"\nPerplexed more than ever, he goes to Dr. Lister, of King's College,\nand is astonished upon being told \"that the mere holding of a frog\nin your warm hand is about as painful as any experiment probably\nthat you would perform.\" Finally, one of the strongest advocates of\nvivisections, Dr. Anthony, pupil of Sir Charles Bell, would exclaim,\nif a mere exposition of the lungs of the frog were referred to,\n\"Fond as I am of physiology, I would not do that for the world!\"\n\nNow, what has our inquirer learned by his appeal to science? Has\nhe gained any clear and absolute knowledge? Hardly two of the\nexperimenters named agree upon one simple yet most important\npreliminary of research--_the sensibility to pain of a single species\nof animals_.\n\nLet us interrogate scientific opinion a little further on this\nquestion of sensibility. Is there any difference in animals as\nregards susceptibility to pain? Dr. Anthony says that we may take\nthe amount of intelligence in animals as a fair measure of their\nsensibility--that the pain one would suffer would be in proportion\nto its intelligence. Dr. Rutherford, Edinburgh, never performs an\nexperiment upon a cat or a spaniel if he can help it, because they are\nso exceedingly sensitive; and Dr. Horatio Wood, of Philadelphia, tells\nus that the nervous system of a cat is far more sensitive than that of\nthe rabbit. On the other hand, Dr. Lister, of King's College, is not\naware of any such difference in sensibility in animals, and Dr.\nBrunton, of St. Bartholomew's, finds cats such very good animals to\noperate with that he on one occasion used ninety in making a single\nexperiment.\n\nSir William Gull thinks \"there are but few experiments performed on\nliving creatures where sensation is not removed,\" yet Dr. Rutherford\nadmits \"about half\" his experiments to have been made upon animals\nsensitive to pain. Professor Rolleston, of Oxford University, tells\nus \"the whole question of anaesthetizing animals has an element of\nuncertainty\"; and Professor Rutherford declares it \"impossible to say\"\nwhether even artificial respiration is painful or not, \"unless the\nanimal can speak.\" Dr. Brunton, of St. Bartholomew's, says of that\nmost painful experiment, poisoning by strychnine, that it cannot be\nefficiently shown if the animal be under chloroform. Dr. Davy, of\nGuy's, on the contrary, always gives chloroform, and finds it no\nimpediment to successful demonstration, Is opium an anaesthetic? Claude\nBernard declares that sensibility exists even though the animal be\nmotionless: \"_Il sent la douleur, mais il a, pour ainsi dire, perdu\nl'idee de la defense._\"[A] But Dr. Brunton, of St. Bartholomew's\nhospital, London, has no hesitation whatever in contradicting this\nstatement \"emphatically, however high an authority it may be.\"\n\nCurare, a poison invented by South American Indians for their arrows,\nis much used in physiological laboratories to paralyze the motor\nnerves, rendering an animal absolutely incapable of the slightest\ndisturbing movement. Does it at the same time destroy sensation, or\nis the creature conscious of every pang? Claude Bernard, of Paris,\nSharpey, of London, and Flint, of New York[B] all agree that sensation\nis _not_ abolished; on the other hand, Rutherford regards curare as a\npartial anaesthetic, and Huxley strongly intimates that Bernard in thus\ndeciding from experiments that it does not affect the cerebral\nhemispheres or consciousness, \"_jumped at a conclusion_ for which\nneither he nor anybody else had any scientific justification.\" This\nis extraordinary language for one experimentalist to use regarding\nothers! If it is possible that such men as Claude Bernard and\nProfessor Flint have \"jumped at\" one utterly unscientific conclusion,\nnotwithstanding the most painstaking of vivisections, what security\nhave we that other of our theories in physiology now regarded as\nabsolutely established may not be one day as severely ridiculed by\nsucceeding investigators? Is it, after all, true, that the absolute\ncertainty of our most important deductions must remain forever hidden\n\"unless the animal can speak\"?\n\n    [A] \"He feels the pain, but has lost, so to speak, the idea\n    of self defense.\" Lecons de Physiologie operatoire, 1879, p.\n    115.\n\n    [B] Text-Book of Human Physiology, p. 595.\n\nII. Between advocating State supervision of painful vivisection, and\nproposing with Mr. Bergh the total suppression of all experiments,\npainful or otherwise, there is manifestly a very wide distinction.\nUnfortunately, the suggestion of any interference whatever invariably\nrouses the anger of those most interested--an indignation as\nunreasonable, to say the least, as that of the merchant who refuses a\nreceipt for money just paid to him, on the ground that a request for a\nwritten acknowledgement is a reflection upon his honesty. I cannot see\nhow otherwise than by State supervision we are to reach abuses which\nconfessedly exist. Can we trust the sensitiveness and conscience\nof every experimenter? Nobody claims this. One of the leading\nphysiologists in this country, Dr. John C. Dalton, admits \"that\nvivisection may be, and has been, abused by reckless, unfeeling, or\nunskillful persons;\" that he himself has witnessed abroad, in a\nveterinary institution, operations than which \"nothing could be more\nshocking.