diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20222.txt | 12549 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20222.zip | bin | 0 -> 261456 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
5 files changed, 12565 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/20222.txt b/20222.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fd5b9aa --- /dev/null +++ b/20222.txt @@ -0,0 +1,12549 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, An Ethical Problem, by Albert Leffingwell + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: An Ethical Problem + Or, Sidelights upon Scientific Experimentation on Man and Animals + + +Author: Albert Leffingwell + + + +Release Date: December 29, 2006 [eBook #20222] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ETHICAL PROBLEM*** + + + An Ethical Problem + + + By the Same Author + +RAMBLES IN JAPAN WITHOUT A GUIDE. London, 1892 + +ILLEGITIMACY, and + +THE INFLUENCE OF SEASONS UPON CONDUCT. London and New York, 1893 + +VIVISECTION IN AMERICA. New York, 1895 + +THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. New York, 1901 + +THE MORALITY OF LONDON. London, 1908 + +THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. London, 1908 + +AMERICAN MEAT. London and New York, 1910 + + + + AN ETHICAL PROBLEM + + OR + + SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN AND ANIMALS + + BY + + ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. + + LATE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION + AUTHOR OF "THE VIVISECTION QUESTION," ETC. + + SECOND EDITION, REVISED + + LONDON + G. BELL AND SONS, LTD. + + NEW YORK + C.P. FARREL, 117 EAST 21st STREET + + 1916 + + + PREFACE + +The position taken by the writer of this volume should be clearly +understood. It is not the view known as antivivisection, so far as +this means the condemnation without exception of all phases of +biological investigation. There are methods of research which involve +no animal suffering, and which are of scientific utility. Within +certain careful limitations, these would seem justifiable. For nearly +forty years, the writer has occupied the position which half a century +ago was generally held by a majority of the medical profession in +England, and possibly in America, a position maintained in recent +years by such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson of England, by +Professor William James and Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard +University. With the present ideals of the modern physiological +laboratory, so far as they favour the practice of vivisection in +secrecy and without legal regulation, the writer has no sympathy +whatsoever. + +An ethical problem exists. It concerns not the prevention of all +experimentation upon animals, but rather the abolition of its cruelty, +its secrecy, its abuse. + +Written at various times during a period extending over several years, +a critic will undoubtedly discover instances of repetition and +re-statement. Now and then, it has seemed advisable to include matter +from earlier writings, long out of print; and new light has been +thrown upon some phases of a perplexing problem. Will it tend to +induce conviction of the need for reform? Assuredly, this is not to +be expected where there is disagreement regarding certain basic +principles. First of all, there must be some common ground. No +agreement regarding vivisection can be anticipated or desired with any +man who holds that some vague and uncertain addition to the sum total +of knowledge would justify experiments made upon dying children in a +hospital, without regard to their personal benefit, or sanction the +infliction of any degree of agony upon animals in a laboratory. + +A liking for the use of italics as a means of directing attention to +certain statements is confessed. But wherever such italicized phrases +appear in quotations, the reader should ascribe the emphasis to the +writer, and not to the original authority. + +The inculcation of scepticism regarding much that is put forth in +justification of unlimited research is admitted. It seems to the +writer that anyone who has become interested in the question would +more wisely approach it with a tendency toward doubt than toward +implicit belief; to doubt, however, that leads one directly to +investigation. We need to remember, however, that inaccuracy by no +means connotes inveracity. There is here no imputation against the +honesty of any writer, even when carelessness, exaggeration and +inaccuracy are not only alleged, but demonstrated to exist. + A. L. + Aurora, N.Y., + 1914 + + --------- + + PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION + +Another edition of this work being called for, the opportunity for one +or two emendations is afforded. + +In the first chapter of the present work, reference is made to the +antivivisection societies of England, and, relying upon evidence given +before the Royal Commission in 1906, one of them is mentioned as the +"principal organization." The relative standing or strength of the +different societies at the present time would appear not to be +determined or easily determinable, and, of course, what was fact in +1906 may not be at all true ten years later. The matter would seem to +be of little importance as compared with the greater questions +pertaining to reform; but in the interest of accuracy the author would +now prefer to make no pronouncement concerning the relative rank of +the English societies, leaving decision as to precedence to those who +give them financial support. + +Though the first edition of the present work was quite large, yet no +challenge of the accuracy of any of its statements concerning +experimentation upon human beings or animals has yet appeared. To +hope for absolute accuracy in a work of this character may be +impossible; yet that ideal has been constantly before the writer. +Should any errors of the kind be discovered to exist in the present +edition, their indication is sincerely desired. + +In the chapter "Unfair Methods of Controversy" some illustrative cases +were given without mention, now and then, of the persons criticized. +It seemed to the writer that in certain instances it should be quite +sufficient to point out and to condemn inaccuracies and errors +without bringing upon the record every individual name. No +misunderstanding could possibly exist, since the references were ample +in every case. But since this reticence, in at least one instance, +has been criticized by an unfriendly reviewer, it is perhaps better to +state that the repeated allusions to Lord Lister's journeyings to +France, and the article in Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, were from +the pen of the author of Animal Experimentation--a work which is +reviewed in the Appendix to the present edition. To his advanced +age--now far beyond the allotted span--we may ascribe the inaccuracies +which, at an earlier period of his career, would doubtless have been +recognized. + + A. L. + + CONTENTS + +CHAPTER PAGE + INTRODUCTION - - - - - xi + + I. WHAT IS VIVISECTION? - - - - 1 + II. ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS - - 12 + III. AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIVISECTOR - - - 22 + IV. MAGENDIE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES - - - 29 + V. A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE - - - - 47 + VI. IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY? - - 57 + VII. THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION - - - 66 + VIII. ATTAINMENT OF REGULATION IN ENGLAND - - 88 + IX. A GREAT PROTESTANT - - - - 113 + X. THE VIVISECTION REPORT OF 1912 - - - 127 + XI. THE ANAESTHETIC DELUSION - - - 149 + XII. THE VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY - - - 162 + XIII. WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM? - - - 196 + XIV. THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES - - - 216 + XV. UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY - - - 228 + XVI. RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION - - - 254 + XVII. THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION - - - 276 +XVIII. THE FINAL PHASE: EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN - 289 + XIX. CONCLUSION - - - - - 326 + + APPENDIXES - - - - 333-364C + INDEX - - - - 365-369 + PRESS NOTICES - - - - 371-374 + + + INTRODUCTION + +It is now somewhat over a third of a century since my attention was +specially directed to the abuses of animal experimentation. In +January, 1880, a paragraph appeared in a morning paper of New York +referring to the late Henry Bergh. With his approval a Bill had come +before the legislature of the State of New York providing for the +abolition of all experiments upon living animals--whether in medical +colleges or elsewhere--on the ground that they were without benefit to +anybody, and demoralizing alike to the teacher and student. As I +dropped the paper, it occurred to me that the chances of success would +have been far greater if less had been asked. That certain +vivisections were atrocious was undoubtedly true; but, on the other +hand, there were some experiments that were absolutely painless. +Would it not be wiser to make some distinctions? + +The attempt was made. An article on the subject was at once begun, +and in July of the same year it was published in Scribner's Magazine, +the predecessor of the Century. So far as known, it was the first +argument that ever found expression in the pages of any American +periodical favouring not the entire abolition of vivisection, but the +reform of its abuse. + +My knowledge of vivisection had its beginning in personal +experience. Nearly forty years ago, while teaching the elements of +physiology at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, it occurred to me +to illustrate the statements of textbooks by a repetition of such +simple experiments as had come before my own eyes. Most of my +demonstrations were illustrative of commonplace physiological +phenomena: chloroform was freely used to secure unconsciousness of the +animal, and with the exception of one or two demonstrations, the +avoidance of pain or distress was almost certainly accomplished. + +But what especially impressed me at the time was the extraordinary +interest which these experiments seemed to excite. Students from +advanced classes in the institute were often spectators and voluntary +assistants. Of the utility of such demonstrations as a means of +fixing facts in memory, I could not have the slightest doubt. Nor as +regards the rightfulness of vivisection as a method either of study or +demonstration, was there at that period any question in my mind. +Whatever Science desired, it seemed to me only proper that Science +should have. The fact that certain demonstrations or experiments upon +living animals had already been condemned as unjustifiable cruelty by +the leading men in the medical profession, and by some of the +principal medical journals of England, was then as utterly unknown to +me as the same facts are to-day unknown to the average graduate of +every medical school in the United States. It was not long until +after this early experience, and following acquaintance with the +practice in Europe as well as at home, that doubts arose regarding the +justice of CAUSING PAIN TO ILLUSTRATE FACTS ALREADY KNOWN. These +doubts became convictions, and were stated in my first contribution to +the literature of the subject, the paper in Scribner's. It is not the +position of what is called "antivivisection," for that implies +condemnation of every phase of animal experimentation. In the third +of a century that has elapsed since this protest was made, the +practice of vivisection has taken vast strides: it appears in new +shapes and unanticipated environment. But the old abuses have not +disappeared, and some of them, more urgently than ever before, demand +the attention of thinking men and women. + +Of personal contributions to the literature of the subject, during the +past third of a century, nearly everything has been more or less +polemical, called forth by either exaggeration of utility, inaccuracy +of assertion, or misstatement of fact. Now it has been protest +against the brilliant correspondent of a New York newspaper, who +telegraphed from London an account of a visit to a well-known +physiological laboratory, where he found animals all "fat, cheerful, +and jolly," yet "quite unaffected by the removal of a spinal cord"--as +sensible a statement as if he had referred to their jolly condition +"after removal of their heads." Now it has been the manifesto of +professors in a medical school declaring that in the institution to +which they belonged no painful experiments had been performed--an +assertion abundantly contradicted by their own publications. Now it +is a Surgeon-General of the Army, defending one of the most cruel of +vivisections in which he was not in any way concerned, by an +exposition of ignorance regarding the elements of physiology; and, +again, it has been a President of a medical association, making a +speech, wherein hardly a sentence was not stamped with inaccuracy and +ignorance. To some natures controversy is exhilarating; to myself it +is beyond expression distasteful. Yet, when confronted by false +affirmations, what is one's duty? To say nothing? To permit the +untruth to march triumphantly on its way? Or, in the interest of +Science herself, should not one attempt the exposure of inaccuracy, +and the demonstration of the truth? + +Approaching the end of a long pilgrimage, it has seemed to me worth +while to make a final survey of the great question of our time. How +was the cruelty of vivisection once regarded by the leading members of +the medical profession? Shall we say to-day that the utility of +torment, in the vivisection of animals, constitutes perfect +justification and defence? How far did Civilization once go in the +approval of torture because of its imagined deterrent effects? + +What has been accomplished by the agitation concerning vivisection +which has persisted for the last forty years? Has the battlefield been +well selected? Have demands of reformers been wisely formulated? Is +public opinion to-day inclined to be any more favourable to the legal +abolition of all scientific experimentation upon animals than it was a +third of a century ago? + +What has been the result of vivisection in America, unrestricted and +unrestrained? Has it accomplished anything for the human race that +might not have been accomplished under conditions whereby cruelty +should be impossible except as a crime? Has the death-rate been +reduced by new discoveries made in American laboratories? Is it +possible that utility is persistently exaggerated by those who are not +unwilling to use exaggeration as a means of defence? And of the +Future, what are the probabilities for which we may hope? What is +being done in our century in the way of submitting animals to +unlimited torture? + +To throw somewhat of light on these questions is the object of this +volume. I wish it had been in my power to write a more extended and +complete exposition of the problem, but limitations of strength, due +to advancing age, have made that hope impracticable. But as one man +drops the torch, another hand will grasp it; and where now is darkness +and secrecy, there will one day be knowledge and light. + + + AN ETHICAL PROBLEM + + CHAPTER I + + WHAT IS VIVISECTION? + +Upon no ethical problem of our generation is the public sentiment of +to-day more uncertain and confused than in its attitude toward +vivisection. Why this uncertainty exists it is not very difficult to +discern. In the first place, no definition of the word itself has +been suggested and adopted sufficiently concise and yet so +comprehensive as to include every phase of animal experimentation. It +is a secret practice. Formerly more or less public, it is now carried +on in closed laboratories, with every possible precaution against the +disclosure of anything liable to criticism. Quite apart from any +questions of usefulness, it is a pursuit involving problems of the +utmost fascination for the investigating mind--questions pertaining to +Life and Death--the deepest mysteries which can engage the intellect +of mankind. We find it made especially attractive to young men at +that period of life when their encouraged and cultivated enthusiasm +for experimentation is not liable to be adequately controlled by any +deep consideration for the "material" upon which they work. Sometimes +animal experimentation is painless, and sometimes it involves +suffering which may vary in degree from distress which is slight to +torments which a great surgeon has compared to burning alive, "the +utmost degree of prolonged and excruciating agony." By some, its +utility to humanity is constantly asserted, and by others as earnestly +and emphatically and categorically denied. Confronted by +contradictory assertions of antagonists and defenders, how is the +average man to make up his mind? Both opinions, he reasons, cannot +possibly be true, and he generally ranges himself under the banner of +the Laboratory or of its enemies, according to his degree of +confidence in their assertions, or his preference for the ideals which +they represent. + +Now, the object of all controversy should be to enable us to see facts +as they are--to get at the truth. That difference of opinion will +exist may be inevitable; for opinions largely depend upon our ideals, +and these of no two individuals are precisely the same. But so far as +facts are concerned, we should be able to make some approach to +agreement, and especially as regards the ethical supremacy of certain +ideals. + +But first of all we need to define Vivisection. What is it? + +Originally implying merely the cutting of a living animal in way of +experiment, it has come by general consent to include all scientific +investigations upon animals whatsoever, even when such researches or +demonstrations involve no cutting operation of any kind. It has been +authoritatively defined as "experiments upon animals calculated to +cause pain." But this would seem to exclude all experimentation of a +kind which is not calculated to cause pain; experiments regarding +which all the "calculation" is to avoid pain; as, for example, an +experiment made to determine the exact quantity of chloroform +necessary to produce death without return of consciousness. The +British Royal Commission of 1875 defined it as "the practice of +subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes," +avoiding any reference to the infliction of pain; yet, so far as +pertains to the justification of vivisection, the whole controversy +may turn on that. Any complete definition should at least contain +reference to those investigations to which little or no objection +would be raised, were they not part of the "system." It should not +omit reference, also, to those refinements of pain-infliction for +inadequate purposes--also a part of a "system," and which, to very +distinguished leaders in the medical profession, have seemed to be +inexcusable and wrong. + +Suppose, then, we attempt a definition that shall be inclusive of all +phases of the practice. + +"Vivisection is the exploitation of living animals for experiments +concerning the phenomena of life. Such experiments are made, FIRST, +for the demonstration, before students, of facts already known and +established; or, SECOND, as a method of investigation of some theory +or problem, which may be with or without relation to the treatment of +human ailments. Such experiments may range from procedures which are +practically painless, to those involving distress, exhaustion, +starvation, baking, burning, suffocation, poisoning, inoculation with +disease, every kind of mutilation, and long-protracted agony and +death." + +A definition of this kind will cover 99 per cent. of all experiments. +The extreme pro-vivisectionist may protest that the definition brings +into prominence the more painful operations; yet for the majority of +us the only ground for challenging the practice at all is the pain, +amounting to torment in some cases, which vivisection may involve. +They are rare, some one says. But how do we know? The doors of the +laboratory are closed. Of practices secretly carried on, what can we +know? That every form of imaginable torment has at some time been +practised in the name of Science, we may learn from the reports of +experimenters themselves, and from the writings of men who have +denounced them. It was Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, of Harvard University, +the most eminent surgeon of his day, who declared that vivisection +sometimes meant the infliction of "the severest conceivable pain, of +indefinite duration," and that it was "a torture of helpless animals, +more terrible, by reason of its refinement, than burning at the +stake." Is the above definition of vivisection stronger than is +implied by this assertion of Dr. Bigelow? + +We need constantly to remember that vivisection is by no means a +simple act. It may indicate investigations that require no cutting +operation of any kind, and the infliction of no pain; or, on the other +hand, it may denote operations that involve complicated and severe +mutilations, and torments as prolonged and exquisite as human +imagination can conceive. Experiments may be made, in course of +researches, of very great interest and importance to medical science; +and, on the contrary, they may be performed merely to demonstrate +phenomena about which there is no doubt, or to impress on the memory of +a student some well-known fact. They may be performed by men like Sir +Charles Bell, who hesitated to confirm one of the greatest +physiological discoveries of the last century, merely because it would +imply a repetition of painful experiments; and they may be done by men +like Magendie, who declared of his mutilated and tormented victims, +that it was "DROLL to see them skip and jump about." It is because of +all these differences that the majority of men have an indefinite +conception of what they approve or condemn. The advocate of +unrestricted vivisection sometimes tells us that experimentation +implies no more pain than the prick of a pin, and that its results are +of great utility to the human race; the antivivisectionist, on the +other hand, may insist that such experimentation means inconceivable +torment without the slightest conceivable benefit to mankind. Both +are right in the occasional significance of the word. Both are wrong +if one meaning is to answer for all varieties of experimentation upon +living things. + +Some years ago the attempt was made to obtain the view of animal +experimentation held by certain classes of intelligent men and women. +One view of the practice is that which regards it merely as a method +of scientific research, with which morality has no more to do than it +would have in determining in what direction a telescope should be +pointed by an astronomer, or what rocks a geologist should not venture +to touch. A statement embodying the views of those who favour +unrestricted vivisection included affirmations like these: + +"Vivisection, or experimentation upon living creatures, must be looked +at simply as a method of studying the phenomena of life. With it, +morality has nothing to do. It should be subject neither to +criticism, supervision, nor restrictions of any kind. It may be used +to any extent desired by any experimenter--no matter what degree of +extreme or prolonged pain it may involve--for demonstration before +students of the statements contained in their textbooks, as an aid to +memory,....or for any conceivable purpose of investigation into vital +phenomena.... While we claim many discoveries of value,....yet even +these we regard as of secondary importance to the freedom of unlimited +research." + +This is the meaning of free and unrestricted vivisection. Its +plainness of speech did not deter very distinguished physiologists and +others from signing it as the expression of their views. One can +hardly doubt that it represents the view of the physiological +laboratory at the present day. Sixty years ago this view of +vivisection would have found but few adherents in England or America; +to-day it is probably the tacit opinion of a majority of the medical +profession in either land. One may question whether any similar +change of sentiment in a direction contrary to reform has ever +appeared since Civilization began. We shall endeavor to show, +hereafter, to what that change is due. + +Absolutely opposed to this sentiment are the principles of what is +known as "antivivisection." According to this view, all vivisection is +an immoral infringement upon the rights of animals. The cruelties +that accompany research will always accompany it, until all scientific +experimentation upon animals is made a criminal offence. From a +statement of opinion giving expression to this view, the following +sentences are taken: + +"All experimentation upon living animals we consider unnecessary, +unjustifiable, and morally wrong.... Even if utility could be proved, +man has no right to attempt to benefit himself at the cost of injury, +pain, or disease to the lower animals. The injury which the practice +of vivisection causes to the moral sense of the individual and to +humanity far outweighs any possible benefit that could be derived from +it. Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Professor in the Medical School of Harvard +University, declared that `vivisection deadens the humanity of the +students.' Nothing which thus lowers morality can be a necessity to +progress.... Painless or painful, useless or useful, however severe or +however slight, vivisection is a practice so linked with cruelty and +so pernicious in tendency, THAT ANY REFORM IS IMPOSSIBLE, and it +should be absolutely prohibited by law for any purpose." + +This is antivivisection. It is a view of the practice which has +seemed reasonable to large numbers of earnest men and women whose +lives in various directions have been devoted to the prevention of all +kinds of cruelty, and to the promotion of the best interests of the +race. When this view is maintained by men and women who oppose the +killing of animals for purposes of food or raiment or adornment, or +their exploitation in any way which demands extinction of life, it is +entirely consistent with high ideals. It is against this view that +the arguments of those who contend for vivisection, without +restriction or restraint, are always directed. + +But even among antivivisectionists there are, naturally, differences +of opinion. For instance, the National Antivivisection Society, the +principal organization of England, desires to see vivisection totally +abolished by law; but, meanwhile, it will strive for and accept any +measures that have for their object the amelioration of the condition +of vivisected animals. On the other hand, the British Union for the +Total Abolition of Vivisection will accept nothing less than the legal +condemnation of every phase of such experiments. "Vivisection," the +secretary of this society writes, "is a system, and not a number of +isolated acts to be considered separately. Owing to its intricate and +interdependent character and the international competition involved, +USE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM ABUSE." In other words, every conceivable +phase of scientific experimentation upon living creatures, even if +absolutely painless, should be made a legal offence. + +But we are not driven to accept one or the other of these definitions +of animal experimentation. A third view of vivisection exists, which +differs widely from either of these opposing ideals. Instead of +taking the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific +investigations involving the use of animals, should be legally +prohibited, it maintains that distinctions may, and should, be drawn, +and that only the abuses of vivisection should be condemned by law. +It asks society neither to approve of everything, nor to condemn +everything, but to draw a line between experiments that, by reason of +utility and painlessness, are entirely permissible, and others which +ought assuredly to be condemned. It makes no protest against +experimentation involving the death of an animal where it is certain +that consciousness of pain has been abolished by anaesthetics; but it +condemns absolutely the exhibition of agony as an easy method of +teaching well-known facts. The utility of certain experiments it does +not question; but even increase of knowledge may sometimes be +purchased at too high a price. From a statement of this position +regarding vivisection, drawn some years since, the following sentences +may be of interest: + +"Vivisection is a practice of such variety and complexity, that, like +warfare between nations, one can neither condemn it nor approve it, +unless some careful distinctions be first laid down.... Within certain +limitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to +be legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond these boundaries, it is +cruel, monstrous, and wrong.... We believe, therefore, that the common +interests of humanity and science demand that vivisection, like the +study of human anatomy in the dissecting-room, should be brought under +the direct supervision and control of the State. The practice, +whether in public or in private, should be restricted by law to +certain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard +against license or abuse." + +This is a statement of what is meant by vivisection reform. Every +unprejudiced mind can see at once that it is not the same as +antivivisection. Is it the enemy of science? The leading name affixed +to this declaration of principles was that of the late Herbert +Spencer, the chief apostle of modern science. Is it against the +interests of education? It was signed by eleven presidents of American +universities and colleges, and by a large number of men closely +connected with institutions of learning. Is it antagonistic to +medical science and art? The statement received the endorsement of +twice as many physicians and surgeons as were favourable to +experimentation upon animals without any restriction or restraint; and +among these physicians favourable to reform were men of national +reputation. No one should expect that men whose sole profession is +experimentation of this character would approve of any limitations to +their activity in any direction; but they constitute only a small +fraction of human society. Outside their ranks we may be confident +that there are very few, at all acquainted with the subject, who will +not concede that in the past many things have been done in this +exploitation of animal life which are greatly to be deplored. Is +there, then, no method of prevention? Are we simply to fold our hands +and trust that the humaner instincts of the present-day vivisector, +working in the seclusion of his private laboratory, will keep him free +from all that we regret in the vivisection of the past? Or must we, on +the other hand, ask for the total condemnation of every experiment, +because some are cruel and atrocious? + +This is the platform of the Restrictionist. It cannot--except by +perversion of truth--be regarded as antivivisection, for there is not +a single society in England or America, devoted to the interests of +that cause, which would acknowledge these views as in any way +representative of its ideals; but it is the expression of sentiments +which formerly were almost universally held by the medical profession +of England. Yet the advocates of unrestricted vivisection have never +been willing to consider this position, and, in controversy, +invariable fall back upon arguments applicable only to the views of +those who would abolish vivisection altogether. + +There is yet another position to be taken; it is the attitude of +unconcern. From vast numbers nothing better can be expected. The man +who is utterly indifferent to the unnecessary agony accompanying the +slaughter of animals for food, or to the cruelties of sport, or the +woman whose vanity demands sacrifices of animals at the cost of +incalculable suffering, will take little or no interest in the +question of vivisections; nor is complicity with other phases of +torment and cruelty alone responsible for the indifference which so +generally exists. In every age, from the twilight of earliest savagery +down to the present time, the vast majority of human beings have been +inclined, not to doubt, but to believe, and especially to believe +those who claimed superior knowledge in matters of Life and Death. +This tendency to unquestioning faith has been the support of every +phase of injustice, of cruelty, and of wrong. It has led to +innumerable men and women of education and refinement to remit all +questions of animal experimentation to the vivisector and his friends, +precisely as they would have done had they lived three centuries ago, +and had it been theirs to decide on the morality of burning a witch. +On the other hand, the alliance between the laboratory and the medical +profession, their mutual endeavour to stifle criticism and to induce +approval of all vivisection whatever, has given rise to a new spirit +of inquiry. A moral question is never absolutely decided until it is +decided aright. If the problem of vivisection is ever settled, it +will be due, not to the influence of those who advocate unquestioning +faith in the humaneness of the average experimenter, who decline +inquiry, and who rest satisfied with their ignorance, but rather to +those who, having investigated the question for themselves, have given +all their influence for some measure of reform. In questions of +humanity, even the unwisdom of enthusiasm that tends toward reform is +far better than indifference and unconcern. + +The ignorance of history, shown often by the advocates of unlimited +vivisection, is a singular phenomenon. The beginnings of this +controversy are not without interest. Let us glance at them. + + CHAPTER II + + ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS + +Every reflecting student of history is struck by the divergence of +opinions manifest among educated men in regard to the great problems +of life. Why is it that so few of us are able to state the facts and +arguments which favour conclusions to which we are utterly opposed? +Take, for instance, the great question of religious belief. Can one +refer to any Protestant writer of our time who has placed before his +readers the arguments which inclined men like Newman or Manning to the +Catholic faith? Has any Catholic writer of our time been able to +present fairly the arguments which seem so overwhelmingly convincing +to Protestant thinkers? In either case, is there not something of +distortion or exaggeration? Certainly it cannot be due to intentional +and perverse obliquity of mental vision. As a rule reasonable men +endeavour to be just and fair. Now and then, in the heat of +controversy, a tendency to overstatement or exaggeration may be +evident, especially where great issues appear to be involved; but +the purpose can be reconciled with honesty. Is it not more than +probable that the principal reason for divergent views on the part of +honest opponents is IGNORANCE OF FACTS? + +Take, for example, the opinion held to-day by the great majority of +young physicians concerning animal experimentation. As a rule they +regard all criticism of vivisection with infinite contempt. During +their medical studies they were continually imbued with the idea that +the opposition to laboratory freedom of experimentation was an +agitation of comparatively recent date, and confined to a small class +of unthinking sentimentalists. Of that strong protest against cruel +experiments which made itself heard more during more than a century, +and of the atrocities which led to that protest, the average physician +of to-day knows nothing whatever. Plunged into the practice of a +profession which may absorb every moment of time, he has perhaps +neither leisure to investigate nor disposition to doubt whatever he +has been told. + +Now, if the average student of medicine is thus ignorant of history, +is it not because those who have taught him were equally devoid of +knowledge of the facts? Of the history of the vivisection controversy +previous to 1875, some of the most distinguished men in the medical +profession have proved themselves profoundly ignorant. Illustrations +of this lack of information might be almost indefinitely adduced, but +I propose to bring forward only a few instances typical of their kind. + +On June 10, 1896, Dr. Henry P. Bowditch, then professor of physiology +in Harvard Medical School, delivered an address on vivisection before +the Massachusetts Medical Society. The character of his audience, and +the profession of the speaker, might be presumed to give assurance of +absolute accuracy concerning any question of historic fact. A quarter +century before, Dr. Bowditch had studied physiology in German +laboratories Returning to America in 1871, he had been given the +opportunity of reorganizing the teaching of physiology at Harvard +Medical School, so as to bring it into conformity with Continental +methods. It is quite probable that to him, more than to any other +person, is due the introduction of Continental methods of +physiological instruction in the medical colleges of the United +States. + +According to Dr. Bowditch, the criticism of vivisection in England +began in 1864. To his audience of physicians he made the following +statement: + +"The first serious attack upon biological research in England seems to +have been made in an essay entitled `Vivisection: is it Necessary or +Justifiable?' published in London in 1864, by George Fleming, a +British veterinary surgeon. This essay is an important one, for +although characterized at the time by a reviewer in the London +Athenaeum as `ignorant, fallacious, and altogether unworthy of +acceptance,' its blood-curdling stories, applied to all sorts of +institutions, have formed a large part of the stock-in-trade of +subsequent vivisection writers." + +The sneering reference to "blood-curdling stories" is of itself +extremely significant. It indicates unmistakably the utter contempt +which nearly every physiologist feels for the sentiment of humaneness +which underlies protest against experimental cruelty. The speaker +omitted to tell his audience that this essay of Dr. Fleming received +the first prize offered by the "Royal Society for the Prevention of +Cruelty to Animals," and that the Committee which decided the merits +of the essay included some of the most eminent scientific men of +England, among them Sir Richard Owen and Professor Carpenter--the +latter one of the most distinguished of English physiologists of his +time. He forgot to add that if the examples of atrocious vivisection +given in this essay were horrible--as they were--yet every instance +was substantiated by reference to the original authorities, and that +their accurate quotation could not be impugned. Especially curious is +the fact that Professor Bowditch placed the beginning of criticism at +1864. Of the arraignment of cruel vivisections by English physicians +and English medical journals before that time, Dr. Bowditch apparently +never heard, and all the infamous atrocities which they condemned he +dismissed with a sneer as "blood-curdling stories." Yet, in his day, +the speaker was one of the leading physiologists of the United +States. We cannot believe that the suppression of material facts was +intentional; it was due rather to complete ignorance of the history of +that protest against physiological cruelty which England witnessed +during the first part of the nineteenth century, and of which some +account shall follow. + +Take another instance. In the International Journal of Ethics for +April, 1904, there appeared an article in defence of animal +experimentation by Professor Charles S. Myers of the University of +Cambridge, England. Of any abuses of the practice, Dr. Myers gave his +readers no reason for believing that he had ever heard; and as an +indication, perhaps, of an animal's eagerness to be vivisected, he +tells us that "again and again dogs have been observed to wag the tail +and lick the hands of the operator even immediately before the +beginning of the operation." Commenting upon the singular conclusion +which this fact seemed to suggest to Dr. Myers, the present writer +quoted a sentence or two from an editorial which once appeared in the +columns of the London Lancet.[1] It would apparently seem that +Dr. Myers brought the quotation to the attention of someone in the +editorial office of the Lancet, on whose judgment he thought he might +safely rely; for, in a reply, he refers to it as a quotation +"attributed to the editor of the Lancet, which, AFTER SPECIAL INQUIRY, +I HAVE REASON FOR DOUBTING." Concerning a reference to some of +Dr. Sydney Ringer's experiments upon patients in a London hospital, he +is even more confident that they could never have occurred, and +indignantly rejoins, "I unhesitatingly declare SUCH ABOMINABLE +ACCUSATIONS TO BE FALSE." + +[1] See p. 73 for this Lancet editorial. + +Now, all this indignant scepticism was rather creditable to the +writer's heart. That an English medical journal like the Lancet +should denounce vivisection cruelties, or that a reputable London +physician should experiment on his patients with various poisons, +seemed to Dr. Myers beyond the bounds of belief. But it is always a +serious thing positively to deny any historical reference simply +because of personal ignorance of its truth. It was quite easy to +refer the sceptic not only to the editorial which he thought he "HAD +REASON FOR DOUBTING," but also to the experiments on human beings +concerning which his indignation rose so high. To be ignorant of +Dr. Ringer's experiments on his patients is to be ignorant of the +history of modern medicine. The Medical Times (London) in its issue +of November 10, 1883, thus editorially commented upon certain of these +experiments: + +"...In publishing, and, indeed, in instituting their reckless +experiments on the effect of nitrite of sodium on the human subject, +Professor Ringer and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false +move.... It is impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet +without distress. Of the EIGHTEEN adults to whom Drs Ringer and +Murrill administered the drug in 10-grain doses, all but one averred +that they would expect to drop down dead if they ever took another +dose.... Whatever credit may be given to Drs. Ringer and Murrill for +scientific enthusiasm, it is impossible to acquit them of grave +indiscretion. There will be a howl throughout the country IF IT COMES +OUT THAT THE OFFICERS OF A PUBLIC CHARITY ARE IN THE HABIT OF TRYING +SUCH USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS ON THE PATIENTS COMMITTED TO THEIR +CARE."[1] + +[1] In all quotations, here and elsewhere throughout this volume, the +italics have been supplied. + +What but ignorance of the history of medicine during the last fifty +years could lead any one to deny the occurrence of experiments, the +proofs of which rest on statements in medical journals, and in the +published works of the experimenters themselves? + +One of the most singular statements concerning vivisection that ever +appeared in print was given out not many years ago by one of the +professors of physiology in Harvard Medical School.[2] The accuracy of +this manifesto--which purported to be "a plain statement of the whole +truth"--received the endorsement of five of the leading teachers of +science in the same institution, men whose scientific reputation would +naturally give great weight to their affirmations regarding any +question of fact. So impressed was the editor of the Boston +Transcript with the apparent weight of this testimony, that he +declared in its columns that "the character and standing of the men +whose names are given as responsible for this explanation to the +Boston public, FORBID ANY QUESTIONING OF ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS." What +is the value of authority in matters of science, if assertions so +fortified by illustrious names are to be received with doubt? + +[2] See "The Vivisection Question," pp. 114-133 and 253. + +The inaccuracy which characterized this "statement of the whole truth" +was demonstrated at the time it appeared; but to one paragraph +attention may be recalled. The manifesto touches the question of past +cruelties in animal experimentation, not merely without the slightest +criticism or condemnation, but, on the contrary, with what would seem +to be a definite denial that anything reprehensible had ever +occurred. It contemptuously referred to evidence of abuses, as "these +reiterated charges of cruelty, THESE LONG LISTS OF ATROCITIES THAT +NEVER EXISTED." What other meaning could the average reader obtain +than the suggestion that the cruelties of Spallanzani, of Magendie, of +Mantegazza, of Brown-Se'quard, of Brachet, and a host of others, +existed only in the imagination, AND HAD NO BASIS OF FACT? For this +astounding suggestion, what explanation is possible? That there was a +deliberate purpose to mislead the public by an affirmation that cruel +and unjustifiable experiments were a myth, the creation of +imagination, is an hypothesis we must reject. But there must have +been a stupendous ignorance concerning the past history of animal +experimentation. Simply because of their utter lack of knowledge +regarding history, distinguished scientists became responsible for +suggesting to the public that the story of the past cruelty of +vivisection was a myth, and unworthy of belief. + +While illustrations of this singular ignorance of the past might be +almost indefinitely multiplied, another example must for the present +suffice. It is afforded by the evidence given before the Royal +Commission of Vivisection in 1906, by Sir William Osler, M.D., Fellow +of the Royal Society, and Regius Professor of Medicine at the +University of Oxford. In the course of his examination, the following +dialogue occurred:[1] + +"Are you familiar with the writings of Dr. Leffingwell?" +"Yes." +"I think he points out that it was through the strong attacks that +appeared in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal that the +Vivisection Act was passed?" +"THAT IS NEWS TO ME." +"You do not know that?" +"NO." + +[1] Minutes of Evidence, Questions 16,780-16,782. + +Perhaps the question asked may have implied somewhat more of influence +on the part of the medical journals named than actually belonged to +them; but these periodicals certainly initiated that exposure and +condemnation of cruelty in vivisection--which in England led to an +agitation for reform. Sir William Osler's replies, however, suggest +something more than mere word-fencing; he was evidently surprised to +hear it intimated that medical journals like these could ever have +been found attacking vivisection in any way. Of the strong attacks +which appeared in these organs of medical opinion less than forty +years before, he had apparently never heard. Now, when men like +these, leaders in the formation of public opinion on medical matters, +are thus ignorant of history, ought one really to wonder at the lack +of knowledge on the same subject betrayed by the new generation of +physicians in active practice to-day--men not only of lesser +influence, but of more restricted opportunities for gaining +information? Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the physicians +engaged in medical instruction in England and America probably would +have replied to the questions asked Sir William Osler to the same +effect--"It is news to me." Sitting at their feet, how can pupils be +expected to do otherwise than to absorb both their prejudices and +their learning? How can any medical student distinguish between them? +We are all inclined to give implicit faith to men whose abilities in +any direction we admire and reverence. It is only with the advance of +years and the test of experience that men come to learn the distrust +of authority, the wisdom of doubt, and the value of personal inquiry +concerning every great problem of life. + +Suppose, then, that we look into this question. Was Professor +Bowditch correct in assigning the beginnings of criticism concerning +vivisection to Dr. Fleming's essay published in 1864? Or was its +origin long before? Were the professors of the Medical School accurate +of statement when they practically denied that cruelty in vivisection +was a historic fact, and endorsed a reference to authenticated +instances as "long lists of atrocities THAT NEVER OCCURRED"? Is it a +fact--although Dr. Myers of Cambridge and Sir William Osler of Oxford +apparently never heard of it--that it was the MEDICAL journals of +England whose indignant condemnation of vivisection cruelties led up +to its attempted regulation by law? The public assumes that +authorities like these are not likely to err concerning methods of +medical instruction or research. In the mind of the average man, +every prepossession is in their favour; he cannot easily bring himself +to believe that if cruelty ever existed, THEY should be so completely +ignorant of it. It may, indeed, be questioned whether in the +literature of controversy on the subject there has been a single +defender of unrestricted freedom in vivisection, who has intelligently +referred to the horrible experiments of past vivisectors except either +to sneer or to condone. Even Mr. Stephen Paget, in his recent work, +"Experiments upon Animals," never once condemned the cruelty that but +a generation ago excited indignation throughout the medical profession +of Great Britain. + +The truth of this matter is not to be attained by unquestioning +acceptance of authority, but by a study of the history of the past. +It would be impossible, except in a volume, to write a complete +history of that protest against the unjustifiable cruelties of animal +experimentation, which gradually led to a demand for their legal +suppression. All that may here be attempted is a demonstration that +the sentiment is not of recent origin; that more than a century ago +the cruelties, which to-day are so carefully ignored, were +unquestioned as facts, and that to medical journals of England is +principally due that weighty condemnation of cruel vivisection, which +probably more than any other influence was the foundation of the +agitation for vivisection reform. + + CHAPTER III + + AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIVISECTOR + +English literature during the eighteenth century presents no more +distinguished name than that of Dr. Samuel Johnson, the lexicographer +and essayist. His learning was immense; his judgments and criticisms +were everywhere regarded with respect; and, above other great men of +his time, he was fortunate in having as friend and companion one who +produced the best biography that the world has ever known. + +Dr. Johnson's views of vivisection and vivisectors appeared as a +contribution to the Idler, on August 5, 1761, more than a hundred +years before the date given by Professor Bowditch as that of "THE +FIRST SERIOUS ATTACK UPON BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND." It may, +nevertheless, be doubted whether any attack more "serious" or protest +more weighty was ever made than was written by the most eminent +literary man of his time, a century and a half ago. + +"Among the inferior professors of medical knowledge is a race of +wretches whose lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty; whose +favourite amusement is to nail dogs to tables and open them alive; to +try how long life may be continued in various degrees of mutilation, +or with the excision or laceration of vital parts; to examine whether +burning irons are felt more acutely by the bone or tendon; and whether +the more lasting agonies are produced by poison forced into the mouth +or injected into the veins. It is not without reluctance that I +offend the sensibility of the tender mind with images like these. If +such cruelties were not practised, it were to be desired that they +should not be conceived; but since they are published every day with +ostentation, let me be allowed once to mention them, since I mention +them with abhorrence.... The anatomical novice tears out the living +bowels of an animal, and styles himself a `physician'; prepares +himself by familiar cruelty for that profession which he is to +exercise upon the tender and helpless, upon feeble bodies and broken +minds, and by which he has opportunities to extend his arts and +tortures, and continue those experiments upon Infancy and Age which he +has hitherto tried upon cats and dogs. What is alleged in defence of +these hateful practices, everyone knows; but the truth is that by +knives and fire knowledge is not always sought, and is very seldom +attained. I know not that by living dissections any discovery has +been made by which a single malady is more easily cured. And if the +knowledge of physiology has been somewhat increased, he surely buys +knowledge dear who learns the use of the lacteals at the expense of +his own humanity. IT IS TIME THAT A UNIVERSAL RESENTMENT AGAINST +THESE HORRID OPERATIONS SHOULD ARISE, which tend to harden the heart, +and make the physician more dreadful than the gout or the stone." + +A more vigorous denunciation of the cruelty of vivisection never +appeared than these words of the first scholar of the English- +speaking world. Of course the plea will be put forth that in +Dr. Johnson's time the use of anaesthetics was unknown. Are we, then, +to conclude that the present-day defenders of absolute freedom in +animal research would join him in condemning the perpetrators of ALL +EXPERIMENTS CAUSING DISTRESS IN WHICH ANAESTHETICS CANNOT BE EMPLOYED? +For the merit of Dr. Johnson's plea lies in this, THAT HE MAKES +ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF HIGHER IMPORTANCE THAN THE DISCOVERY OF +PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTS. "If the knowledge of physiology has been somewhat +increased, he surely buys knowledge dear who learns the use of the +lacteals at the expense of his own humanity." Is there a physiological +defenders of vivisection-freedom living to-day who would accept +Dr. Johnson's conclusion, that one should forbear research which is +possible only by the infliction of animal torment? How unfair it is, +therefore, to suggest that the force of Dr. Johnson's argument is +invalidated because anaesthetics were unknown--when the disagreement +is infinitely deeper! + +To what physiologists of his time did Dr. Johnson allude? Apparently +his denunciation was sweeping; he referred to "a race of wretches" +rather than to any particular individual, and to experiments then +carried on and "published every day with ostentation." Who were the +men thus stigmatized? We do not know. The record of their useless +tormenting has sunk into the oblivion that hides their names; there +are but one or two whose identity may perhaps be guessed. It is +possible that one of them was John Hunter; yet Hunter did not go up to +London until 1764, and Dr. Johnson's condemnation had appeared three +years earlier. Still, this does not preclude the possibility that +Dr. Johnson had Hunter in his mind. + +In some ways John Hunter was a remarkable man. He made an anatomical +collection, which is still in existence and which bears his name. At +Earl's Court, then a suburb of London, he established a sort of +zoological Inferno, that reminds one of the "Island of Dr. Moreau." +One of his biographers, Ottley, tells us that Hunger "TOOK SUPREME +DELIGHT" in his physiological experiments; and inasmuch as he +suggested in a letter to a friend the performance of the most +agonizing experiments as likely to "amuse" him, the statement was +undoubtedly true. A man's occupation generally has an influence upon +his character, and Hunter's biographer rather hesitatingly admits that +"he was not always very nice in his choice of associates," and that +among his companions were certain abominable wretches known as +"resurrection men," who robbed graveyards for the benefit of students +of anatomy. Under all circumstances, we can hardly be surprised that +his married life was anything but serene. + +In the infliction of pain he seems to have been without any idea of +pity. To a friend who asked for his experience in a certain matter, +he wrote: + +"I thank you for your experiment on the hedgehog; but WHY DO YOU ASK +ME A QUESTION, by the way of solving it? I think your solution is +just, but why--WHY NOT TRY THE EXPERIMENT? Repeat all the experiments +upon a hedgehog as soon as you receive this, and they will give you +the solution. TRY THE HEAT. CUT OFF A LEG...and let me know the +result of the whole. + "Ever yours, + "JOHN HUNTER." + +Even his own word, or the result of his own observations, he did not +wish to have accepted, when, merely at the cost of another tortured +animal, his friend could find the answer for himself. Is not this the +physiological ideal of to-day? + +Again he writes to his scientific friend: + +"If you could make some experiments on the increased heat of +inflammation, I should be obliged to you.... I opened the thorax of a +dog between two ribs, and introduced the thermometer. Then I put some +lint into the wound to keep it from healing by the first intention, +THAT THE THORAX MIGHT INFLAME; but before I had time to try it again, +my dog died on the fourth day. A deep wound might be made into the +thick of a dog's thigh, then put in the thermometer and some +extraneous matter.... IF THESE EXPERIMENTS WILL AMUSE YOU, I should be +glad they were made; but take care you do not break your thermometer +in the dog's chest."[1] + +[1] Barron's "Life of Jenner," i. 44. + +"IF THESE EXPERIMENTS WILL AMUSE YOU"--what a suggestive confirmation +of Dr. Johnson's charge that the torture of vivisection was then +regarded as an "amusement"! A century after, an Italian physiologist, +Mantegazza, devoted a year to the infliction of extreme torment upon +animals, and confessed that his tortures were inflicted, not with +hesitation or repugnance, but "CON MULTO AMORE," with extreme +delight.[2] + +[2] "Fisiolgia del Dolore di Paulo Mantegazza," pp. 101-107. + +Hunter does not seem to have regarded his own experiments other than +as an intellectual pastime. Mr. Stephen Paget, in his work on "Animal +Experimentation," refers to "one great experiment...that puts him +[Hunter] on a line with Harvey"--an experiment upon a deer in Richmond +Park. There is no reason for doubting that such an experiment may +have been made; but the curious thing is, that it rests only on verbal +tradition, for in his surgical lectures treating of aneurism Hunter +has not a word to say of the experiment which now, we are told, "links +his name with that of Harvey," who made known the circulation of the +blood. His biographer, Ottley, referring to his surgical operation +for aneurism, tell us that "he was led to propose the improved method, +in consequence of the frequent failure of the operation by the old +mode." No reference whatever is made to the legendary experiment on +the stag in Richmond Park.[1] + +[1] Ottley's "Life of Hunter," p. 97. + +Of other experiments by Hunter we know more. Sometimes his +observations were of a character that illustrates his environment. In +his "Observations" Hunter tells us that at one time, on going to bed +at night, he "observed bugs, marching down the curtains and head of +the bed; of those killed, NONE had blood in them." In the morning "I +have observed them marching back, and all such were found FULL OF +BLOOD!"[2] A wonderful discovery for a philosopher to record, leaving +unmentioned the one experiment and observation by which his fame is to +be linked with that of Harvey! + +[2] Letter to Ottley, "Life," p. 89. + +Hunter had erroneous views on various matters of science. He believed +that there was "no such thing as a primary colour, every colour being +a mixture of two, making a third." He tells us that he once formed a +theory that if a human being were completely frozen, "life might be +prolonged a thousand years, he might learn what had happened during +his frozen condition."[3] His biographer, Ottley, alludes to this +theory of Hunter's as "a project which, if realized, he expected would +make his fortune."[4] With this not altogether admirable object in +view, his experiments upon freezing animals were doubtless made. A +dormouse, confined in a cold mixture, he tells us, "showed signs of +great uneasiness; sometimes it would curl itself into round form to +preserve its extremities and confine the heat, and finding that +ineffectual, would then endeavor to escape." Its feet were at last +frozen, but Hunter could not freeze the entire animal because of the +protection afforded by the hair. How should the scientist overcome +this difficulty? He pondered over the problem; then made a dormouse +completely wet over, and placed it in the freezing-mixture. The +wretched animal "made repeated attempts to escape," but without avail, +and finally became quote stiff. Alas, for the grand "fortune"! +Hunter tells us that "on being thawed, it was found quite dead!"[1] + +[3] "Lectures," i. 284. +[4] Ottley's "Life of Hunter," p. 57. +[1] Hunter's Works, vol. iv., p. 133. + +The influence of Hunter upon English biology was undoubtedly very +great. In a mean and sordid society, he was an enthusiast for the +acquisition of knowledge, and while his passion for physiology +induced--as it so often does--an indifference regarding the infliction +of pain, his pitiless vivisections were not more cruel than +experiments made in this twentieth century, and some of them by men of +national reputation. He was the type of the class of experimenters +whom Dr. Johnson had in his mind, men whose long practice in the +infliction of torment creates an indifference to the ordinary emotions +of humanity, so that even in the causation of agony they find +something "to amuse," and in the performance of the most painful +vivisection an occasion for "supreme delight." + + CHAPTER IV + + MAGENDIE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES + +It may be doubted whether any physiologist has ever lived whose +cruelty to animals exceeded that which, for a long period, was +exercised by Franc,ois Magendie. Born at Bordeaux, France, in 1783, +just before the beginning of the French Revolution, he studied +medicine, receiving his medical degree in the year 1808. Entering +with some zest upon the study of physiology, he published several +pamphlets regarding his investigations, and rapidly earned that +notoriety--which for some natures is the equivalent of fame--for the +peculiar and refined torments which, in public demonstrations, he took +frequent occasion to inflict. In 1821 he was elected a member of the +Institute; in 1831 he had become a professor in the College de France, +a position he held for the remainder of his life. He died in 1855. + +One of the earliest exposures of Magendie's infamous vivisections was +made in the British Parliament. On February 24, 1825, Mr. Richard +Martin of Galway, an Irish Member of the House of Commons, moved to +bring in a Bill for the repression of bear-baiting and other forms of +cruelty to animals. His name is worth remembering, for to this +Richard Martin belongs the honour of being one of the first men in any +land who attempted to secure some repression of cruelty to animals +through the condemnation of the law. During his speech on this +occasion Mr. Martin said: + +"It was not merely bear-baiting and sports of a similar character that +he wished to abolish; there were other practices, equally cruel, with +which he thought the legislature ought to interfere. There was a +Frenchman by the name of Magendie, whom he considered a disgrace to +Society. In the course of the last year this man, at one of his +anatomical theatres, exhibited a series of experiments so atrocious as +almost to shock belief. This M. Magendie got a lady's greyhound. +First of all he nailed its front, and then its hind, paws with the +bluntest spikes that he could find, giving as reason that the poor +beast, in its agony, might tear away from the spikes if they were at +all sharp or cutting. He then doubled up its long ears, and nailed +them down with similar spikes. (Cries of `Shame!') He then made a +gash down the middle of the face, and proceeded to dissect all the +nerves on one side of it.... After he had finished these operations, +this surgical butcher then turned to the spectators, and said: `I +have now finished my operations on one side of this dog's head, and I +shall reserve the other side till to-morrow. If the servant takes +care of him for the night, I am of the opinion that I shall be able to +continue my operations upon him to-morrow with as much satisfaction to +us all as I have done to-day; but if not, ALTHOUGH HE MAY HAVE LOST +THE VIVACITY HE HAS SHOWN TO-DAY, I shall have the opportunity of +cutting him up alive, and showing you the motion of the heart.' +Mr. Martin added that he held in his hands the written declarations of +Mr. Abernethy, of Sir Everard Home (and of other distinguished medical +men), all uniting in condemnation of such excessive and protracted +cruelty as had been practised by this Frenchman."[1] + +[1] Hansard's Parliamentary Reports, February 24, 1825. + +Within the past forty years has the cruelty of Magendie been condemned +by any English or American physiologist? I have never seen it. + +The objection is sometimes raised that evidence like this of +Magendie's cruelty is only "hearsay." Is not this generally the case +where inhumanity is concerned? When Wilberforce described the +atrocities of the African slave trade, or Shaftesbury the conditions +pertaining to children in coal-mines and cotton mills, their +statements were equally questioned; yet, when reform had been +accomplished, nobody doubted that, although they had not personally +witnessed the cruelties, they had reported only the facts. Now, one +peculiarity of Magendie's vivisections WAS THEIR PUBLICITY. There was +no attempt at concealment, such as governs the practice in England and +America to-day. Magendie's experiments were publicly made, seemingly +with a desire to parade his contempt for any sentiment of compassion +towards animals. The evidence of Magendie's cruelty is supported by +an overwhelming amount of evidence, and to Mr. Martin's account of his +vivisections, none of Magendie's English friends or apologists ever +ventured to reply in the public journals of the day. + +An English physician, Dr. John Anthony, a pupil of Sir Charles Bell +and a strong advocate of vivisection, has given us a little account of +his personal experience in 1838, while a student of medicine in +Paris. The English members of his class, he says, "were indignant at +the CRUELTIES which we saw manifested IN THE DEMONSTRATION OF +EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING CREATURES.... What I saw in Paris pointed to +this: that very frequently men who are in the habit of making these +experiments are very careless of what becomes of the animal when it +has served its purpose; ... the animal is thrown (aside) to creep into +a corner and die.... I have carefully avoided seeing experiments in +vivisection after the awful dose which I had of it in Paris, in 1838. +THE MEN THERE SEEMED TO CARE NO MORE FOR THE PAIN OF THE CREATURE +BEING OPERATED UPON THAN IF IT WERE SO MUCH INORGANIC MATTER."[1] + +[1] Vivisection Report, 1876, Questions 2,347, 2,447, 2,582. + +Another witness of Magendie's cruelty was Dr. William Sharpey, LL.D., +Fellow of the Royal Society, and for more than thirty years the +professor of physiology in University College, London. It is a +curious fact that the "Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory," +which, when published in 1871, increased the agitation against +vivisection, was dedicated to Professor Sharpey. Before the Royal +Commission on Vivisection, in 1876, he gave the following account of +his personal experience: + +"When I was a very young man, studying in Paris, I went to the first +of a series of lectures which Magendie gave upon experimental +physiology; and I was so utterly repelled by what I witnessed that I +never went again. In the first place, they were painful (in those +days there were no anaesthetics), and sometimes they were severe; and +then THEY WERE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT OBJECT. For example, Magendie made +incisions into the skin of rabbits and other creatures TO SHOW THAT +THE SKIN IS SENSITIVE! Surely all the world knows the skin is +sensitive; no experiment is wanted to prove that. Several experiments +he made were of a similar character, AND HE PUT THE ANIMALS TO DEATH, +FINALLY, IN A VERY PAINFUL WAY.... Some of his experiments excited a +strong feeling of abhorrence, not in the public merely, but among +physiologists. There was his--I was going to say `famous' experiment; +it might rather have been called `INFAMOUS' experiment upon vomiting +.... Besides its atrocity, it was really purposeless."[2] + +[2] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Questions 444, 474. + +Of Magendie's cruelty we have thus the evidence of the best-known +English physiologist of his day. Even by his own countrymen +Magendie's pitilessness was denounced. Dr. Latour, the founder and +editor of the leading medical journal of France--L'Union Me'dicale-- +has given us an incident which occurred in his presence, translations +of which appeared in the editorial columns of the London Lancet and +the British Medical Journal, August 22, 1863. + +"I recall to mind a poor dog, the roots of whose vertebral nerves +Magendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's theory, which he +claimed as his own. The dog, already mutilated and bleeding, twice +escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw his forepaws around +Magendie's neck, licking, as if to soften his murderer and ask for +mercy! Vivisectors may laugh, but I confess I was unable to endure +that heartrending spectacle."[1] + +[1] The London Lancet, August 22, 1863. + +The proof of Magendie's ferocious cruelty to his victims seems +overwhelming. "In France," says Dr. George Wilson, "some of the most +eminent physiologists have gained an unenviable notoriety as PITILESS +TORTURERS, ... experimenters who would not take the trouble to put out +of pain the wretched dogs on which they experimented, even after they +had served their purpose, but left them to perish of lingering torture +.... It is pleasing to contrast the merciless horrors enacted by +Magendie"--with the reluctance manifested by Sir Charles Bell.[2] +Dr. Elliotson, in his work on Human Physiology, states that "Magendie +cut living animals here and there, with no definite object BUT TO SEE +WHAT WOULD HAPPEN."[3] In a sermon on cruelty to animals, preached at +Edinburgh, March 5, 1826, by the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, the speaker +especially alludes to "THE ATROCITIES OF A MAGENDIE," then recently +made known in England. The President of the Royal College of +Surgeons, Sir James Paget, once testified that Magendie "disgusted +people very much BY SHOWING CONTEMPT FOR THE PAIN OF ANIMALS."[1] The +great scientist, Charles Darwin, in a letter to the London Times, made +reference to Magendie as a physiologist "NOTORIOUS, half a century +ago, FOR HIS CRUEL EXPERIMENTS." "It is not to be denied that +inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as +physiologists. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IT WAS SO IN MAGENDIE." This is the +language of the final report of the Commission, to which was affixed +the name of Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, the most brilliant +scientific writer of the last century. + +[2] Wilson's "Life of Reid," p. 165. +[3] "Human Physiology," p. 428. +[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Question 371. + +Magendie left us a singularly truthful estimate of his own character +and of his scientific accomplishments when he declared himself to be +simply "a street scavenger (un chiffonier) of science. With my hook +in my hand and my basket on my back, I ramble about the streets of +science and gather up whatever I can find." The comparison was +singular, but it was apt; he was, indeed, the ragpicker of +physiology. With a scavenger's sense of honour he endeavored to rob +Sir Charles Bell of the credit for his discovery concerning the +functions of the spinal nerves, by a prodigality of torment, from +which the nobler nature of the English scientist instinctively +recoiled. When there came to him an opportunity of experimenting on +man, he embraced it with avidity, and again and again, while operating +for cataract, plunged his needle to the bottom of the patient's eye, +that he might learn the effect of mechanical irritation of the +delicate organ of sight.[1] Some rags and tatters of physiology he +bought--at the price of immeasurable torment--and held them up for the +admiration of his contemporaries; but in the great conflict with +disease and death it may be questioned whether he added a single fact +that has increased the potency of medical art, the length of human +life, or the sum of human happiness. + +[1] Magendie naturally had no hesitancy in telling of these +experiments made upon his patients "at the clinique of my hospital." +See his "Elementary Treatise on Physiology" (translated by Dr. John +Revere). New York, 1844, p. 64. + +Such was Franc,ois Magendie, physiologist and torturer, judged by +scientific men and physiologists of a higher race, to whom compassion +was not unknown. For undisguised contempt of pity, for delight in +cruelty, for the infliction of refined and ingenious torment, he may +have been equally by some who followed and imitated him, but certainly +he was never surpassed. + +Another distinguished French chiffonier in the slum-districts of +scientific exploration was Dr. L. J. Brachet, a contemporary of +Magendie. In his day he was a man of extended reputation as a +vivisector of animals. His principal work is entitled: "Recherches +Expe'rimentales de Syste`me Nerveux...par J. L. Brachet, Membre de +l'Acade'mie Royale de Me'decine" and member of similar academies at +Berlin, Copenhagen, and elsewhere; member of various medical societies +of Paris, Lyons, Bordeaux, and Marseilles--the title-page of his book +records his fame. It will be of interest to study the character of +the experimentation, recorded by himself, upon which rests his +eminence as a scientific man. + +His first great "discovery" unfortunately has not yet been accorded +scientific acceptance. "It is little," he says, "to have proven the +existence of sensibility in animals; I have proven that sensation +pertains not merely to animals, but that it also is the property of +vegetables--in a word, OF EVERYTHING THAT LIVES. Everywhere it acts +in the same manner, through the nerves. The entire vegetable kingdom +possesses the sense of feeling" (tous les vegetaux possedent la +faculte de sentier).[1] + +[1] "Recherches," etc., p. 13. + +Had Brachet confined himself solely to experiments on the sensibility +of plants, we should have little to criticize. Unfortunately, +however, his scientific tastes led him in another direction. He +belonged to a class of men who cannot permit the most apparent fact to +be taken for granted, when, at the cost of torment, it may be +demonstrated--men like Magendie, who insisted on proving to his +students that an animal could really feel pain by stabbing it with his +knife before commencing his experiment. Brachet's problem was a +simple one. We all know, for instance, that an animal--a dog--may +feel an intense dislike to some particular person. Why? Because of +impressions conveyed to the brain of the animal by the senses of sight +and hearing. Outside an asylum for idiots, it is probable that no one +ever questioned the fact. Brachet, however, would not permit his +readers to accept any statement merely upon the general experience of +mankind, when it might be proven scientifically, and he has described +in his book the experiments by which he claims to have demonstrated +his theory. + +"EXPERIMENT 162.--I inspired a dog with the strongest possible hatred +for me by teasing it and inflicting upon it some pain every time I saw +it. When this feeling had reached its height, so that the animal +became furious whenever it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes [je +lui fis crever les yeux]. I could then appear before it without its +manifesting any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its barkings and +furious movements permitted no doubt of the rage which animated it. + +"I then destroyed the drum of the ears, and disorganized as much as I +could of the inner ear. When the intense inflammation thus excited +had rendered it almost deaf, I filled its ears with wax, and it could +hear me no longer. Then I could stand by its side, speak to it in a +loud voice, and even caress it, without awakening its anger; indeed, +it appeared sensible of my caresses! There is no need to describe +another experiment of the same kind, made upon another dog, since the +results were the same." + +By this great experiment, what valuable knowledge was conveyed? Simply +that a dog, deprived of sight and hearing, will not manifest antipathy +to a man it can neither see nor hear! + +A true vivisector is never at a loss to invent excuse or occasion for +an experiment. Dr. Brachet had made it clear that a dog will not +manifest antipathy toward an enemy whose presence it cannot perceive; +but suppose such a mutilated creature, in its darkness and silence, +were subjected to some sharp and continuous physical pain, what then +would happen? He proceeded to ascertain: + +"EXPERIMENT 163.--I began the experiment on another dog by putting out +its eyes [par crever les yeux], and breaking up the internal ears. +Ten days later, THE SUFFERING OF THE ANIMAL HAVING APPARENTLY CEASED, +after assuring myself that it could no longer see nor hear, I made a +sore in the middle of its back. EVERY MOMENT I IRRITATED THIS WOULD +BY PICKING IT WITH A NEEDLE [a chaque instant j'irritai sa plaie en la +piquant avec un aiguillon]. At first the dog did nothing but yelp and +try to escape, but the impossibility of this FORCED HIM UNCEASINGLY TO +RECEIVE EXCRUCIATING PAIN; and finally the dog passed into a state of +frenzy so violent, that at last it could be induced by touching any +part of its body.... The dog had no reason of hatred against any +individual; ... both sight and hearing had been destroyed; and many +persons the animal had never seen, provoked its rage by irritating the +wound." + +Of such an abominable experiment, however scientific it may appear, it +is difficult to speak with restraint. To the average man or woman it +will probably seem that nothing more fiendish or cruel can be found +anywhere in the dark records of animal experimentation. Dr. Brachet +was no obscure or unexperienced vivisector. At one time he was the +professor of physiology in a medical school; he was a member of many +learned societies at home and abroad. But think of an educated man +procuring a little dog and deliberately putting out its eyes; then +breaking up the internal ear, so that for many days the animal must +have endured excruciating anguish from the inflammation thus induced; +next, when the pain had somewhat subsided, creating a sore on the back +by removal of the skin; and then, after comfortably seating himself in +his physiological laboratory by the side of his victim, scientifically +picking, and piercing, and pricking the wound, without respite-- +constantly, without ceasing--until the blinded and deafened and +tortured creature is driven into frenzy by torments which it felt +continually, which it could not comprehend, and from which, by no +exertion, it was able to defend itself! Think of the scientist asking +many other learned men to join him from time to time in the +experiment, and to take part in picking at the wound, in tormenting +the mutilated and blinded victim, and in driving it again and again to +the madness of despair! Does anyone say that such an experiment could +not be made to-day? In one of the largest laboratories of America, and +within ten years, an experiment equally cruel, equally useless, has +been performed. The modern defender of unrestricted vivisection +distinctly insists that no legal impediment should hinder the +performance of any investigation desired by any experimenter. It was +the editor of the British Medical Journal who once declared that +"whoever has not seen an animal under experiment CANNOT FORM AN IDEA +OF THE HABITUAL PRACTICES OF THE VIVISECTORS."[1] This accords with +the statement of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, for forty years connected with +Harvard Medical School, that, aside from motives, painful vivisection +differed mainly from other phases of cruelty "in being practised by an +educated class, who, having once become callous to its objectionable +features, find the pursuit an interesting occupation, under the name +of Science." + +[1] British Medical Journal, September 19, 1863 (leading editorial) + +And this was the case of Brachet. HE HAD BECOME CALLOUS. He found +torment "an interesting occupation, under the name of Science." May +there not be others in our day to whom the same criticism is only too +applicable? + +One of the English critics of the abuses of vivisection a century ago +was Dr. John Abernethy of London, a Lecturer on Physiology at the +Royal College of Surgeons, the founder of the medical school attached +to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and the most distinguished surgeon in +Great Britain during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. +Abernethy was by no means an antivivisectionist; he insisted upon the +utility of certain demonstrations, but he was profoundly opposed to +those cruelties of research which, in our day, by the modern school of +physiologists, are either forgotten or condoned. curiously enough, +one of his strongest utterances against such cruelty was made in one +of his lectures on physiology. Therein he said: + +"There is one point I feel it a duty to advert to. Mr. Hunter, whom I +should not have believed to have been very scrupulous about inflicting +suffering upon animals, nevertheless censures Spallanzani for the +unmeaning repetition of similar experiments. Having resolved publicly +to express my own opinions with regard to the subject, I choose the +present opportunity, BECAUSE I BELIEVE SPALLANZANI TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF +THOSE WHO HAVE TORTURED AND DESTROYED ANIMALS IN VAIN. I do not +perceive that in the two principal subjects which he has sought to +elucidate he has added any important fact to our stock of knowledge; +and, besides, some of his experiments are of a nature that a good man +would blush to think of, and a wise man would have been ashamed to +publish."[1] + +[1] "Physiological Lectures," London, 1817, p. 164. + +This is a unique expression. One may be absolutely certain that no +professor of physiology during the past forty years has thus openly +condemned in a physiology lecture any of his contemporaries for the +cruelty of their experiments. + +In his Life of Abernethy, his biographer, Dr. Macilwain, refers to +experiments upon living animals, "WHICH ARE SO REVOLTING FROM THEIR +CRUELTY, that the mind recoils from the contemplation of them." This, +too, is a noteworthy utterance, coming from one who was a +distinguished London surgeon and a Fellow of the Royal Society. In a +subsequent work entitled "Remarks on Vivisection," published some +seventeen years before the date ascribed by Professor Bowditch as that +marking the beginning of criticism, he refers again to the views of +Abernethy: + +"As for experiments on living animals involving suffering, +Mr. Abernethy disapproved of them, and seldom alluded to them but in +terms of distrust, derision, or disgust." + +That the criticism of experimental cruelty did not begin in 1864, as +imagined by Professor Bowditch, the quotations here given sufficiently +demonstrate. + +Beyond this demonstration, does the history of these savage tormentors +have any lesson for us to-day? They belonged to another century. +Should they not be forgiven, and their experiments condoned? Why not +confine attention solely to the laboratory of to-day? Why blame +Brachet and Magendie and Spallanzani, to whom anaesthesia was unknown? + +There is a false suggestion in this protest, which, in one form or +another, we hear often to-day. It is the gratuitous assumption put +forth in defence, that if anaesthetics had only been known to +physiologists before 1846, they would invariably have been used. Any +such suggestion is manifestly false. If these experiments of Brachet +and of others to be mentioned were to be made at all, it was necessary +that the animal should be conscious of the agony it experienced. In +the most complete laboratory for vivisection of the present time--in +the Rockefeller Institute, for example--no scientist could drive a dog +INTO A FRENZY while it lies absolutely unconscious under the influence +of chloroform! We may say this of the experiments of Magendie on the +nervous system, for aside from the preliminary cutting operation, such +experiments demanded the consciousness of the victim. That which +humanity has a right to censure in these physiologists is the spirit +of absolute indifference to animal suffering, the willingness to +subject a living creature to agony without adequate reason for the +infliction of pain. The discovery of chloroform or ether made no +change in human nature. Some of the worst of vivisections have been +made, not merely since anaesthetics were discovered, but within the +present century. Over twenty-five years after the properties of ether +had been discovered, the most prominent vivisector in England told the +Royal Commission that, except for teaching purposes, "I never use +anaesthetics where it is not necessary for convenience, " and that an +experimenter "HAD NO TIME, SO TO SPEAK, FOR THINKING WHAT THE ANIMAL +WILL FEEL OR SUFFER."[1] + +[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, 1875, Questions 3,538, 3540. + +Unrestricted vivisection is the same to-day as a century ago. In many +cases its operations involve little or no pain; in many cases there +seems to be the same absolute indifference to the agony inflicted that +was manifested by the vivisectors of a hundred years since. Where the +law does not interfere, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Whether there is +cruelty or consideration depends on the spirit of the vivisector. It +was no ignorant layman, but the president of the American Academy of +Medicine, who, in his annual address, declared that there were +American vivisectors who "seem, seeking useless knowledge, to be blind +to the writhing agony and deaf to the cry of pain of their victims, +AND WHO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THE MOST DAMNABLE CRUELTIES, without the +denunciation of the public and the profession that their wickedness +deserves."[1] And that vivisector of to-day, who suggests that if +anaesthetics had been known to Magendie or Brachet, they would +invariably have been used, is either ignorant or insincere. Surely he +must know that the very nature of their experiments precluded the use +of ether, and that in their time, as to-day, if the experiment were to +be tried at all, it was necessary that the pain be felt. + +[1] Address before American Academy of Medicine at Washington, D.C., +May 4, 1891, by Theophilus Parvin, M.D., LL.D., professor in Jefferson +Medical College of Philadelphia, Pa. + +There are other reasons why we should not permit the past to be +forgotten. We are confronted by the challenge of the laboratory. +Behind the locked and barred doors of the vivisection chamber, to +which no man can gain admission unless known to be friendly to its +practices, the vivisector of to-day challenges society to prove the +existence of cruelty or abuse. The vivisector demands absolute +freedom of action, he demands the most complete privacy, he demands +total independence of all legal supervision--and then challenges the +production of proof that any criticism is justified! Within the sacred +precincts of the laboratory a Brachet, a Magendie, a Claude Be'rnard +may be experimenting to-day with a profusion of victims, protected by +their seclusion from every possibility of complaint. For in what +respect does the spirit that animates research to-day differ from that +manifested by experimenters of the past? In all the literature of +advocacy for unrestricted vivisection can one point out a word of +criticism of Magendie or Brachet or Be'rnard, or anything but +expressions of exculpation, of admiration, and of praise? An English +writer on animal experimentation, Mr. Stephen Paget, had occasion, in +a recent work, to refer to the experimentation of both Magendie and +Sir Charles Bell. Does he criticize or condemn Magendie's cruelty? +No. He tells us, incidentally, that Bell always had "a great dislike +to the school of Magendie," adding, with indifference, "LET ALL THAT +PASS." These words aptly express the sentiment and the wish. Gladly, +indeed, would the physiological laboratory hide the past from the +memory of mankind; I do not believe in acceding to that desire. When +the leading physiologist of his day, addressing an audience of +physicians, refers to an early criticism of physiological cruelty as a +collection of "blood-curdling stories," there is desire not to +investigate, but to ridicule and discredit historic facts. When men +of science put forth what they claim to be, "a plain statement of the +whole truth," without one word of reference to the abuses of the past, +they practically throw dust in the air to hide the truth from the +public eye. That it may have been done ignorantly and without any +wish to deceive is not sufficient to earn exculpation, for in either +case the evil is accomplished. + +Of one English physiologist of that period, Sir Charles Bell, it is +impossible to speak except in terms of admiration and esteem. Born in +1774, his long and useful life terminated in 1842, four years before +the discovery of anaesthesia. No one can read his correspondence with +his brother, published many years after his death, without recognizing +the innate beauty and nobility of his character. When news of the +Battle of Waterloo reached England, he--the leading surgeon of his +day--started for the battlefield. The story of his experience is one +of the most graphic pictures of the effects of war to be found in +modern literature. It was Sir Charles Bell who made to physiology the +greatest contribution which had come to it since the discovery by +Harvey of the circulation of the blood, and yet this discovery was +made by reasoning upon the facts of anatomy rather than by +experimenting upon animals. An English physiologist, Sir Michael +Foster, admits this: + +"To Charles Bell is due the merit of having made the fundamental +discovery of the distinction between motor and sensory fibres. Led to +this view by reflecting on the distribution of the nerves, he +experimentally verified his conclusions...." + +In his lectures on the nervous system Bell himself states that his +discoveries, so far from being the result of vivisections, were, "on +the contrary, deductions from anatomy; and I have had recourse to +experiments, not to form my own opinions, but to impress them upon +others." + +That which determines the judgment of the world upon human actions is +the spirit that animates them. Sir Charles Bell was not an +antivivisectionist. When experiments on animals seemed to him +absolutely indispensable, he had recourse to them, but always with +repugnance, and with desire to avoid giving of pain. In his lectures +on the nervous system he speaks thus of some of his work: + +"After delaying long on account of the unpleasant nature of the +operation, I opened the spinal canal.... I was deterred from repeating +the experiment by the protracted cruelty of the dissection. I +reflected that the experiment would be satisfactory if done on an +animal recently knocked down and insensible." + +And on another occasion, writing to his brother, he says: + +"I should be writing a third paper on the nerves; but I cannot proceed +without making some experiments, which are so unpleasant to make that +I defer them. You may think me silly, but I cannot perfectly convince +myself that I am authorized in Nature or Religion to do these +cruelties .... And yet what are my experiments in comparison with +those which are daily done, and are done daily for nothing?" + +Such extreme sensibility, such sympathetic hesitancy to inflict great +suffering in an attempt to discover some fact, would be ridiculed at +the present day in every laboratory in Europe or America. It is +typical, however, of a sentiment that once prevailed. Are we any +better because it has so largely disappeared? + +For great cruelty was there ever great remorse? The cases are not +many; before the self-condemnation of a dying man and the final scene, +friendship may feel it best to draw the veil. Yet one case of this +poignant regret is worthy consideration, and shall have relation. + + + CHAPTER V + + A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE + +About the middle of the last century there died in Scotland in the +prime of life a physiologist, now almost forgotten, whose fate excited +at the time an unusual degree of compassionate interest. Born in +1809, John Reid received his medical degree when but twenty-one years +of age. A part of the two years following he spent in Paris, where +Magendie was at the height of his notoriety for the ruthless cruelty +of his vivisections. What attracted the young man we do not know, but +Reid seems to have become greatly interested in physiological +problems. Returning to Scotland, he pursued his investigations with +all the zeal of youth, and apparently with little or no regard for the +animal suffering he caused. For instance, of experiments which he +made to prove a certain theory, he tells us: + +"I have exposed the trunk of the par vagum in the neck of at least +thirty animals, and in all of these the pinching, cutting, and even +stretching of the nerve WERE ATTENDED BY INDICATIONS OF SEVERE +SUFFERING. It was frequently difficult to separate the nerve from the +artery ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIOLENT STRUGGLES OF THE ANIMAL."[1] + +[1] "Physiological Researches," by John Reid, p. 92. (In all +quotations the italics are the compiler's.) + +Regarding the pain inflicted by him in certain other vivisections, +Reid is equally frank in his admissions: + +"In repeated experiments upon the laryngeal nerves, we found in all +animals operated upon (except two dogs, which appeared CONSIDERABLY +EXHAUSTED BY GREAT PREVIOUS SUFFERING) ample ground for dissenting +from the statements of Dr. Alcock.... With the exceptions mentioned, +VERY SEVERE INDICATIONS OF SUFFERING ... ATTENDED THE PINCHING AND +CUTTING OF THE NERVE."