\" And yet the unspeakable atrocities at Alfort, to which,\napparently, Dr. Dalton alludes, were defended upon the very ground he\noccupies to-day in advocating experiments of the modern laboratory and\nclassroom; for the Academie des Sciences decided that there was \"no\noccasion to take any notice of complaints; that in the future, as in\nthe past, vivisectional experiments must be left entirely to the\njudgment of scientific men.\" What seemed \"atrocious\" to the more\ntender-hearted Anglo-Saxon was pronounced entirely justifiable by the\nFrench Academy of Science.\n\nA curious question suggests itself in connection with this point.\nThere can be little doubt, I think, that the sentiment of compassion\nand of sympathy with suffering is more generally diffused among all\nclasses of Great Britain than elsewhere in Europe; and one cannot help\nwondering what our place might be, were it possible to institute any\nreliable comparison of national humanity. Should we be found in all\nrespects as sensitive as the English people? Would indignation and\nprotest be as quickly and spontaneously evoked among us by a cruel\nact? The question may appear an ungracious one, yet it seems to me\nthere exists some reason why it should be plainly asked. There is a\ncertain experiment--one of the most excruciating that can be\nperformed--which consists in exposing the spinal cord of the dog for\nthe purpose of demonstrating the functions of the spinal nerves. It is\none, by the way, which Dr. Wilder forgot to enumerate in his summary\nof the \"four kinds of experiments,\" since it is not the \"cutting\noperation\" which forms its chief peculiarity or to which special\nobjection would be made. At present all this preliminary process is\ngenerally performed under anaesthetics: it is an hour or two later,\nwhen the animal has partly recovered from the severe shock of the\noperation, that the wound is reopened and the experiment begins. It\nwas during a class demonstration of this kind by Magendie, before\nthe introduction of ether, that the circumstance occurred which one\nhesitates to think possible in a person retaining a single spark of\nhumanity or pity. \"I recall to mind,\" says Dr. Latour, who was present\nat the time, \"a poor dog, the roots of whose vertebral nerves Magendie\ndesired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's theory, which he claimed as\nhis own. The dog, mutilated and bleeding twice escaped from under the\nimplacable knife, and threw its front paws around Magendie's neck,\nlicking, as if to soften his murderer and ask for mercy! I confess I\nwas unable to endure that heartrending spectacle.\"\n\nIt was probably in reference to this experiment that Sir Charles Bell,\nthe greatest English physiologist of our century, writing to his\nbrother in 1822, informs him that he hesitates to go on with his\ninvestigations. \"You may think me silly,\" he adds, \"but I cannot\nperfectly convince myself that I am authorized in nature or religion\nto do these cruelties.\" Now, what do English physiologists and\nvivisectors of the present day think of the repetition of this\nexperiment solely as a class demonstration?\n\nThey have candidly expressed their opinions before a royal commission.\nDr. David Ferrier, of King's college, noted for his experiments upon\nthe brain of monkeys, affirms his belief that \"students would rebel\"\nat the sight of a painful experiment. Dr. Rutherford, who certainly\ndared do all that may become a physiologist, confesses mournfully,\n\"_I dare not_ show an experiment upon a dog or rabbit before students,\nwhen the animal is not anaesthetized.\" Dr. Pavy, of Guy's Hospital,\nasserts that a painful experiment introduced before a class \"would not\nbe tolerated for a moment.\" Sir William Gull, M. D., believes that the\nrepetition of an operation like this upon the spinal nerves would\nexcite the reprobation alike of teacher, pupils, and the public at\nlarge. Michael Foster, of Cambridge University, who minutely describes\nall the details of the experiment on recurrent sensibility in the\n\"Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory,\" nevertheless tells\nus, \"I have not performed it, and have never seen it done,\" partly,\nas he confesses, \"from horror at the pain.\" And finally Dr.\nBurdon-Sanderson, physiologist at University College, London, states\nwith the utmost emphasis, in regard to the performance of this\ndemonstration on the spinal cord, \"I am perfectly certain that no\nphysiologist--none of the leading men in Germany, for example--would\nexhibit an experiment of that kind.\"\n\nNow mark the contrast. This experiment--which we are told passes even\nthe callousness of Germany to repeat; which every leading champion of\nvivisection in Great Britain reprobates for medical teaching; which\nsome of them shrink even from seeing, themselves, from horror at the\ntortures necessarily inflicted; which the most ruthless among them\n_dare not_ exhibit to the young men of England,--_this experiment has\nbeen performed publicly again and again in American medical colleges_,\nwithout exciting, so far as we know, even a whisper of protest or the\nfaintest murmur of remonstrance! The proof is to be found in the\npublished statements of the experimenter himself. In his \"Text-Book\nof Physiology,\" Professor Flint says, \"Magendie showed very\nsatisfactorily that the posterior roots (of the spinal cord) were\nexclusively sensory, and this fact has been confirmed by more recent\nobservations upon the higher classes of animals. We have ourselves\nfrequently exposed and irritated the roots of the nerves in dogs, _in\npublic demonstrations_ in experiments on the recurrent sensibility,\n... and in another series of observations.\"[A]\n\n    [A] \"A Text-Book of Human Physiology.\" By Austin Flint, Jr.\n    M. D. New York, 1876. Page 589; see also page 674.\n\nThis is the experience of a single professional teacher; but it is\nimprobable that this experiment has been shown only to the students of\na single medical college in the United States; it has doubtless been\nrepeated again and again in different colleges throughout the country.\nIf Englishmen are, then, so extremely sensitive as Ferrier, Gull, and\nBurdon-Sanderson would have us believe, we must necessarily conclude\nthat the sentiment of compassion is far greater in Britain than in\nAmerica. Have we drifted backward in humanity? Have American students\nlearned to witness, without protest, tortures at the sight of which\nEnglish students would rebel? We are told that there is no need of any\npublic sensitiveness on this subject. We should trust entirely, as\nthey do in France,--at Alfort, for example,--\"to the judgment of the\ninvestigator.\" There must be no lifting of the veil to the outside\nmultitude; for the priests of this unpitying science there must be as\nabsolute immunity from criticism or inquiry as was ever demanded\nbefore the shrine of Delphi or the altars of Baal. \"Let them exercise\ntheir solemn office,\" demands Dr. Wilder, \"not only unrestrained by\nlaw, but upheld by public sentiment.\"\n\nFor myself, I cannot believe this position is tenable. Nothing seems\nto me more certain than the results that must follow if popular\nsentiment in this country shall knowingly sustain the public\ndemonstration of an experiments in pain, which can find no defender\namong the physiologists of Great Britain. It has been my fortune to\nknow something of the large hospitals of Europe; and I confess I do\nnot know a single one in countries where painful vivisection\nflourishes, unchecked by law, wherein the poor and needy sick are\ntreated with the sympathy, the delicacy, or even the decency, which so\nuniversally characterize the hospitals of England. When Magendie,\noperating for cataract, plunged his needle to the bottom of his\npatient's eye, that he might note upon a human being the effect\nproduced by mechanical irritation of the retina, he demonstrated how\ngreatly the zeal of the enthusiast may impair the responsibility of\nthe physician and the sympathy of man for man.\n\nIII. The utility of vivisection in advancing therapeutics, despite\nmuch argument, still remains an open question. No one is so foolish as\nto deny the possibility of future usefulness to any discovery\nwhatever; but there is a distinction, very easily slurred over in the\neagerness of debate, between present applicability and remotely\npotential service. If the pains inflicted on animals are absolutely\nnecessary to the protection of human life and the advancement of\npractical skill in medicine, should sentiment be permitted to check\ninvestigation? An English prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough,\nspeaking in Parliament on this subject, once told the House of Lords\nthat \"it was very difficult to decide what was unnecessary pain,\" and\nas an example of the perplexities which arose in his own mind he\nmentioned \"the case of the wretched man who was convicted of skinning\ncats alive, because their skins were more valuable when taken from the\nliving animal than from the dead one. The extra money,\" added the\nBishop, \"got the man a dinner!\"[A] Whether in this particular case the\nexcuse was well received by the judge, the reverend prelate neglected\nto inform us; but it is certain that the plea for painful\nexperimentation rests substantially on the same basis. Out of the\nagonies of sentient brutes we are to pluck the secret of longer living\nand the art of surer triumph over intractable disease.\n\n    [A] See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, June 20, 1876.\n\nBut has this hope been fulfilled? Pasteur, we are told, has claimed\nthe discovery of a cure for hydrophobia through experiments on\nanimals. It may be well worth its cost if only true; but we cannot\nforget that its practical value is by no means yet demonstrated. Aside\nfrom this, has physiological experimentation during the last quarter\nof a century contributed such marked improvements in therapeutic\nmethods that we find certain and tangible evidence thereof in the\ndiminishing fatality of any disease? Can one mention a single malady\nwhich thirty years ago resisted every remedial effort, to which the\nmore enlightened science of to-day can offer hopes of recovery? These\nseem to me perfectly legitimate and fair questions, and, fortunately,\nin one respect, capable of a scientific reply. I suppose the opinion\nof the late Claude Bernard, of Paris, would be generally accepted as\nthat of the highest scientific authority on the utility of vivisection\nin \"practical medicine;\" but he tells us that it is hardly worth while\nto make the inquiry. \"Without doubt,\" he confessed, \"_our hands are\nempty to-day_, although our mouths are full of legitimate promises for\nthe future.\"\n\nWas Claude Bernard correct in this opinion as to the \"empty hands?