[1] + +[1] "Physiological Researches," p. 73. + +Some physiological observers have remarked that among the more highly +organized species of animals the creature struggles against the +ligatures previous to a second operation more than it did at its first +experience. It is evident that in such cases, in animals as well as +among human beings, the memory of agony endured creates a mental +condition of terror and fear. But what effect would the emotion of +terror have upon the heart's action if certain nerves were first +severed? Brachet relates an experiment wherein he tortured a dog in +every conceivable way, yet the heart's action was not notably +quickened if such nerves were first divided. Reid determined, +therefore, to experiment for himself upon this emotion of TERROR +induced by memory of previous pain, and six dogs were selected for his +purpose. The nerves were first "cut in the middle of the neck, and a +portion of each removed." He then tells us the results: + +"After the operation, the pulsations of the heart were reckoned when +the animal was lying or standing on the ground, and AFTER IT HAD BEEN +CARESSED FOR SOME TIME TO CALM ITS FEARS. It was then lifted up on +the table, on which it had been tied, and operated upon; and after +having been spoken to HARSHLY, the pulsations were again reckoned." + +In every case Reid noted that the heart's action increased from 20 to +40 beats per minute on lifting the animal to the vivisection table, +whereon it had previously suffered torment. He adds: + +"In those experiments it was particularly observed that the animals +made no struggles in carrying them to and from the table, and +consequently the increased excitation of the heart MUST HAVE ARISEN +FROM THE MENTAL EMOTION OF TERROR. In a seventh dog this was +conjoined with violent struggles. The pulsations, eight hours after +the operation, were 130; WHEN PLACED ON THE TABLE AND MADE TO +STRUGGLE, the pulsations were about 220; when he had been SUBJECTED TO +PAIN, and struggled more violently, they became so frequent that they +could not be accurately reckoned. These experiments...prove that +after the section of the vagi the pulsations of the heart may not only +be quickened by muscular exertion, but also by MENTAL EMOTIONS."[1] + +[1] Reid, "Physiological Researches," pp. 168-171. + +Objection is often made to the citation of vivisections which occurred +before the discovery of ether or chloroform. But in these experiments +of Reid--as in those of Brachet--the use of anaesthetics, even had +they been known to him, would have been a hindrance. HOW CAN ANYONE +EXPERIMENT ON THE "MENTAL EMOTIONS" OF AN ANIMAL WHILE IT IS +PROFOUNDLY INSENSIBLE TO ALL EXTERNAL INFLUENCES? The idea is an +absurdity. The biography of Reid thus refers to this very point: + +"Allusion has been made to the infliction of suffering on living +animals.... This suffering was not merely incidental to dissections, +but in many of the experiments recorded WAS DELIBERATELY INFLICTED. +In many of the experiments, EVEN IF ANAESTHETICS HAD BEEN KNOWN at the +period of his observations, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED.... It +was essential to the settlement of the question that the animal should +be left TO EXHIBIT ALL THE PAIN IT FELT, AND SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY +SUBJECTED TO TORTURE."[2] + +[2] "Life of John Reid," by Geo. Wilson, M.D., 1852, p. 153. + +And precisely the same apology is put forward to-day. More than once, +by high scientific authority, the public has been comfortably assured +that nowadays "anaesthetics are always employed," in severely painful +experiments, EXCEPT "in those instances in which THE ANAESTHETIC WOULD +INTERFERE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT." Truly it is a broad +exception. For all we know, it is the laboratory's excuse, even for +the present-day repetition of the experiments of Magendie, Brachet, +and Reid. "The anaesthetic would interfere." But what was the value of +all this experimentation upon mind and body, this "mental emotion of +terror" in a dog, and this calming of its fear by caresses, followed +by the torment of the operation? There was no value so far as the +treatment of human ailments is concerned. Reid's experiments led to +no change whatever in medical practice. Reading of certain +experiments, one is constantly reminded of the old peasant's reply to +his grandchild, who had found a skull on what once was a battlefield. +Holding it in his hand, the old man told the story of the Battle of +Blenheim, and the awful suffering it had caused: + + "`But what good came of it at last?' + Said little Peterkin; + `Why, that I cannot tell,' quoth he, + `BUT `TWAS A FAMOUS VICTORY!'" + +At the early age of thirty-eight the physiologist seemed to see before +him the bright prospect of a long and happy life. He possessed +unusual physical strength, robust health, and a resolute and +courageous spirit. His home was happy. No one considered him a cruel +man; indeed, we are told, he was rather fond of animals. "In his own +house he always had pet dogs and cats about him, and he was as ready +as Sir Walter Scott to rise from any occupation to humour their +whims." In his profession he had made somewhat of a reputation, yet +higher honours and wider renown and increased financial prosperity +seemed almost certain to await him in the not distant future. + +But one day, in November, 1847, he noted in himself the symptom of a +disease that gave cause for alarm. The pain at first was doubtless +insignificant, but the symptom occasioned anxiety because it would not +disappear. Some of his friends were the best surgeons of Scotland, +and he asked their advice. They were careful not to add to his +discouragement, and they suggested the old, old formula--"rest and a +change of scene." A year passed. The disease made constant progress, +and there came a time when of its malignant character there could be +no possible doubt. Finally, the vivisector recognized that it was not +merely death which confronted him, but death by the most mysterious +and agonizing of human ailments. In June, 1848, he wrote to a friend: +"I have a strong conviction that my earthly career will soon come to a +close, and that I shall never lecture again." + +And then, gradually, to the ever-increasing agony of the body, came +the anguish of REMORSE. He remembered the trembling little creatures +which again and again he had lifted to their bed of torment, and "made +to struggle," that he might observe how the heart-beats of a mutilated +animal were quickened "from the emotion of terror"; and now, in the +gloom of horrible imaginings, TERROR held HIM with a grasp that would +never loosen or lessen while his consciousness remained. He +remembered the the evidence of "severe suffering" he had so often +evoked by the "pinching and cutting and stretching" of nerves; the +creatures he had first "caressed to calm their fears"--and then +vivisected; the eyes that so often had appealed for respite from +agony--and appealed in vain; and now, NATURA MALIGNA, to whom pity is +unknown, was slowly torturing him to death. He pointed to the seat of +his suffering as being "THE SAME NERVES on which he had made so many +experiments, and added: `THIS IS A JUDGMENT UPON ME FOR THE SUFFERING +I HAVE INFLICTED ON ANIMALS'"[1] + +[1] "Life of John Reid," by Dr. G. Wilson, p. 273. + +More than once during the last months of his life he recurred to the +same subject. + +His biographer says: + +"He could not divest his mind of the feeling that there was a special +Providence in the way in which he had been afflicted. He had devoted +peculiar attention to the functions of certain nerves, and had +inflicted suffering on many dumb creatures that he might discover the +office of those nerves; and HE COULD NOT BUT REGARD THE CANCER WHICH +PREYED UPON THEM--IN HIS OWN BODY--AS A SIGNIFICANT MESSAGE FROM +GOD."[2] + +[2] Ibid., p. 250. + +Again and again he repeated the conviction to which his mind +continually reverted in the midst of his torment. To him conscience +brought no message of Divine approbation, but only a sentence of +condemnation upon his past pursuits. Nor was Reid alone in this +feeling of apprehension and questioning. We are told by his medical +friend and biographer that many of his brother physicians were +startled by learning + +"that Dr. Reid is doomed to die by a disease WHICH REPEATS UPON HIS +OWN BODY NOT IN ONE, BUT IN MANY WAYS, the pains which he had imposed +upon the lower animals."[1] + +[1] Reid's "Life," p. 252. + +Undoubtedly, friends of the tormented vivisector attempted to comfort +him with the assurance--so often repeated in our day--that his +experiments on living animals had been carried on "for the benefit of +sick and suffering humanity." But Reid was too honest a man to permit +himself to be thus deluded while under the very shadow of death. For +him the time had come when the specious apologies for the infliction +of torture--so current in our day--could be of no avail in lessening +the poignant feeling of Remorse. In the dying hour men speak the +truth about their actions. It was so with Reid. + +"He confessed to having thought much of Scientific FAME in his +labours, and IT WOULD BE UNTRUE TO SAY THAT THE ALLEVIATION OF HUMAN +SUFFERING was the motive always before him when he inflicted pain on +the lower animals."[2] + +[2] Ibid., p. 65. + +An operation seemed to hold out hope of relief from his terrible +agony. It was deemed best to perform it--as Reid had experimented-- +without anaesthetics, "that the sufferer, with every sensation and +faculty alive, might literally become an operator upon himself." In +the course of a second operation, Dr. Wilson tells us: "THE SAME +NERVES and bloodvessels which had been the subject of Dr. Reid's most +important inquiries WERE LAID BARE IN HIMSELF, BY THE SURGEON'S +KNIFE." But all remedial measures were in vain. The two years of +apprehension, suspense, recognition, despair, of slowly increasing +physical torment and the agony of remorse, came at last to an end. +In July, 1849, he found the long-wished-for peace. + +Seventy years ago the religious sentiment of Scotland easily favoured +that doctrine of Divine displeasure which seemed probable to Reid and +his friends. In our day, however, we are less certain of being able +to interpret the "judgments of God"; and if we regard it as a +remarkable coincidence, it is as far as we may safely go. +Coincidences of some kind are a universal experience. + +That notorious vivisector, Dr. Brown-Se'quard, devoted many years of +his life to experiments on the seat of all that is concentrated and +exquisite in agony--the spinal cord. It was a curious coincidence +certainly, that in his last days the vivisector was affected by a +disease of the spinal cord, which at one time compelled him to go on +all-fours like a beast. Even the remorse of Reid finds a parallel, +for toward the end of his life, Haller, one of the greatest +physiologists that ever lived, is said to have expressed in letters +deep regret for the suffering he had inflicted upon living animals. + +We cannot doubt, however, that the experience of excruciating agony +affecting the very nerves upon which he had so often experimented must +have brought to the dying man a deeper realization of the pain he had +caused than he could otherwise have known. A noted surgeon, whose +finger was the seat of a felon, asked his hospital assistant to lance +it, at the same time cautioning him to be particularly careful to +cause as little pain as possible. "Why, I've often heard you tell +patients coming to the hospital not to mind the lancing--that the pain +to be felt was really nothing at all," replied the assistant. + +"Ah, yes," rejoined the surgical sufferer, "but then, remember, I was +AT THE OTHER END OF THE KNIFE!" In watching the phenomena elicited by +experiments upon animals, there have been vivisectors who forget what +was felt "at the other end of the knife," and so became utterly +oblivious to the suffering they caused. A leading physiologist of +England once declared that he "HAD NO REGARD AT ALL" for the pain of +an animal vivisected, and that "he had no time, so to speak, for +thinking what the animal would feel or suffer"; that he never used +anaesthetics, "except for convenience' sake." Can such a man realize +the meaning of the word "PAIN"? Without sharp personal experience, can +anyone, adequately comprehend what it signifies? + +Remorse may be evidence, not so much of exceptional delinquency as of +exceptional sensitiveness to ethical considerations. By the baser and +more degraded souls it is rarely experienced. The greatest criminals +usually meet their doom, untouched by any feeling of remorse. Perhaps +it does not greatly matter how this infinite regret is occasioned. +Sometimes-- + + "... pain in man + Has the high purpose of the flail and fan." + +It separates and purifies. To one whose great suffering from disease +is long continued, there must come a clearer vision of the infinite +littleness of all transitory ambitions. Such supreme regret as that +which came to Reid has great value. The poor soul once so longed for +"fame"--which means only a little wider recognition to-day, and a +little more enduring remembrance by posterity than that which is +gained by the generality of mankind. Of that horde of torturers, avid +also for "fame," whose causation of unreckonable anguish brings into +their ignoble natures no thought of pity, no emotion of regret, +everyone comes at last to rest in that deep forgetfulness which he +deserves. Here, however, is the story of one whose penitence gives +reason for longer remembrance, who greatly erred and greatly +suffered, whose contrition atoned, whose example admonishes--JOHN +REID, physiologist. + + + CHAPTER VI + + IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY? + +At every point in the discussion of vivisection we are confronted by +the plea of utility. If, to some extent, we may admit the +reasonableness of the argument, yet such admission must be with +certain definite reservations. The infliction of extreme pain either +upon human beings or on animals for objects other than their own +benefit--how far is it to be justified if some useful end is thereby +achieved? The subject is worth of study. + +The utility of judicial torture as a method of securing the confession +of criminals does not seem to have been questioned for hundreds of +years. The Romans often put all their slaves to torture as soon as +any crime occurred, of which some of their servants could have been +aware. That sometimes the innocent suffered beyond endurance and +falsely confessed seemed to our forefathers no reason whatever for +changing an ancient custom, so often productive of useful ends. +Mysterious crimes, which under our modern methods of investigation +escape detection, were frequently brought to light in earlier times +simply by the threat of torment and the sight of the executioner. +There can be no question that in innumerable cases the torture of +accused criminals whose guilt was almost certain, yet not absolutely +proven, served to further the ends of Justice. If modern civilization +condemns the torture of suspected lawbreakers, it is upon other +grounds than that Justice finds it useless in every case. + +The public punishment of great offences against the state--punishment +accompanied with ignominy and extreme torment--seemed to our ancestors +equally justified by utility. If an old woman were convicted of +witchcraft--and nobody questioned the actuality of the offence two +hundred and fifty years ago--her punishment by burning at the stake +certainly might be expected to deter others from entering into +compacts with the Evil One. If heresy and unbelief lead not only the +sceptic himself, but all who follow his teaching, into eternal +darkness, there seemed to our forefathers no surer method of checking +the first tendencies toward intellectual revolt, and saving +innumerable souls, than by delivering the heretic to the flames, and +accompanying his execution by everything calculated to excite popular +derision and execration. The public punishment of treason, and +particularly of attempted or achieved assassination of the sovereign +or head of the State, was made as excruciating and terrible as +possible, in order THAT THE EXAMPLE MIGHT DETER. + +We speak somewhat vaguely to-day of such tortures and their +atrociously horrible accompaniments. It may be worth while to see +just what they were. two or three centuries ago civilized nations +considered that IF TORMENT WAS USEFUL IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE. There are +three cases which stand out in history with especial distinctness, the +details of which are little known, and I propose to cite them simply +as evidence of the extent to which judicial torment was carried, but a +little while ago, among some of the most enlightened and progressive +nations of modern times. + +If ever the assassination of a Prince deserved the severest +punishment, it was the murder in July, 1584, of William the Silent, the +leader of the Protestants of Holland in their struggle for +independence from Spanish dominion. The sentence pronounced upon the +murderer, Balthazar Gerard, a mere hired assassin, was carried out +within ten days after commission of the crime. A contemporary writer, +apparently an eyewitness of his execution, speaks of Gerard as one +"whose death was not of a sufficient sharpness for such a caitiff, and +yet too sore for any Christian." His description of the murderer' +execution is as follows: + +"The order of the torment was four days. He had the first day the +strappado openly, in the market; the second day, whipped and salted, +and his right hand cut off; the third day, his breasts cut out, and +salt thrown in, and then his left hand cut off. The last day of his +torment, which was the 10th of July, he was bound to two stakes, +standing upright, in such order that he could not shrink down nor stir +any way. Thus standing, naked, there was a great fire placed some +small distance from him wherein heated pincers of iron, with which +pincers two men did pinch and pull his flesh in small pieces from his +bones throughout most parts of his body. Then was he unbound from the +stakes and laid upon the earth, and again fastened to four posts; then +they ripped him up, at which time he had life and PERFECT MEMORY."[1] + +[1] Harl. Misc., vol. iii., p. 200. "Printed at Middleborough, Anno +1584." The above account is taken from a rare publication, in the +British Museum Library. Motley's account of Gerard's torment includes +elements of horror not mentioned by this writer. + +Thus did Holland, a leading civilized nation, attempt to deter +assassins from assaulting her rulers. + +Three centuries ago in May, 1610, Henry IV., King of France, was +struck down by the dagger of Francis Ravilliac; and France, the +leading civilized nation of Europe, determined that the punishment of +the crime should be so horrible that it might be expected for ever to +deter others from imitating his offence. Standing in a tumbril, naked +in his shirt, with the knife wherewith he had stabbed the King chained +to his right hand, Ravilliac was carried to the doors of the Church of +Notre Dame, where he was made to descend, and to do penance for his +crime. + +"After this was he carried to the Greve, where was builded a very +substantial scaffold of strong timber, whereupon he was to be +tormented to death. By the executioners, he was bound to an engine of +wood and iron, made like to a St. Andrew's Cross; and then the hand, +with the knife chained to it, wherewith he slew the king, and half the +arm, was put into an artificial furnace, then flaming with fire and +brimstone...yet nothing at all would he confess, but yelled out with +such horrible cries, even as it had been a Divill or some tormented +soul in hell...and though he deserved ten times more, yet humane +nature might inforce us to pity his distress. After this with tongs +and iron pincers made extreme hot in the same furnace, the +executioners pinched and seared his breasts, his arms, and thighs and +other fleshy parts of his body, cutting out collops of flesh and +burned them before his face; afterward into the same wounds thus made, +they poured scalding oil, rosen, pitch and brimstone...yet he would +reveal nothing but that he did it of himself...because the King +tolerated two religions in his kingdom...but cried out with most +horrible roars, even like the dying man tormented in the brazen bull +of Philaris." + +Finally, his body was torn to pieces by four strong horses, the +remains gathered and burnt, and the ashes scattered to the winds. +"God in His justice," piously observes the narrator, "will, I hope, in +like manner reward all such as desperately attempt to lift their hands +against the Lord's Anointed."[1] + +[1] Harl. Misc., vol. vi., p. 607. "The Terrible and deserved death of +Francis Ravilliac, showing the manner of his strange torments at his +execution, the 25th of May last past, for the murther of the late +French King, Henry IV." + +Almost a century and a half passed before the Place de Greve, in +Paris, again witnessed the torment of a fanatic for an attack upon the +sacred person of a King. On January 5, 1757, Louis XV. was slightly +wounded by a young Frenchman, Robert Franc,ois Damiens. The injury +was not severe, and the King's recovery was soon complete. Such an +attack, however, was a capital offence, and it was determined that the +criminal should not only lose his life, but that he should be made to +undergo every possible addition of torment and agony. On the morning +of March 28, 1757, Damiens was subjected to torture, in order to +induce him to reveal the names of any accomplices. In the extremity +of his agony he appeared at one time to lose consciousness; but the +surgeon and the physician--"qui font toujours pre'sent a` la +torture"--declared him still conscious, and the torment continued, +accompanied by "terrible cries." When he had been for two hours and a +quarter in the hands of the tormentors, the physician and surgeon gave +it as their opinion that to continue might lead to an "accident," and +the doomed wretch was taken to his dungeon, in order to recuperate. + +Toward three o'clock of the afternoon the same day, Damiens was +notified that everything was in readiness for his execution. Clothed +in but a single garment, he was made to mount a tumbril, and was +carried to the doors of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. Descending from +the cart, holding a lighted candle in his hands, he knelt and made +"l'amende honorable," after the form prescribed., It is but a short +distance from the Church of Notre Dame to the Place de Greve. Here a +vast crowd had gathered in order to witness the extremest agony of a +dying man. Members of the French aristocracy were present; ladies of +quality paid vast sums for the occupancy of windows overlooking the +square, and played cards to pass the time until the spectacle of +torment should begin. A scaffold about 9 feet square received the +executioners and their victim. The tortures were of the same +character as those inflicted in the same place upon the assassin of +Henry IV. There was the burning of the right hand, the mutilation of +the body and limbs, the pouring of melted lead and other substances +into bleeding wounds. Terrible cries, "heard at a great distance," +were induced; there were shrieks for pity; there were prayers to God +for strength to endure: "Mon Dieu, la force! la force! Seigneur mon +Dieu, ayez pitie de moi! Seigneur mon Dieu, donnez-moi la patience!" +Prayers for patience, for strength to suffer and endure--these his +only petitions in the supreme agony. + +At last came the final act of the tragedy. Four young and vigorous +horses were attached, each to a seared and lacerated limb, and the +attempt was made to rend asunder the still living body. The horrible +spectacle lasted for more than an hour. Finally the surgeon and the +physician in attendance gave it as their opinion that complete +dismemberment could not be effected except afer a partial severance of +the limbs. The operation was performed, the horses were again +attached, and the fearful spectacle came to an end. Damiens +apparently preserved consciousness even after both legs and an arm had +been torn from his body. The remains were gathered and burnt on the +place of torment, and the noble lords and ladies who had gloated over +the scene returned to their homes. It is not at all improbable that +among those who witnessed the torments of Damiens in 1757 for an +assault upon a King's sacred person there were some who lived to see +Louis XVI. mount the scaffold in 1793.