\"\nIf scientific evidence is worth anything, it points to the appalling\nconclusion that, _notwithstanding all the researches of physiology,\nthe chief forms of chronic disease exhibit to-day in England a greater\nfatality than thirty years ago_. In the following table I have\nindicated the average annual mortality, per million inhabitants, of\ncertain diseases, _first_, for the period of five years from 1850 to\n1854, and _secondly_, for the period twenty-five years later, from\n1875 to 1879. The authority is beyond question; the facts are\ncollected from the report to Parliament of the Registrar-general\nof England:\n\n             _Average Annual Rate of Mortality in England,\n          from Causes of Death, per One Million Inhabitants._\n\n  ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------\n                                    |    During     |    During\n           NAME OF DISEASE.         |  Five Years,  |  Five Years,\n                                    |    1850-54.   |    1875-79.\n  ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------\n  Gout,                             |        12     |        25\n  Aneurism,                         |        16     |        32\n  Diabetes,                         |        23     |        41\n  Insanity,                         |        29     |        57\n  Syphilis,                         |        37     |        86\n  Epilepsy,                         |       105     |       119\n  Bright's disease,                 |        32     |       182\n  Kidney disease,                   |        94     |       114\n  Brain disease,                    |       192     |       281\n  Liver disease,                    |       215     |       291\n  Heart disease,                    |       651     |     1,335\n  Cancer,                           |       302     |       492\n  Paralysis,                        |       440     |       501\n  Apoplexy,                         |       454     |       552\n  Tubercular diseases and diseases  |               |\n    of the Respiratory Organs,      |     6,424     |     6,886\n  ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------\n  Mortality from above diseases:    |     9,026     |    10,994\n  ----------------------------------+---------------+---------------\n\nThis is certainly a most startling exhibit, when we remember that from\nonly these few causes about half of _all_ the deaths in England\nannually occur, and that from them result the deaths of two-thirds of\nthe persons, of both sexes, who reach the age of twenty years.[A] What\nare the effects here discernible of Bernard's experiments upon\ndiabetes? of Brown-Sequard's upon epilepsy and paralysis? of Flint's\nand Pavy's on diseases of the liver? of Ferrier's researches upon the\nfunctions of the brain? Let us appeal from the heated enthusiasm of\nthe experimenter to the stern facts of the statistician. Why, so far\nfrom having obtained the least mastery over those malignant forces\nwhich seem forever to elude and baffle our art, they are actually\ngaining upon us; every one of these forms of disease is more fatal\nto-day in England than thirty years ago; during 1879 over sixty\nthousand _more_ deaths resulted from these maladies alone than would\nhave occurred had the rate of mortality from them been simply that\nwhich prevailed during the benighted period of 1850 to 1854! True,\nduring later years there has been a diminished mortality in England,\nbut it is from the lesser prevalence of zymotic diseases, which no one\nto-day pretends to cure; while the organic diseases show a constant\ntendency to increase. Part of this may be due to more accurate\ndiagnosis and clearer definition of mortality causes: but this will\nnot explain a phenomenon which is too evident to be overlooked.\n\n    [A] In 1879 the total mortality in England, above the age of\n    twenty, from _all causes_ whatsoever, was 287,093. Of these\n    deaths, the number occasioned by the sixteen causes above\n    named, was 191,706, or almost exactly two-thirds.\n\n\"It is a fact,\" says the Registrar-general, in his report for 1879,\n\"that while mortality in early life has been very notably diminished,\n_the mortality of persons in middle or advanced life has been steadily\nrising for a long period of years_.\" It is probable that the same\nstory would be told by the records of France, Germany, and other\nEuropean countries; it is useless, of course, to refer to America,\nsince in regard to statistical information we still lag behind every\ncountry which pretends to be civilized.[A] Undoubtedly it would be a\nfalse assumption which from these facts should deduce retrogression\nin medical art or deny advance and improvement; but they certainly\nindicate that the boasted superiority of modern medicine over the\nskill of our fathers, due to physiological researches, is not\nsustained by the only impartial authority to which science can appeal\nfor evidence of results.\n\n    [A] Even Japan, a country we are apt to consider as somewhat\n    benighted, has far better statistical information at hand\n    than the United States of America.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat then is the substance of the whole matter? It seems to me the\nfollowing conclusions are justified by the facts presented.\n\nI. All experiments upon living animals may be divided into two general\nclasses; 1st those which produce pain,--slight, brief, severe or\natrociously acute and prolonged; and 2nd, those experiments which are\nperformed under complete anaesthesia from which either death ensues\nduring unconsciousness, or entire recovery may follow.\n\nII. The majority of vivisections requisite for purposes of teaching\nphysiological facts _may_ be so carried on as to take life with less\npain or inconvenience to the animal than is absolutely necessary in\norder to furnish meat for our tables. Those who would make it a penal\noffense to submit to a class of college students the unconscious and\npainless demonstration of functional activity of the heart, for\nexample, and yet demand for the gratification of appetite the daily\nslaughter of oxen and sheep without anaesthetics, and without any\nattempt to minimize the agony of terror, fear and pain--may not be\ninconsistent. But it is a view the writer cannot share.\n\nIII. Prohibition of all experiments may be fairly demanded by those\nwho believe that the enthusiastic ardor of the scientific experimenter\nor lecturer, will outweigh all considerations of good faith, provided\nsuccess or failure of his experiment depend on the consciousness of\npain. In other words, that the experimenter himself, as a rule,\n_cannot be trusted to obey the law, should the law restrict_.\n\nThis also is an extreme position.\n\nIV. Absolute liberty in the matter of painful experiments has produced\nadmitted abuses by physiologists of Germany, France and Italy. In\nAmerica it has led to the repetition before classes of students of\nMagendie's extreme cruelties,--demonstrations which have been\ncondemned by every leading English physiologist.\n\nV. In view of the dangerous impulses not unfrequently awakened by the\nsight of pain intentionally inflicted, experiments of this kind should\nbe by legal enactment absolutely forbidden before classes of students,\nespecially in our Public Schools.\n\nVI. It is not in accord with scientific accuracy to contend for\nunlimited freedom of painful experimentation, on the ground of its\nvast utility to humanity in the discovery of new methods for the cure\nof disease. On the contrary, so far as can be discovered by a careful\nstudy of English mortality statistics, physiological experiments upon\nliving animals for fifty years back have in no single instance\nlessened the fatality of any disease below its average of thirty-five\nyears ago.\n\nVII. Vivisection, involving the infliction of pain is, even in its\nbest possible aspect, a necessary evil, and ought at once to be\nrestricted within the narrowest limits, and placed under the\nsupervision of the State.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nI.\n\nFor reasons sufficiently stated in the preceding pages, the writer\ndoes not advocate the total abolition of all experimentation. It is\nonly fair to acknowledge, however, that very strong and weighty\narguments in favor of legal repression have been advanced both in this\ncountry and abroad, some of which are herewith presented, as the other\nside of the question.\n\nThe cause of abolition has no more earnest and eloquent advocate than\nMiss Frances Power Cobbe of England. Through innumerable controversies\nwith scientific men in the public journals, magazines and reviews, she\nhas presented in awful array, the abuses of unlimited and uncontrolled\nexperimentation on the continent of Europe, and the arguments in favor\nof total repression. The following letters, extracts from her public\ncorrespondence, will indicate her position.\n\nTENDER VIVISECTION.\n\n(TO THE EDITOR OF THE \"SCOTSMAN.\")\n\n                                1, Victoria Street, London, S. W.,\n                                         January 10, 1881.\n\nSIR.--An Italian pamphlet, _Dell'Azione del Dolore sulla Respirazione_\n(The Action of Pain on Respiration), has just reached my hands, and as\nit is, I think, quite unknown in this country, I will beg you to grant\nme space for a few extracts from its pages. The pamphlet is by the\neminent physiologist, Mantegazza, and was published by Chiusi, of\nMilan. Having explained the object of his investigations to be the\neffects of pain on the respiratory organs, the Professor describes (p.\n20) the methods he devised for the production of such pain. He found\nthe best to consist in \"planting nails, sharp and numerous, through\nthe feet of the animal in such a manner as to render the creature\nalmost motionless, because in every movement it would have felt its\ntorment more acutely\" (_piantando chiodi acuti e numerosi attraverso\nle piante dei piedi in modo da rendere immobile o quasi l'animale,\nperche ad ogni movimento avrebbe sentito molto piu acuto il suo\ntormento_). Further on he mentions that, to produce still more intense\npain (_dolore intenso_) he was obliged to employ lesions, followed by\ninflammation. An ingenious machine, constructed by \"our\" Tecnomasio,\nof Milan, enabled him likewise to grip any part of an animal with\npincers with iron teeth, and to crush, or tear, or lift up the victim,\n\"so as to produce pain in every possible way.\" A drawing of this\ninstrument is appended. The first series of his experiments, Signor\nMantegazza informs us, were tried on twelve animals, chiefly rabbits\nand guinea pigs, of which several were pregnant. One poor little\ncreature, \"far advanced in pregnancy,\" was made to endure _dolori\natrocissimi_, so that it was impossible to make any observations in\nconsequence of its convulsions.\n\nIn the second series of experiments twenty-eight animals were\nsacrificed, some of them taken from nursing their young, exposed to\ntorture for an hour or two, then allowed to rest an hour, and usually\nreplaced in the machine to be crushed or torn by the Professor for\nperiods of from two to six hours more. In the table wherein these\nexperiments are summed up, the terms _molto dolore_ and _crudeli\ndolori_ are delicately distinguished, the latter being apparently\nreserved for the cases when the victims were, as the Professor\nexpresses it, _lardellati di chiodi_--(\"larded with nails\").