[1] + +[1] See "Pie`ces Originales des Process fait a Robert Franc,ois +Damiens, Paris," 1757, vol. iii., pp. 379-409; and Perkin's "France +under Louis XV.," vol. ii., p. 87. + +I have quoted at length three cases of judicial torture, occurring +among Christian nations, which were then in the front rank of modern +civilization. In Turkey and in Egypt, in India and in China, among +the savage Sioux and Iroquois of North America, the tragedies of +prolonged torment were more frequent, but not more horrible. But in +what way do such records of torture concern the abuses of vivisection? + +For two reasons they are suggestive. Not infrequently it is intimated +that reports of cruelty by physiologists cannot be true: they are +merely "blood-curdling stories"; their horror makes the charge beyond +the possibility of belief. A physiologist cannot have been so cruel, +and yet have seemed so gentle, so benevolent, so mild. Here are +presented the records of torment inflicted upon human beings; torments +approved by the highest legal authorities; torments to the supervision +of which even medical science, in one case at least, lent its +representatives to assist the torturers, and if the facts were not so +well attested, they, too, would pass belief. But we know they are not +fictions; they were actualities. To push them out of recollection +into forgetfulness is to unlearn one of the chief lessons that History +can teach us--the lesson of warning. The atrocities of biological +experimentation can no more be dismissed with a shrug of incredulity +than one can sneer at the agonies of Gerard or Damiens because they, +too, suggest a heartlessness in the men of that time which our finer +civilization can hardly conceive. + +But the chief lesson of this black chapter of history concerns the +great question of utility. That these atrocious torments were +inspired simply and solely by an intense passion for revenge is an +immeasurably dishonouring imputation. For the statesmen not only, but +the religious leaders of that period, believed--and justly believed--in +the usefulness of public torture; they believed that the fear of an +ignominious and horrible death amid the jeering cries of the +surrounding populace would tend to hinder others from repeating the +offence. The utility of Terror as a deterrent they knew--as France +knew it in '93, as the Spanish Inquisition knew it for nearly three +centuries, as every nation knew it in times of popular insurrection or +foreign wars. What Civilization came at last to recognize was that +UTILITY OF TORTURE, NO MATTER HOW GREAT, COULD NOT JUSTIFY ITS USE. +This principle in its application to the punishment of human beings +has been universally recognized by every civilized nation in the +world. It only remains for the future Civilization to recognize it so +far as concerns beings inferior to ourselves. The repetition by +students in a laboratory of an experiment upon the nervous system of a +dog, simply to demonstrate well-known facts, tends, perhaps, to fix +them in memory; but that degree of utility does not justify the +torture. "The time will come," said Dr. Bigelow of Harvard Medical +School, "when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the +name of Science as it now does to burning at the stake in the name of +Religion." + + + CHAPTER VII + + THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION + +The student of history, attempting to trace the agitation for reform +of vivisection, is early confronted by a curious fact. It is the +ignorance which generally prevails concerning the part borne by the +medical profession in exciting public attention to the cruelties of +experimentation. The present generation of scientific teachers, of +medical students and physicians, are as a rule profoundly ignorant of +the beginning of the controversy, and would be as surprised as +Professor Osler of Oxford University seems to have been surprised, to +hear that medical journals first made known to the world the abuses of +vivisection. Remembering how vigorously the physiological laboratory +of to-day resists and resents either investigation or criticism, one +is forced to confess that rarely, if ever, in the history of the world +has a transformation of ideals been more completely attained. If the +followers of Wilberforce and Clarkson, to whom the world is indebted +for the great impulse against negro slavery, were to-day organized for +the exploitation of the negroes on the Congo, or the Indians on the +Amazon, or for carrying on the slave-trade secretly, without +restriction or supervision, the condition of affairs could hardly be +more singular than the dominance obtained by the physiological +laboratory upon the medical conscience of to-day. The facts +constitute a remarkable chapter of human experience; and though once +before they have been stated by the present writer, it is evident, by +the evidence given before the Royal Commission, that a vast amount of +ignorance yet remains to be dispelled. + +Up to a period considerably beyond the middle of the last century, the +sentiment of the medical profession in England was practically +unanimous in condemning the methods of vivisection which prevailed on +the Continent of Europe. In 1855 the science of bacteriology was +unknown. It is possible that not more than half a dozen English +physiologists at that time were making experiments on living animals. +It was not even regarded as an essential in the teaching of medical +schools. In 1875 some of the most distinguished surgeons and +physicians of Great Britain testified before the Royal Commission that +as medical students they had never witnessed an experiment on a living +animal. + +That the agitation against the cruelties of vivisectors which made +itself evident during the last half of the previous century had no +origin in ignorance is easily demonstrated. It was the medical +journals of England which first made known to the world the atrocities +perpetrated in the name of Science in Continental laboratories. In +our own day, when some of the leading teachers in medical schools have +only scorn for those who denounce cruelty in the laboratory, it is +worth while to study the sentiments of an earlier generation, when +sympathy for animal suffering was not a subject for mockery. + +The Medical Times and Gazette of London was one of the earlier of +medical journals to denounce the cruelties perpetrated by vivisection +abroad. In its issue of September 4, 1858, the editor says: + +"In this country we are glad to think that experiments on animals are +never performed nowadays except upon some reasonable excuse for the +pain thus wilfully inflicted. We are inclined to believe that the +question will some day be asked, whether any excuse can make them +justifiable? One cannot read without shuddering details like the +following. It would appear from these that the practice of such +brutality is the everyday lesson taught in the veterinary schools of +France. + +"A small cow, very thin, and which had undergone numerous operations-- +that is to say, WHICH HAD SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME +TORTURE--was placed upon the table, and killed by insufflation of air +into the jugular vein."[1] + +This fact is related by M. Sanson, of the veterinary school of +Toulouse, merely incidentally, when describing an experiment of his +own upon the blood. The wretched animal was actually cut to pieces by +the students! ... M. Sanson adds (merely wanting to prove that the +nervous system of the animals upon which he operated was properly +stirred up): `Those who have seen these wretched animals on their bed +of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of torture to which they +are subjected; torture, in fact, under which they for the most part +succumb!'" + +[1] In all extracts italics are the compiler's. + +A little later the same medical journal again touched the subject of +vivisection in its editorial columns. In its issue of October 20, +1860, the editor is even more emphatic in denunciation: + +"Two years ago we called attention to the brutality practised at the +veterinary schools in France, and gave a specimen of the kind of +torture there inflicted upon animals. WE ARE VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT +THE PUBLIC ARE NOW OCCUPIED WITH THE SUBJECT, and we are sure that the +Profession at large will fully agree with us IN CONDEMNING EXPERIMENTS +WHICH ARE MADE SIMPLY TO DEMONSTRATE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR OTHER FACTS +WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS SETTLED POINTS AND ARE BEYOND +CONTROVERSY. We consider the question involved as one of extreme +interest to the Profession, and we shall gladly throw open our columns +to any of our brethren who may wish to assist in framing some code by +which we may decide under what circumstances experiments upon living +animals may be made with propriety." + +The words italicized in the foregoing quotation are of special +significance to-day. The editor is "very glad" to note the interest +taken in the subject by the general public--a sentiment quite foreign +to that of the present time. One notes, too, the gratifying assurance +that the medical profession of England at that period would "fully +agree in condemning experiments," which nowadays are made not only in +medical schools but to some extent in every college of any standing in +the United States. And this condemnation on the part of the medical +profession was voiced four years before the date assigned by Professor +Bowditch as that of "the first serious attack upon biological research +in England." + +A few months later the same medical periodical outlined the principles +which it believed should govern the practice of animal +experimentation. In the issue of this journal for March 2, 1861, the +editor makes the following pronouncement: + +"VIVISECTION.--We have been requested to pronounce a condemnation of +vivisection.... + +"We believe that if anyone competent to the task desires to solve any +question affecting human life or health, or to acquire such a +knowledge of function as shall hereafter be available for the +preservation of human life or health, by the mutilation of a living +animal, he is justified in so doing. But we do not hesitate to +condemn the practice of operating on living animals for the mere +purpose of acquiring coolness and dexterity, and WE THINK THAT THE +REPETITION OF EXPERIMENTS BEFORE STUDENTS, MERELY IN ORDER TO EXHIBIT +THEM AS EXPERIMENTS, SHOWING WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN, IS EQUALLY TO BE +CONDEMNED." + +Again, on August 16, 1862, the Medical Times and Gazette gives an +expression of its views on the subject. It condemns the cruelty of +Magendie, concerning which one will seek vainly to-day in medical +periodicals for any similar expression of reprobation. Referring to +the subject, the editor says: + +"No person whose moral nature is raised above that of the savage would +defend the practices which lately disgraced the veterinary schools of +France, or in past years the theatre of Magendie.[1] Professor +Sharpey, in his address to the British Medical Association, has +accurately drawn the required limits, fully obtained and confirmed, +ITS REPETITION IS INDEFENSIBLE; and `as the art of operating may be +learned equally on the dead as on the living body, operations on the +latter for the purpose of surgical instruction are reprehensible and +unnecessary.'" + +[1] The lecture-room in which vivisections were publicly performed. + +To the London Lancet the cause of humaneness to animals is also +indebted, for its repeated condemnation of the cruelties of +vivisection. As the exponent and representative of British surgery, +its words undoubtedly carried great weight among medical +practitioners. In its issue of August 11, 1860, after pointing out +the utility of certain physiological inquiries, the Lancet's editor +thus defines what it regards as reprehensible cruelty: + +"On the other hand, when at any moment the practice overpasses the +rigorous bounds of utility, when its object is no longer the pursuit +of new solutions of scientific problems, or the examination of +hypotheses requiring a test; when vivisection is elevated into an art, +and this art becomes a matter of public demonstration--then it is +degraded by the absence of a beneficent end, and becomes a cruelty. +The THE EXHIBITIONS OF EXPERIMENTS WHICH AIM ONLY AT A REPETITION OF +INQUIRIES ALREADY SATISFACTORILY CONCLUDED, and the DEMONSTRATION OF +FUNCTIONS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, appear to us to rank among the excesses +which must be deplored, if not repressed. The displays in these +amphitheatres are of the most painful kind, and it is to be deeply +regretted that curiosity should silence feeling, and draw spectators to +mortal suffering.... The Commission (of the Societies for Prevention +of Cruelty) asks for nothing which the most zealous devotees of +science cannot--and ought not--to grant. It demands only the +cessation of experiments which are PURELY REPETITIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF +KNOWN FACTS." + +This is a remarkable utterance. It is quite probable that it voiced +an almost unanimous opinion among English physicians and surgeons of +half a century ago. How far have we strayed since then! The Lancet of +to-day would doubtless earnestly oppose any legal prohibition of +experiments which it once ranked among the "excesses which must be +deplored, IF NOT REPRESSED." + +Two or three months afterward the Lancet again expressed its +condemnation of experiments made for the demonstration of known +facts. In its issue of October 20, 1860, the Lancet editor says: + +"The moment that it [vivisection] overpasses the bounds of necessity; +when it ceases to aim at the solution of problems in which humanity is +interested, and becomes a new means of public demonstration, having no +benevolent end--then it is degraded to the level of A PURPOSELESS +CRUELTY. The repetitive demonstration of known facts, by public or +private vivisections, is an abuse that we deplore, and have more than +once condemned." + +On January 12, 1861, the Lancet opens its columns to a correspondent, +who invites attention of its readers to the views of Professor Owen, +afterward Sir Richard Owen, and the most distinguished anatomist of +his time: + +"Professor Owen, one of the first physiological authorities of the +present day, observes: `That no teacher of physiology is justified in +repeating any vivisectional experiment, merely to show its known +results to his class or to others. IT IS THE PRACTICE OF VIVISECTION, +in place of physiological induction, pursued for the same end, AGAINST +WHICH HUMANITY, CHRISTIANITY, AND CIVILIZATION SHOULD ALIKE PROTEST.'" + +It is probable that no stronger denunciation of the cruelty of +vivisection ever appeared than that contained in the leading editorial +of the London Lancet of August 22, 1863. The writer was certainly not +an opponent of all experiments upon animals; he admits that "if +pressed for a categoric answer whether such a practice as vivisection +were permissible under proper restrictions for the purpose of +advancing science and lessening human suffering, the answer would be +in the affirmative." But the practice is evidently spreading. It is +asserted that experiments upon animals "are a common mode of lecture +illustration," and that such investigations "have spread from the hand +of the retired and sober man of matured science into those of everyday +lecturers and their pupils." Against such extension of vivisection the +editor of the Lancet enters an emphatic protest: + +"If we were pressed simply for a categoric answer to the question +whether such a practice [as vivisection] were permissible under proper +restrictions and for the purpose of advancing science and lessening +human suffering, we need hardly say that the answer would be in the +affirmative. It is asserted, however, that the practice of +vivisection and such investigations as are implied by this term, `have +spread from the hands of the retired and sober man of matured science +into those of everyday lecturers and their pupils,' and that such +experiments `are a common mode of lecture illustration....' + +"We will state our belief that there is too much of it everywhere, and +that there are daily occurring practices in the schools of France +which cry aloud in the name both of honour and humanity for their +immediate cessation. About two years ago, our Royal Society for +Prevention of Cruelty to Animals became possessed of the knowledge +that it was still the practice in the schools of Anatomy and +Physiology in France for lecturers and demonstrators to tie down cats, +dogs, rabbits, etc., before the class; to perform upon them operations +of great pain, and to pursue investigations accompanied by the most +terrible torture. THIS, TOO, FOR THE PURPOSE ONLY OF DEMONSTRATING +CERTAIN FACTS WHICH HAD BEEN FOR LONG UNHESITATINGLY ADMITTED, and +for giving a sort of meretricious air to a popular series of lectures. +It learned, moreover, that at the veterinary schools of Lyons and +Alfort, live horses were periodically given up to a group of students +for anatomical and surgical purposes, often exercised with ... extra +refinements of cruelty...." + +It appeared that at Paris the whole neighborhood adjoining the medical +school--including patients in a maternity hospital--"were constantly +disturbed, when the course of physiology was proceeding at the school, +by the howling and barking of the dogs, both night and day." The dogs +were silenced. "The fact was, the poor animals were now subjected to +the painful operation of dividing the laryngeal nerves as preliminary +to the performance of other mutilations! And what were these dogs for? +Simply for the vain repetition of clap-trap experiments, by way of +illustrations of lectures for first-year students! These facts +becoming known, the general public has at length interfered, and, we +think, with very great propriety. THE ENTIRE PICTURE OF VIVISECTIONAL +ILLUSTRATION OF ORDINARY LECTURES IS TO US PERSONALLY REPULSIVE IN THE +EXTREME. Look, for example, at the animal before us, stolen (to begin +with) from his master; the poor creature hungry, tied up for days and +nights, pining for his home, is at length brought into the theatre. +As his crouching and feeble form is strapped upon the table, HE +LICKS THE VERY HAND THAT TIES HIM! He struggles, but in vain, and +uselessly expresses his fear and suffering until a muzzle is buckled +on his jaws to stifle every sound. The scalpel penetrates his +quivering flesh. One effort only is now natural until his powers are +exhausted--a vain, instinctive resistance to the cruel form that +stands over him, the impersonation of Magendie and his class. `I +recall to mind,' says Dr. Latour, `a poor dog, the roots of whose +vertebral nerves Magendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's +theory, which he claimed for his own. The dog, already mutilated and +bleeding, twice escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw his +front paws around Magendie's neck, licking, as if to soften his +murderer, and ask for mercy! Vivisectors may laugh, but I confess I +was unable to endure that heartrending spectacle.' But the whole thing +is too horrible to dwell upon. Heaven forbid that any description of +students in this country should be witness to such deeds as these! We +repudiate the whole of this class of procedure. Science will refuse +to recognize it as its offspring, and humanity shudders as it gazes on +its face." + +In all the literature of what is known as "antivivisection" is it +possible to find a more emphatic condemnation of scientific cruelty +than this? The decadence of humane sentiment in the laboratory can +hardly be more strikingly illustrated than by a comparison of this +editorial utterance of the Lancet with some of the present-day +expressions of opinion in medical journals. When a quotation from +this editorial was brought to the attention of a professor in +Cambridge University not long since, it seemed to him so incredible +that he made "a special inquiry," and then felt safe in publishing a +doubt of its authenticity. If, as one may perhaps imagine without +undue violence to probability, this "special inquiry" was made in the +editorial rooms of the journal in question, the incredulity which even +there found expression only illustrates the gulf that lies between the +present and the past. It is a marvel, indeed, that the human +sentiment of that earlier period, before the dominance of Continental +ideals became an accomplished fact in America and England, can be so +utterly forgotten by the medical journals and medical teachers of the +present time. + +A week later the Lancet again discusses the subject always, it should +be remembered, as the advocate of vivisection, provided the practice +be carried on under humane restrictions. A few sentences of the +editorial of August 29 are specially significant: + +"... As a general rule, neither our [British] students nor teachers +are wont to carry on experiments upon living animals even in a private +way. The utmost that can be said is that perhaps some two or three-- +at the most six--scientific men in London are known to be pursuing +certain lines of investigation which require them occasionally during +the year to employ living animals.... Whilst the schools of medicine +in this country are as a rule not liable to the charge of +vivisectional abuses as regards the higher animals, we cannot +altogether acquit them from a rather reckless expenditure of the lives +and feelings of cold-blooded creatures.... The reckless way in which +we have sometimes seen this poor creature [the frog] cut, thrown and +kicked about, has been sometimes sickening.... We cannot help feeling +there is both A BAD MORAL DISCIPLINE FOR THE MAN, as well as an amount +of probable pain to the creature, in such a practice." + +How strange such criticism as this appears to-day! Can one imagine a +medical journal in America or England expressing in our time any +sympathy for the suffering of frogs in a physiological laboratory? Can +one fancy on the part of its editor a suggestion of "bad moral +discipline" which the ruthless vivisection of animals of the highest +organization or grade of intelligence might induce? To-day such +criticism is unthinkable. Yet the capacity of animal suffering has +not diminished. The number of victims is vastly larger. What change +has occurred which makes it impossible to conceive on the part of a +medical journal of the present time the expression of such a sentiment +of pity for one of the lower forms of animal life? + +The Lancet was not alone in such condemnations. No periodical of that +day, devoted entirely to the problems of medicine, occupied a position +of influence equal to that of the British Medical Journal. One of its +earlier editorial utterances concerning vivisection appeared in its +issue of May 11, 1861, three years before the date given by +Dr. Bowditch as that of "the first serious attack." + +"The Emperor of the French has received a deputation from the Royal +Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We sincerely trust +that this interview may be the means of putting an end to the +unjustifiable brutalities too often inflicted on the lower animals +under the guise of scientific experimentation. IT HAS NEVER APPEARED +CLEAR TO US THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN DESTROYING ANIMALS FOR MERE +EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES; but now that we possess +the means of removing sensation during experiments, the man who puts +an animal to torture ought, in our opinion, to be prosecuted." + +Referring to the experiment upon a cow mentioned in +Dr. Brown-Se'quard's Journal of Physiology, and already described, the +editor adds: + +"We are not disposed, in a question of this kind, in which some of the +highest considerations are concerned, to allow our opinion to be +swayed by the opinions or the proceedings of even the greatest +surgeons and the greatest physiologists. That such authorities +performed vivisection is a fact; but it does not satisfy us that the +proceeding is justifiable. Under any circumstances, this much, we +think, is evident enough: that IF VIVISECTIONS BE PERMISSIBLE, THEY +CAN ONLY BE SO UNDER CERTAIN LIMITED AND DEFINED CONDITIONS. We need +hardly add that these conditions have not yet been laid down. +Altogether, the subject is one well worthy of serious discussion, and +gladly would we see the interests of medical science in the matter +properly reconciled with the dictates of the moral sense." + +Nothing could be more clearly stated. One reads almost with a feeling +of amazement the sentences we have italicized in the foregoing +quotation. Here, in the editorial columns of the principal medical +journal in the world, is expressed doubt of the justification of any +destruction of animals whatever, "for mere experimental research." +What magnificent independence of the opinions and experimentation "of +even the greatest surgeons and the greatest physiologists" is here +displayed! + +Five months later the British Medical Journal in its editorial columns +again refers to the peculiarly atrocious vivisection which it had once +before denounced; it is evident that the journal intends that such +actions shall not be forgotten. In the issue of October 19, 1861, it +says: + +"The brutalities which have been so long inflicted upon horses, etc., +in the veterinary schools of France under the name of Science are +perfectly horrible. Some idea of what has been daily going on in +those schools during many past years may be obtained from such a +statement as the following, taken from a paper by M. Sanson, in the +Journal of Physiology [edited by Dr. C. E. Brown-Se'quard]. M. Sanson +is speaking incidentally of the condition of animals upon whose blood +he was himself experimenting: `A small cow,' he writes, `very thin, +and which had undergone numerous operations--that is to saw, WHICH HAD +SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME TORTURE--was placed upon the +table,' etc. M. Sanson adds `...Those who have seen these wretched +animals on their bed of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of +torture to which they are subjected; torture, in fact, under which +they for the most part succumb!' THE POOR BRUTES ARE ACTUALLY SLICED +AND CHOPPED, PIECEMEAL, TO DEATH, in order that the e'le`ves +(students) may become skilful operators!" + +Almost a year passes, and on September 6, 1862, we again find the +editor of the British Medical Journal discussing the ethics of animal +experimentation. He admits that there is useless vivisection and +unnecessary infliction of pain. Significant, indeed, it will seem to +the physician of to-day to find one of the leading exponents of +medical opinion condemning as "unjustifiable" demonstrations of +well-known facts, which are now considered as essential to medical +education. After stating that some restrictions should be imposed, +the editor adds: + +"We will venture to suggest that these restrictions should be well and +clearly defined; that some high authority like Dr. Sharpey himself +should lay down certain rules on the subject, and for the purpose of +preventing, if possible, any needless suffering from being inflicted +experimentally on the lower animals. All of us must be well aware +that many needless experiments are actually performed, and until some +clearly defined rules on this head are laid down, we venture to think +such needless suffering will still continue to be inflicted on +animals. If, for example, it were publicly stated by authorities in +the profession that experiments of this nature, made for the mere +purpose of demonstrating admitted physiological facts, are +unjustifiable, a great step would be gained, and a great ground of +complaint cut from under the feet of the enthusiastic antivivisection +societies. The very fact of an authoritative sanction to the +legitimate performance of such experiments...." + +The denunciations of cruel vivisection by the British Medical Journal +extend over a considerable period. Occasionally the Journal quotes +the opinions of some of its medical contemporaries in Paris, admitting +the need for reform. For instance, in its issue of May 2, 1863, in +its editorial columns, the Journal presents us with a quotation from +L'Union Me'dicale of Paris, suggesting distinctions that should be +made in the selection of vivisection material: + +"Vivisection is often useful and sometimes necessary, and therefore +not to be absolutely proscribed; but I would gladly petition the +Senate to forbid its performance on every animal which is useful to, +and a friend of, man. The mutilations and tortures inflicted upon +dogs are horrible. The King of Dahomey is less barbarous than these +merciless vivisectors. HE cuts his victims' throats, but without +torturing them; while THEY tear and cut to pieces these wretched dogs +in their most sensitive parts. Let them operate on rats, foxes, +sharks, vipers, and reptiles. But no; our vivisectors object to the +teeth, the claws, the beaks of these repulsive animals; they must have +gentle animals; and so, like cowards, they seize upon the dog--that +caressing animal, which licks the hand, armed with the scalpel!" + +Think of a such quotation in the columns of the British Medical +Journal--a periodical which to-day rarely ventures to criticize any +phase of animal experimentation. + +The following summer, on August 22, 1863, the Journal find space in +its editorial pages for yet other quotations from French medical +periodicals concerning the "enormous abuses" of vivisection. + +"We are very glad to find that the French medical journals are +entering protests against the cruel abuse which is made of vivisection +in France. L'Abeille Me'dicale says: + +"`I am quite of you opinion as to the enormous abuses practised at the +present day in the matter of vivisection.... In the laboratories of +the College of France, in the E'cole de Me'decine, eminent professors, +placed at the head of instruction, are forced to the painful sacrifice +of destroying animals in order to widen the field of science. In doing +so they act legitimately, and suffering humanity demands it of them. +Those experiments are performed in the silence of private study, and +the results obtained are then explained to the pupils, or treated of +in publications.... But to repeat the experiments before the public, +to descend from the professional chair in order to practise the part +of a butcher or of an executioner, is painful to the feelings and +disgusting to the sentiments of the student.... Such public +exhibitions are ignoble, and of a kind which pervert the generous +sentiments of youth. An end should be put to them. Ought we to allow +the e'lite of our French youths to feed their eyes with the sight of +the flowing blood of living animals, and to have their ears stunned +with their groans, at this time when society is calling for the doing +away of public executions? Let no one tell us that vivisections are +necessary for a knowledge of physiology.... If the present ways, +habits, and customs are continued, the future physician will become +marked by his cold and implacable insensibility. Let there be no +mistake about it: THE MAN WHO HABITUATES HIMSELF TO THE SHEDDING OF +BLOOD, AND WHO IS INSENSIBLE TO THE SUFFERINGS OF ANIMALS, IS LED ON +INTO THE PATH OF BASENESS.' + +"So writes L'Abeille Me'dicale. But here L'Union Me'dicale takes up +and comments on the tale: + +"`This is all excellently said; but we must correct a few errors. +Magendie, alas! performed experiments in public, and sadly too often +at the Colle`ge de France. I remember once, among other instances, +the case of a poor dog, the roots of whose spinal nerves he was about +to expose. Twice did the dog, all bloody and mutilated, escape from +his implacable knife, and twice did I see him put his forepaws around +Magendie's neck and lick his face! I confess--laugh, Messieurs les +Vivisecteurs, if you please--that I could not bear the sight.... It is +true that Dr. P. H. Be'rard, Professor of Physiology, never performed +a single vivisection in his lectures, which were brilliant, elegant, +and animated. but Be'rard was an example of a singular psychological +phenomenon. Toward the close of his life, so painful to him was the +sight of blood and the exhibition of pain, that he gave up the +practice of surgery, and would never allow his students to witness a +vivisection. But Be'rard was attacked by cerebral haemorrhage, and +the whole tone of his character was thereby afterward changed. The +benevolent man became aggressive; the tolerant man, irritable.... He +became an experimenter, and passed whole days in practising +vivisections, TAKING PLEASURE IN THE CRIES, THE BLOOD, AND THE +TORTURES OF THE POOR ANIMALS.'" + +The following week the Journal again refers to the subject, the +"ATROCITIES OF VIVISECTION." It is a noteworthy phrase, proceeding +from a medical journal, and should not be forgotten. Concerning the +truth of the charges, the absolute heartlessness exhibited, there can +be no possible doubt, for the evidence is cumulative. Has the phrase +"atrocities of vivisection" appeared in the editorial columns of any +medical journal during the past twenty years, unless in the way of +ridicule or contempt? It may be doubted. + +"The atrocities of vivisection continue to occupy the attention of the +Paris papers. The Opinion Nationale says: `The poor brutes' cries of +pain sadden the wards of the clinic, rendering the sojourn there +insupportable both to patients and nurses. Only imagine that, when a +dog has not been killed at one sitting, and that enough life remains +in him to experiment upon him in the following one, they put him back +in the kennel, all throbbing and palpitating! There the unhappy +creatures, already torn by the scalpel, howl until the next day, in +tones rendered hoarse and faint by another operation intended to +deprive them of voice.'" + +Again, only three weeks later, in its issue of September 19, 1863, the +British Medical Journal presents in an editorial an account of the +debate on Vivisection in the French Academy of Medicine. It is of +interest, not only as an indication of English opinion at that day, +but also as evidence of what was being done by vivisectors over +fifteen years after the discovery of chloroform. + +"Our readers are aware that the French Minister of Commerce submitted +to the Academy of Medicine documents supplied to him by a London +society.... A committee of the Academy examined these questions and +issued a report, but they did not answer the simple questions put to +it. A discussion on the report has naturally taken place in the +Academy itself, and has given rise to some very interesting remarks. +M. Dubois ... refused to draw up the report because he differed +somewhat in opinion on the subject of vivisections from many of his +associates. He therefore reserved the liberty of speaking his mind +freely on the subject before the Academy. His conclusions are well +worthy serious attention. They seem to us to contain all that can be +rightly said in favour of vivisection, and to put the matter on its +true and proper footing. The greatest praise is due to M. Dubois for +having had the courage to express his opinion so boldly and openly.... + +"In the first part of his speech, M. Dubois demolished the work of the +report, showing that it did not answer the questions of the +Government, and left things exactly in their previous state. He then +proceeded to give his opinion as to what reforms should be made in the +practice of vivisection. The greatest physiologists, he remarked, +such as Harvey, Asselli, Haller, were parsimonious and discreet in +their use of vivisection. To-day we have before our eyes a very +different spectacle. Under pretence of experimentally demonstrating +physiology, the professor no longer ascends the rostrum; he places +himself before a vivisecting-table, has live animals brought to him, +and experiments. The habitual spectators at the School of Medicine, +the College of France, and the Faculty of Sciences, know how +experiments are made on the living flesh, how muscles are divided and +cut, the nerves wrenched or dilacerated, the bones broken or +methodically opened with gouge, mallet, saw, and pincers. Among other +tortures there is that horrible one of the opening of the vertebral +canal or of the spinal column to lay bare membranes and the substance +of the marrow; IT IS THE SUBLIME OF HORROR. One needs to have +witnessed that sight thoroughly to comprehend the real sense of the +word `vivisection.' Whoever has not seen an animal under experiment +CANNOT FORM AN IDEA OF THE HABITUAL PRACTICES OF THE VIVISECTORS. +M. Dubois drew an eloquent picture of these practices, become usual in +the physiological amphitheatres in the midst of blood and of howls of +pain, and he showed that under the dominant influence of the +vivisectors, physiological instruction has gone out of its natural +road. Himself an eminent pathologist, he treated without ceremony the +unjustifiable pretensions of those innovators, who, regardless at once +of the principles of physiology and those of pathology, try to +transport clinical surgery to the table of vivisection. + +"M. Dubois, indeed, was so pungent in his censures that some of the +Academicians left the hall without awaiting the end of his discourse. +The veterinary part of his audience heard him to the end, and, it is +to be hoped, profited by the picture he drew of the sight that met his +eyes on his first visit to Alfort. M. Renault, the director of the +establishment, took M. Dubois into a vast hall, where five or six +horses were thrown down, each one surrounded by a group of pupils, +either operating or waiting their turn to do so. Each group was of +eight students, and matters were so arranged that each student could +perform eight operations, so well graduated that, although the sixty- +four operations lasted ten hours, a horse could endure them all before +being put to death. Although unwilling to hurt the feelings of his +host, M. Dubois could not help letting slip the word `ATROCITY.' +`Atrocities, if you please,' replied M. Renault, `but they are +necessary.' `What!' exclaimed M. Dubois; `SIXTY-FOUR OPERATIONS, AND +TEN HOURS OF SUFFERING?' M. Renault explained to him that this was a +question of finance; that if more money were allowed, the horses might +be kept only three or four hours under the knife. M. Dubois stated +that it was true fewer operations are now performed, and that horses +are kept less time under the hands of experimenting students. But, he +declared, he should never forget the sight he witnessed at Alfort. +Some of the horses were just begun upon; others were already horribly +mutilated; they did not cry out, but gave utterance to hollow moans. +M. Dubois, supported by the authority of many veterinary surgeons, +demands that these practices should be discontinued. Dr. Parchappe, +who spoke afterward, agreed with M. Dubois. He said: `... Experiments +on animals are in no way indispensable to completely efficacious +instruction in physiology.'" + +It could hardly be expected by anyone but the most sanguine of mortals +that the French Academy of Medicine would agree to censure or condemn +certain of its own members at the instance of English humanitarians, +even though supported by men of their own nationality. When the +matter came to a vote, the opponents of change passed a resolution +declaring that complaints had no basis, and that the question of +performing experiments or surgical operations in the veterinary +schools "SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF MEN, OF SCIENCE." This is +precisely the position taken to-day both in England and America by +those who contend that the practice should not be restricted by law. +The Journal, however, adds: + +"Everyone who has followed this debate must be aware that the +resolution is ... entirely opposed to the facts elicited in the +discussion. Almost every speaker, except the veterinaries, put in a +protest more or less strong against the practice of surgical +operations in veterinary schools, and again and again was the word +ATROCIOUS applied to them. We learn, moreover, that this mode of +instruction was adopted in 1761, so that for more than a century these +atrocious operations have been practiced on animals in French +veterinary schools. Yet the Academy decides that complaints on this +score are without foundation, and that men of science in this matter +NEED NO INTERFERENCE! We may be sure that, however much the +Academicians may snub the affair, the discussion cannot fail to have +beneficial results." + +Two or three weeks later, on October 10, the Journal again touches the +subject of physiological demonstrations, and denounces them--when +conducted as in Paris--as a scandal to humanity. The Journal says: + +"M. Dubois has published a discourse ... on the subject of vivisection +in answer to objections made to the amendments proposed by him. It is +a brilliant summary of the whole subject, and utterly condemnative of +the amendments carried by the Academy. M. Dubois showed to +demonstration that ... physiological demonstrations on living animals +in the public [Medical] schools ARE UTTERLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, AND A +SCANDAL TO HUMANITY. IN ALL THIS WE MOST THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH HIM. +He said: + +"`If we are to carry out the wishes of certain savants, we shall make +everyone of our professional chairs a scene of blood.... Let us tell +the Minister that vivisections are necessary for the advancement of +science, and that to suppress them would be to arrest the progress of +physiology; but let us also say that THEY ARE UNNECESSARY IN THE +TEACHING OF THIS SCIENCE, AND THAT RECOURSE OUGHT NOT TO BE HAD TO +THEM, EITHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LECTURE.'" + +Under what restrictions would the British Medical Journal of that day +permit animal experimentation? + +In two editorial utterances the Journal briefly defines its position. +In the issue of January 16, 1864, we have the following expression of +its views: + +"The conditions under which--and under which alone--vivisections may +be justifiably performed seem to us to be clear and easily stated.... +We would say, then, in the first place, that those experiments on +living animals, and those alone, are justifiable which are performed +for the purpose of elucidating obscure or unknown questions in +physiology or pathology; that whenever any physiological or +pathological fact has been distinctly and satisfactorily cleared up +and settled, all further repetition of the experiments which were +originally performed for its demonstration are unjustifiable; that +they are needless torture inflicted on animals, being, in fact, +performed not for the purpose of eliciting unknown facts, BUT TO +SATISFY MAN'S CURIOUSITY.... + +"And in the second place, we would say that only those persons are +justified in experimenting upon living animals who are capable +experimentalists.... All experiments made by inexperienced and +incapable observers are unjustifiable, and for an obvious reason. The +pain in such case, suffered by the animal, is suffered in +vain.... Pain so inflicted is manifest CRUELTY." + +If we compare this statement with any recent expression of the +Journal's views, we shall see how far this organ of medical opinion +has strayed in fifty years from the conservatism of Sir Charles Bell +toward the unrestricted freedom demanded by the apologists of Magendie +and Brachet. Six months later, another pronouncement appears in its +editorial columns. In the issue of June 11, 1864, we read: + +"Far be it from us to patronize or palliate the infamous practices, +the unjustifiable practices, committed in French veterinary schools, +and in many French Medical schools, in the matter of vivisection. We +repudiate as brutal and cruel all surgical operations performed on +living animals. WE REPUDIATE THE REPETITION OF ALL EXPERIMENTS ON +ANIMALS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION OF ANY ALREADY WELL-DETERMINED +PHYSIOLOGICAL QUESTION. We hold that no man except a skilled +anatomist and a well-informed physiologist has a right to perform +experiments on animals." + +It is unnecessary to state that these excerpts from the editorial +columns of medical journals are not quoted by way of criticism. On +the contrary, they seem in the highest degree creditable to the +medical periodicals in which they appeared. They voiced a +condemnation of scientific cruelty which then found a universal +response. In the awakening of public apprehension regarding the +growing abuses incident to vivisection, their influence cannot be too +highly esteemed. There can be no question that these exposures of +physiological methods, these repeated and emphatic denunciations of +cruelty, proceeding from the leading medical journals of England, +contributed more than anything else to arouse the general public to +the acknowledged existence of abuse, and to the necessity of some +legislation regarding the vivisection of animals. AND YET NO ADVOCATE +OF UNRESTRICTED VIVISECTION IN OUR DAY EVER REFERS TO THEM. Sir +William Osler tells the Royal Commission that "it is news to him." +Professor Bowditch, the leading physiologist of Harvard Medical +School, refers with contempt to "blood-curdling stories" in the +pamphlet of Dr. Fleming as the "first serious attack" upon +vivisection--without the slightest reference to all this earlier +criticism, this exposure of infamous cruelty by the leading journals +of the medical profession! But the worst and most regrettable result +of such ignorance on the part of those who teach is its effect upon +those who, as students, follow their guidance, accept their +prejudices, and, unconscious of their ignorance, give to their +statements implicit trust. + +We shall perhaps be told that although the facts are as stated, yet +these medical condemnations of cruelty are the outgrown opinions of +the Past. Are the foundations of morals so unstable? Can lapse of +years transmute cruelty into benevolence and righteousness? Are we now +to be asked to approve the conduct of Magendie and of Mantegazza and +Be'rnard, and send to the lumber room of "past opinions" the +expressions of horror and repulsion which their acts once excited +throughout the English-speaking world? The science of the modern +school of physiologists gives that implication: "LET ALL THAT PASS," +is their cry to-day. With this we cannot for a moment agree. Rather +let us believe that in the whirl and conflict of opinions that marks +the social evolution of Humanity, there are some principles which are +stable and some landmarks that cannot be altered. Cruelty is a vice +that should never be condoned. What was regarded as infamous in the +laboratory of fifty years ago should be considered equally infamous +to-day. + + + CHAPTER VIII + + THE