\n\nIn conclusion, the author informs us (p. 25) that these experiments\nwere all conducted \"_con molto amore e pazienza!_\"--with much zeal and\npatience.\n\n                         I am, etc.,\n                                        FRANCES POWER COBBE.\n\nIn a controversy with Dr. Pye-Smith, who had read a paper before the\nBritish Association, Miss Cobbe writes as follows to one of the public\njournals:\n\n\"Dr. Pye-Smith is reported to have said: 'Happily, the neccessary\nexperiments were comparatively few.' Few! What are a \"few\"\nexperiments? Professor Schiff in ten years experimented on 14,000\ndogs, given over to him by the Municipality of Florence, and returned\ntheir carcases so mangled that the man who had contracted for their\nskins found them useless. He also experimented on pigeons, cats, and\nrabbits to the number, it is calculated, of 70,000 creatures; and he\nnow asks for ten dogs a week in Geneva. All over Germany and France\nthere are laboratories \"using\" (as the horrible phrase is) numberless\nanimals, inasmuch as I have just received a letter stating that dogs\nare actually becoming scarce in Lyons, and it is proposed to breed\nthem for the purpose of Vivisection. Be this true or not, I invite any\nof your readers to visit the office of the Victoria Street Society,\nand examine the volumes of splendid plates of vivisecting instruments,\nwhich will there be shown them, and then judge for themselves whether\nit be for a few experiments that those elaborate and costly inventions\nhave become a regular branch of manufacture. Let them examine the\nvolume of the English handbook of the physiological laboratory, the\nvolume of Cyon's magnificent atlas, with its 54 plates, the _Archives\nde Physiologie_, with its 191 plates, the _Physiologische Methodik_,\nor Claude Bernard's _Lecons sur la Chaleur Animale_, with its pictures\nof the stoves wherein he baked dogs and rabbits alive; and after these\nsights of disgust and horror they will know how to understand the word\n\"few\" in the vocabulary of a physiologist. I am glad to hear that a\nGerman opponent of Vivisection recently entering a shop devoted to the\nsale of these tools of torture, was greeted by the proprietor with a\nvolley of abuse: 'It is you and your friends,' he said, 'who are\ndestroying my trade. I used to sell a hundred of Czermak's tables and\nother instruments for one I sell now.'\n\n\"Dr. Pye-Smith said: 'Many of the experiments inflicted no pain or\ninjury whatever, and the great majority of the rest were rendered\npainless by the use of those beneficial agents which abolished pain\nand had themselves been discovered by experiments upon living\nanimals.' As to the use of anaesthetics in annulling the agonies of\nmutilated animals, the audience ought to have asked Dr. Pye-Smith to\nexplain whether he intended to refer to chloroform, or the narcotic\nmorphia, or, lastly, to the drug _curare_. If he referred to\nchloroform, Dr. Hoggan tells from his own experience (_Anaesthetics_,\np. 1), that 'nothing can be more uncertain than its influence on\nthe lower animals; many of them die before they become insensible.\nComplete and conscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted,\nthe animal getting at most a slight whiff of chloroform _by way of\nsatisfying the conscience of the operator_, or enabling him to make\nstatements of a humane character.' Even if it were conscientiously\nadministered at the beginning of an experiment, how little would\nchloroform diminish the misery of Rutherford's dogs or Brunton's\nninety cats, whose long-drawn agonies extended over many days? How\nlittle could it affect in any way the cases of starving, poisoning,\nbaking, stewing to death, or burning,--like the twenty-five dogs over\nwhich Professor Wertheim poured turpentine and then set them on fire,\nleaving them afterwards slowly to perish? If Dr. Pye-Smith was\nthinking of morphia, the reader may refer to Claude Bernard's\n_Lecons de Physiologie Operatoire_, where he will find that great\nphysiologists recommends its use; but at the same time mentions (as of\nno particular consequence) that the animal subjected to its influence\nstill 'suffers pain.' I can hardly suppose, lastly, that Dr. Pye-Smith\nwas secretly thinking of _curare_, and that he is one of those whom\nTennyson says would\n\n  \"Mangle the living dog which loved him and fawned at his knee,\n  Drenched with the hellish oorali.\"\n\nIt is bad enough to \"mangle\" a loving and intelligent creature without\nadding to its agonies the paralysis of the powers of motion, and the\nincreased sensibility to pain occasioned by this horrible drug, which\nnevertheless Bernard, in the work above quoted, says is in such common\nuse among physiologists, that when an experiment is not otherwise\ndescribed, it may always be \"taken for granted it has been performed\non a curarized dog.\"\n\nFinally, Dr. Pye-Smith says, \"It was remarkable that the small residue\nof experiments in which some amount of pain was necessary were chiefly\nthose in which the direct and immediate benefit to mankind was more\nobvious. He referred to the trying of drugs on animals, to discovering\nantidotes to poisons,\" etc. The bribe here offered to human\nselfishness is an ingenious one. \"Let us,\" the physiologists say,\n\"retain the right to put animals to torture, for it is very\n'remarkable' that when we do so it is always in your interest!\"\nUnluckily for this appeal to the meaner feelings of human nature,\nwhich these modern instructors of our young men are not ashamed to put\nforward, it is difficult for them to hit on any one instance wherein\nout of their \"few\" (million) experiments any good to mankind has been,\neven apparently, achieved. As Claude Bernard honestly said, at least\nas regards any benefit for suffering humanity, \"_Nos mains sont\nvides_.\" As to the trying of drugs on animals, Dr. Pritchard, who is,\nI believe, the best living authority on the subject, told the Royal\nCommission (Minutes, 908), \"I do not think that the use of drugs on\nanimals can be taken as a guide to the doses or to the action of the\nsame drugs on the human subjects.\" As to the discovery of antidotes to\npoison, the only man who seems on the verge of any success is the\nbrave and noble fellow who has been trying such experiments not on\nanimals but on himself.\n\nIn conclusion, I must add one word on Dr. Pye-Smith's last sentence,\nnamely, \"that legislation against vivisection is injurious to the best\ninterests of the community.\" Sir, I know not what vivisectors deem to\nbe the best interests of the community. For my part I do not reckon\nthem to be the influence of drugs, nor yet susceptible of being carved\nout with surgical instruments. I do not think that they consist in\nescape from physical pain, nor even in the prolongation for a few\nyears of our little earthly life. I hold that the best interests of\nthe community are the moral and immortal interests of every soul in\nsuch community, namely, the conquest of selfishness, cowardice, and\ncruelty, and the development of the god-like sense of justice and\nlove--the growth of the divinest thing in human nature, the faculty of\nsympathizing with the joys and sorrows of all God's creatures.\nBelieving these to be \"the best interests of the community,\" I ask,\nwithout hesitation, for the suppression of this abominable trade,\nwhich can best be described as \"Pitilessness practised as a\nprofession.\" If vivisection be indeed the true method of studying\nphysiology, if physiology cannot be advanced except by vivisection,\nif chemical observation and microscopic research be useless for the\npurpose, and nothing but the torture of animals and the demoralization\nof men will suffice for its progress--then, in God's name, I say, let\nphysiology stop at the point it has reached, even till the day of\ndoom.--I am, Sir, with apologies for the length of this letter, yours,\netc.\n\n                                         FRANCES POWER COBBE\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCertainly, as regards the ethics of vivisection, nothing more eloquent\nhas ever been written than this closing paragraph.\n\nIn a letter to the London TIMES in December, 1884, Miss Cobbe writes\nas follows:\n\nTO THE EDITOR.\n\nSIR,--In your article on this subject on Saturday last you called upon\nthe opponents of vivisection to answer certain questions. As I have\nbeen intrusted for many years with the hon. secretaryship of the\nleading anti-vivisectionist society, I beg to offer you the following\nreplies to those questions:--\n\nYou ask first, Do we \"deny that vivisection is capable of yielding\nknowledge of service to man?\" We are not so rash as to deny that any\npractice, even the most immoral conceivable, might possibly yield\nknowledge of service to man; and, in particular, we do not deny that\nthe vivisection of human beings by the surgeons of classic times, and\nagain by the great anatomists of Italy in the 15th century, may very\npossibly have yielded knowledge to man, and be capable, if revived, of\nyielding still more. We have, however, for a long time back called on\nthe advocates of the vivisection of dogs, monkeys, &c., to furnish\nevidence of the beneficial results of their work, not as setting at\nrest the question of its morality, but as an indispensable preliminary\nto justify them in coming into the court of public opinion as\ndefendants of a practice obviously (as the Royal Commissioners\nreported) \"liable from its very nature to great abuse.\"\n\nWe must be excused if we now hold it to be demonstrated that, whether\nvivisection be or be not \"capable of yielding useful knowledge,\" it\ncertainly yields only a scanty crop of it. Were there anything like an\nabundant harvest, such a sample as this would not have been produced\nwith so much pomp for public scrutiny. In short, we think with Dr.\nLeffingwell that, \"if pain could be measured by money, there is no\nmining company in the world which would sanction prospecting in such\nbarren regions.\"\n\nYou ask us, Sir, secondly, \"Do we affirm that the benefit of mankind\nis not an adequate or sufficient justification for the infliction of\npain on animals?\" We have two answers to this question.\n\nAssuming that by vivisection benefits might be obtained for human\nbodies, we hold that the evil results of the practice on human minds\nwould more than counterbalance any such benefits. The cowardice and\npitilessness involved in tying down a dog on a table and slowly\nmangling its brain, its eyes, its entrails; the sin committed against\nlove and fidelity themselves when a creature capable of dying of grief\non his master's grave is dealt with as a mere parcel of material\ntissues, \"valuable for purposes of research\"--these are basenesses for\nwhich no physical advantages would compensate, and the prevalence of\nsuch a heart-hardening process among our young men would, we are\nconvinced, detract more from the moral interests of our nation than a\nthousand cases of recovery from disease would serve those of a lower\nkind. Even life itself ought not to be saved by such methods, any more\nthan by the cannibalism of the men of the \"Mignonette.\"\n\nOur second answer is yet more brief. We do not \"deny that the benefit\nof man is a sufficient justification for inflicting pain upon\nanimals,\" provided that pain is kept within moderate bounds, nor yet\nto taking life from them in a quick and careful manner. But we do deny\nthe right of man to inflict torture upon brutes, and thus convert\ntheir lives from a blessing into a curse. Such torture has been\ninflicted upon tens of thousands of animals by vivisection; and no\nlegislation that ingenuity can devise will, we believe, suffice to\nguard against the repetition of it so long as it is sanctioned in any\nway as a method of research. The use of vivisection--if it have any\nuse--is practically inseparable from abuse. We therefore call upon our\ncountrymen to forego the poor bribes of possible use which are offered\nto them, and of which we have now seen a \"unique and impressive\"\nexample, and generously and manfully to say of vivisection as they\nonce said of slavery \"We will have none of it.\"\n\n                        I am, Sir, yours, etc.,\n                                        FRANCES POWER COBBE.\n\n  Hengwrt, Dolgelly, Dec. 28, 1884.\n\n\nII.\n\n[_Report of American Anti-vivisection Society, Jan. 1888._]\n\n\"There remain two grounds to adopt: one the total abolition of all\nexperiments; the other the total abolition of all _painful_\nexperiments. This latter position, which is the one that Dr. Bigelow\nof Boston and Dr. Leffingwell have assumed, has engaged our attention\nfor a long time; but, after bestowing upon it careful consideration,\nwe feel that we must give it up as impracticable. To secure immunity\nfrom pain there must be absolutely perfect anaesthesia. This can be\nonly obtained in two ways: one is by trusting to the experimenter\nhimself to give sufficient of the anaesthetic; the other to insist that\nan assistant shall be present for the express purpose of keeping the\nanimal under perfect anaesthesia. Now is it anyway likely that either\nof these conditions would be observed?\"\n\n\nIII.\n\n[_From the \"Therapeutic Gazette,\" Detroit, Aug., 1880._]\n\n\"Vivisection is grossly abused in the United States. * * We would add\nour condemnation of the ruthless barbarity which is every winter\nperpetrated in the Medical Schools of this country. History records\nsome frightful atrocities perpetrated in the name of Religion; but it\nhas remained for the enlightenment and humaneness of this century to\nstultify themselves by tolerating the abuses of the average\nphysiological laboratory--all conducted in the name of Science. There\nis only one way to progress in Therapeutics; and that is by clinical\nobservation; the noting of the action of individual drugs under\nparticular diseased conditions. He who has the largest practice and is\nthe keenest observer, and the most systematic recorder of what he\nsees, does the most to advance Medicine.\"\n\n\nIV.\n\n[_From editorial in \"The Spectator,\" London, July 17, 1880._]\n\n\"A memorial for the absolute abolition of vivisection has been\npresented to Mr. Gladstone with a great many most influential\nsignatures attached. For our own part, were the experiments on the\ninoculation of animal diseases excepted,--experiments which, we\nventure to say, have sometimes proved of the greatest value to animals\nthemselves,--we should, on the whole, be content to go with the\nabolitionists, not because we think all experiments, especially when\nconducted under strict anaesthetics, wrong, but because when they are\npermitted at all it is so extremely difficult to enforce properly and\nfully humane conditions. Dr. A. Leffingwell has sufficiently shown in\nthe able paper in the July _Scribner's Magazine_, how extremely few\nremedies of value have resulted from this awfully costly expenditure\nof anguish. 'If pain could be estimated in money' he justly says,\n'no corporation would be satisfied with such a waste of capital.'\nTake, as the single illustration of this most weighty sentence,\nDr. Leffingwell's statement that what the late Dr. Sharpey called\n'Magendie's infamous experiment' on the stomach of the dog, has\nbeen repeated 200 times without establishing to the satisfaction of\nscientific physiologists the theory for which that act of wickedness\nwas first committed. No wonder the society for the Protection of\nAnimals from Vivisection goes to extremes.\"\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES\n\n1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.\n\n2. Footnotes have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the\nclosest paragraph break.\n\n3. Some obvious punctuation errors in the text have been silently\ncorrected, for example, missing period at a paragraph end, etc.\n\n4. The following misprints have been corrected:\n     \"sufering\" corrected to \"suffering\" (page 14)\n     \"anaethetics\" corrected to \"anaesthetics\" (page 48)\n\n5. Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies\nin spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained.","title":"Vivisection","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":15620}