ATTAINMENT OF LEGAL REGULATION + +The awakening of a nation to the existence of a great evil is only +accomplished after years of persistent agitation. We have seen that +some of the strongest denunciations of cruelty in biological +experimentation were due to that large element in the medical +profession which refused to condone cruelty under the guise of +utility. Gradually public opinion began to be thoroughly aroused. In +the year 1864 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to +Animals offered a prize for the best essay on these questions: + +"Is vivisection necessary or justifiable for purposes of giving +dexterity to the operator (as in veterinary schools)? + +"Is it necessary or justifiable for the general purposes of science, +and, if so, under what limitations?" + +The committee which decided the merits of the essays submitted +included some of the most distinguished scientists of England, among +them Professor Owen (better known as Sir Richard Owen), and Professor +Carpenter, physiologists of eminence and experience. The first prize +was accorded to Dr. George Fleming, the leading veterinary authority +in Great Britain for many years, and a second prize was given to +Dr. W. O. Markham, F.R.C.P., one of the physicians to St. Mary's +Hospital of London, and formerly lecturer on Physiology at St. Mary's +Hospital Medical School. + +Dr. Fleming's essay was undoubtedly of great utility in calling +attention to the abuses pertaining to Continental physiological +teaching. That which makes his essay of chief value is not so much +the presentation of arguments, as the long array of unquestionable +facts for which the authorities are given. There is hardly a +physiological writer of distinction from whose works he did not quote +to illustrate the excesses he condemns. + +It is Dr. Markham's essay, however, which for us, at the present +moment, has principal significance. It is the argument of a +professional physiologist, defending the right of scientific research +within limits which then seemed just and right to the entire medical +profession of the United Kingdom. Every physiologist or physician +upon that committee which examined the essays is said to have marked +with approval this presentation of their views; and Professor Owen-- +probably then the most distinguished man of science in Great Britain-- +appended a note significant of his especial agreement. And yet +Dr. Markham's essay is never quoted at present by any advocate of free +vivisection; even Professor Bowditch in that address to which +reference has been made left unmentioned the work of his professional +brother, one of the earliest defenders of animal experimentation. + +The reader of Dr. Markham's essay will not find it difficult to +comprehend the cause of this significant silence. Although the essay +was in no way sympathetic with antivivisection, it represented the +Anglo-Saxon ideal, in marked distinction from the doctrines which then +prevailed in the laboratories of Continental Europe, and which since +have become dominant throughout the United States. Defending the +practice of vivisection as a scientific method, Dr. Markham freely +admitted the prevalence of abuses to which it was liable when carried +on without regulation or restraint. Under proper limitations it was +at present necessary that some vivisection should be allowed; but with +the advance of knowledge, he believed that this necessity would +decrease, and the practice of animal experimentation gradually tend to +disappear. Some quotations from this essay will be of interest. + +"The proper and only object of all justifiable experiments on animals +is to determine unknown facts in physiology, pathology, and +therapeutics, whereby medical science may be directly or indirectly +advanced. When, therefore, any fact of this kind has been once +determined and positively acquired to science, all repetition of +experiments for its further demonstration are unnecessary, and +therefore unjustifiable. + +"All experiments, therefore, performed before students, in classes or +otherwise, for the purpose of demonstrating known facts in physiology +or therapeutics, are unjustifiable. And they are especially +unjustifiable because they are performed before those who, being mere +students, are incapable of fully comprehending their value and +meaning. THEY ARE NEEDLESS AND CRUEL: needless, because they +demonstrate what is already acquired to science; and especially cruel, +because if admitted as a recognized part of students' instruction, +THEIR CONSTANT AND CONTINUED REPETITION, THROUGH ALL TIME, WOULD BE +REQUIRED. I need hardly say that courses of experimental physiology +are nowhere given in this country, and that these remarks apply only +to those schools i France and elsewhere where demonstrations of this +kind are delivered."[1] + +[1] "Experiments and Surgical Operations on Living Animals: One of Two +Prize Essays." London: Robert Hardwick, 1866. + +"ESPECIALLY CRUEL!" Little could Dr. Markham have imagined that this +"especial cruelty" which he thus so emphatically denounced in 1864 +would spread from the Continent of Europe and become, within the short +space of a single generation, the accepted method of physiological +instruction in every leading college or university in the United +States! + +Dr. Markham evidently fancied that with the larger acquirement of +facts the vivisection method would gradually become obsolete. +He says: + +"A consideration of the conditions here proposed as requisite for the +rightful performance of experiments on living animals shows that +experiments of this kind must ever be very limited, because those +persons who are fitted for the due performance of them are of +necessity few in number; and that in proportion as new facts are added +by them to our knowledge, THE EXPERIMENTS MUST DIMINISH IN NUMBER...." + +"Thus, then, we have seen that in the case of experiments legitimately +performed on living animals, ... such experiments must always, from +their nature, be comparatively few; that they must gradually diminish +with the advance of scientific knowledge, so that A TIME MAY COME WHEN +EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS WILL CEASE TO BE JUSTIFIABLE. + +"... Very different, on the other hand, is the character and objects +of physiological demonstrations performed in French Schools of +Medicine.... These most painful practices are unjustifiable because +they are unnecessary.... They afford no instruction to the student +which may not be equally well obtained in another way. The pain, +moreover, attendant on such proceedings is unlimited and unceasing. If +they are to be accepted as a necessary part of the systemic +instruction of the student, then must every veterinary student +practice these experimental surgical operations, AND EVERY MEDICAL +STUDENT BE MADE A WITNESS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS ON LIVING +ANIMALS. In all veterinary schools, under such conditions, an +incalculable amount of pain inflicted on animals becomes a part of the +regular instruction of students. At such a conclusion Humanity +revolts. + +"Experiments performed on living animals for the demonstration of +facts already positively acquired to science are unjustifiable, and +especially unjustifiable are such experiments when made a part of a +systemic course of instruction given to students." + +Here, then, we have a view of vivisection presented less than forty +years since by a professional teacher of physiology in a London +medical school. That the author was mistaken in his outlook, that the +practice of vivisection instead of diminishing has a thousand times +increased, and that operations then regarded as "especially cruel" +have become the prevalent methods of instruction, are matters evident +to all. Peculiarly significant is the fact that a creed, once almost +universally held, may be so thoroughly obliterated by its antagonists +within so brief a time. One may safely assert that not a single +recent graduate from any Medical College in America, not a single +student of physiology in any institution of learning in our land +to-day, has ever been told that the practice of animal experimentation +was once thus regarded by a large majority of the English-speaking +members of the medical profession. So completely has the Continental +view of the moral irresponsibility of science established itself in +American colleges that the former preponderance of other ideals has +passed from the memory of the present generation of scientific men. + +The subject of vivisection does not again appear to have engaged the +attention of the English medical Press for several years. The abuses +and cruelties on the Continent, against which it had so vigorously +protested, continued as before. In a brief editorial, the London +Lancet, on April 3, 1869, again referred to the subject: + +"VIVISECTION.--The subject of vivisection has been again brought on +the tapis, owing to some remarks made by Professor (Claude) Be'rnard +... at the Colle`ge de France.... He admits on one occasion having +operated on an ape, but never repeated the experiment, THE CRIES AND +GESTURES OF THE ANIMAL TOO CLOSELY RESEMBLING THOSE OF A MAN. + +"As the Pall Mall Gazette remarks, M. (Claude) Be'rnard expatiates on +the subject with a complacency which reminds us of Peter the Great, +who, wishing, while at Stockholm, to see the WHEEL in action, quietly +offered one of his suite as the patient to be broken on it.... + +"We consider that vivisection constitutes a legitimate mode of inquiry +when it is adopted to obtain a satisfactory solution of a question +that has been fairly discussed, and can be solved by no other means.... + +"We hold that for mere purposes of curiosity, OR TO EXHIBIT TO A CLASS +what may be rendered equally--if not more--intelligible by diagrams or +may be ascertained by anatomical investigation or induction, +VIVISECTION IS WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE, and IS ALIKE ALIEN TO THE FEELINGS +AND HUMANITY OF THE CHRISTIAN, THE GENTLEMAN, AND THE PHYSICIAN." + +It is very probable that much of the criticism of foreign vivisection, +which at this period appeared in the medical journals of England, was +inspired by the abhorrence felt regarding the cruelty of certain +French physiologists. We now know that the worst and most cruel of +them all was Claude Be'rnard, Professor of Experimental Physiology at +the Colle`ge de France, and the fit successor of Magendie. Just as +pirates and freebooters have added to geographical discoveries, so +science admits that regarding the functions of certain organs he added +to accumulated facts. But the peculiar infamy of Be'rnard was the +indifference displayed toward animal suffering long after the +discovery of chloroform and ether, and his practical contempt for any +sentiment of compassion for vivisected animals. Of this savagery one +will look in vain for criticism or condemnation in the writings of the +opponents of vivisection reform at the present day. Two physicians, +however, have told us what they witnessed in the laboratory of +Be'rnard. On February 2, 1875, there appeared in the Morning Post a +letter from a London physician, describing his personal experience in +the laboratory of this physiologist. + +"SIR, + +"If the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals intends to +give effect to the memorial presented to it on Monday, and do its +utmost to put down the monstrous abuses which have sprung up of late +years in the practice of vivisection, it will probably find that the +greatest obstacle to success lies IN THE SECRECY WITH WHICH SUCH +EXPERIMENTS ARE CONDUCTED, AND IT IS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THAT +SECRECY that its best efforts should be directed. So long as the +present privacy be maintained, it will be found impossible to convict, +for want of evidence. No student can be expected to come forward as a +witness when he knows that he would be hooted from among his fellows +for doing so, and any rising medical man would only achieve +professional ruin by following a similar course. The result is that, +although hundreds of such abuses are being constantly perpetrated +among us, the public knows no more about them than what the distant +echo reflected from some handbook of the laboratory affords. I +venture to record a little of my own experience in the matter, part of +which was gained as an assistant in the laboratory of one of the +greatest living experimental physiologists. + +"In that laboratory we sacrificed daily from one to three dogs, +besides rabbits and other animals, and after four months' experience I +am of opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was +justified or necessary. The idea of the good of Humanity was simply +out of the question, and would have been laughed at; THE GREAT AIM +BEING TO KEEP UP WITH, OR GET AHEAD OF, ONE'S CONTEMPORARIES IN +SCIENCE, even at the price of incalculable amount of torture +needlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals. During +three campaigns I have witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the +saddest sight I ever witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from +the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing +pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized +with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, divining, +apparently, their approaching fate. They would make friendly advances +to each of three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, +and tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in +vain. Even when roughly grasped and thrown on the torture-trough, a +low complaining whine at such treatment would be all the protest made, +and they would continue to lick the hand which bound them, till their +mouths were fixed in the gag, and they could only flap their tails in +the trough as the last means of exciting compassion. Often when +convulsed by the pain of their torture this would be renewed, and they +would be soothed instantly on receiving a few gentle pats. It was all +the aid and comfort I could give them, and I gave it often. They +seemed to take it as an earnest of fellow-feeling that would cause +their torture to come to an end--an end only brought by death. + +"Were the feelings of experimental physiologists not blunted, they +could not long continue the practice of vivisection. They are always +ready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say +that they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they +frequently show the reverse. Hundreds of times I have seen, when an +animal writhed with pain and thereby deranged the tissues during a +delicate dissection, instead of being soothed, it would receive a slap +and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. At other times, +when an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or +giving more than an occasional whine, instead of letting the poor +mangled wretch loose to crawl about the place in reserve for another +day's torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be said to +have behaved well enough to merit death, and as a reward would be +killed at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle, or `pithing,' +as this operation is called. I have often heard the professor say, +when one side of an animal had been so mangled and the tissues so +obscured by clotted blood that it was difficult to find the part +searched for, `Why don't you begin on the other side?' or `WHY DON'T +YOU TAKE ANOTHER DOG? WHAT IS THE USE OF BEING SO ECONOMICAL?' One of +the most revolting features in the laboratory was the custom of giving +an animal, on which the professor had completed his experiment, and +which had still some life left, to the assistants to practise the +finding of arteries, nerves, etc., in the living animal, or for +performing what are called `fundamental experiments' upon it--in other +words, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory +handbooks. + +"I am inclined to look upon anaesthetics as the greatest curse to +vivisectible animals. They alter too much the normal conditions of +life to give accurate results, and they are therefore little depended +upon. THEY, INDEED, PROVE FAR MORE EFFICACIOUS IN LULLING PUBLIC +FEELING TOWARDS THE VIVISECTORS THAN PAIN IN THE VIVISECTED. +Connected with this there is a horrible proceeding that the public +probably knows little about. An animal is sometimes kept quiet by the +administration of a poison called `curare,' which paralyzes voluntary +motion while it heightens sensation, the animal being kept alive by +means of artificial respiration. + +"I hope that we shall soon have a Government inquiry into the subject, +in which experimental physiologists shall be only witnesses, not +judges. LET ALL PRIVATE VIVISECTION BE MADE CRIMINAL, AND ALL +EXPERIMENTS BE PLACED UNDER GOVERNMENT INSPECTION, and we may have the +same clearing away of abuses that the Anatomy Act caused in similar +circumstances. + + "I am, sir, your obedient servant, + "George Hoggan, M.B. and C.M. + + "13, Granville Place, Portman Square, W." + +One of the oldest members of the medical profession in Massachusetts +has also written of his experience in Be'rnard's laboratory, and his +account of the cruelty there practised entirely accords with that of +the English physician: + +"When I was studying medicine in Paris, it was the custom of a +distinguished physiologist to illustrate his lectures by operations on +dogs. Some of his dissections were not very painful, but others were +attended with excruciating, long-continued agony; and when the piteous +cries of these poor brutes would interrupt his remarks, with a look of +suppressed indignation he would artistically slit their windpipes, and +thus prevent their howling! Curiousity prompted me to inquire of the +janitor whether, after this period of torment, these creatures were +mercifully put out of misery; and I ascertained that such animals as +did not succumb to the immediate effects of their mutilations were +consigned to a cellar, to be kept, unattended and unfed, until wanted +for the following lectures, which occurred on alternate days. I +never noticed the slightest demonstration of sympathy on their behalf, +except on the part of a few American students. These dogs were +subjected to needless torture, for the mere purpose of illustrating +well-known facts, capable of being taught satisfactorily by drawings, +charts, and models; and hence this cruelty, being unattended by any +possible benefit to either students or mankind, was illegitimate and +unjustifiable. But when it is considered that these same experiments +might have been conducted under the influence of an anaesthetic, so +as to minimize, if not remove, this needless suffering, this +cold-blooded, heartless torture can only be characterized as +contemptible and monstrous. + +"From detailed accounts communicated to me by eye-witnesses of the +incidents related, I entertain no doubt that barbarous cruelty was +practised at that time in all the Parisian laboratories, though it is +probable that, for novel and horrible experiments, none could rival +the infernal ingenuity in this business of that master-demon, Claude +Be'rnard."[1] + +[1] Extracts from letter to Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, +April, 1895. + +Such is the memory which Be'rnard has left for posterity. It was by +useless cruelty that he impressed. And no American physiologist, +sounding the praises of free and unrestricted vivisection, has ever +yet ventured to criticize or to condemn either the man or his work. + +Let us go back a little. By the year 1871, the agitation had gone so +far as to be deemed worthy of consideration by the leading scientific +body in Great Britain. At the meeting of the British Association in +Liverpool of that year, a committee was appointed to consider the +subject of animal experimentation, and the result of their +deliberations appears in the annual report. Regarding the practice, +they suggest four recommendations or rules: + +"1. No experiment which can be done under the influence of an +anaesthetic ought to be done without it. + +"2. No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of +illustrating a law or fact already determined; in other words, +experimentation without the employment of anaesthetics is not a +fitting exhibition for teaching purposes." + +A third rule suggested that painful experiments should only be made in +laboratories under proper regulation; and a fourth rule condemned +veterinary operations for the purpose of obtaining manual dexterity. +It was evidently an attempt to allay agitation--there were no means of +enforcing the recommendations concerning practices which the law did +not touch. + +One of the signers was Dr. Burdon Sanderson, a Lecturer on Physiology. +Early the following year he began the delivery of a course of lectures +in the physiological laboratory of University College in London, +illustrated by vivisections. During one of these discourses, the +lecturer made the following statement of his views: + +"With respect to what are called `vivisections,' I assure you that I +have as great a horror of them as any members of the Society for the +Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The rules in respect to them are +these: First, no experiment that can be done under the influence of an +anaesthetic ought to be done without it. Secondly, no PAINFUL +experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law +or fact already demonstrated. Thirdly, whenever for the investigation +of new truth, it is necessary to make a painful experiment, every +effort should be made to insure success, in order that the suffering +inflicted may not be wasted. For the question of cruelty depends not +on the amount of suffering, but on its relation to the good to be +attained by it."[1] + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette, February 25, 1871. + +The lecturer contended that no experiment should be performed by an +unskilled person with insufficient instruments, and argued, therefore, +in favour of the establishment of Physiological Laboratories, equipped +with all modern devices and instruments for vivisection. + +Some of his demonstrations were doubtless unproductive of pain, but in +view of the fact that in other experiments no anaesthetic was +employed, it may be questioned whether his second "rule" was always +very strictly observed. In one lecture he referred to his +demonstration "as the first time that we have applied electrical +stimulus to a nerve," and explains that when the experiment is made on +an animal paralyzed with curare, the effect is more complicated when a +sensory nerve is irritated, since then "the arteries all over the body +contract, because the brain is in action."[1] No plainer confession of +the existence of sensibility could be made, yet for obvious reasons +the lecturer carefully avoids admitting the presence of pain. During +the following year there appeared articles describing "the teaching of +practical physiology in the London schools." At King's College in +London, for example, demonstrations were made by the lecturer, but +"experiments on animals are never given to the ordinary student to do; +Professor Rutherford's experience on this point is that such attempts +result only in total failure."[2] On the other hand, at University +College, the Continental method of teaching was to be found. "Student +perform experiments on animals. Frogs, curarized or chloroformed, are +given them, and the experiment which has been fully explained and +demonstrated by the professor, is performed by them as far as +practicable."[3] Here, then, we find introduced into England (and +perhaps there existing in secret for some time before), that +vivisection of animals in illustration of well-known facts, which, but +a few years earlier, every leading medical journal of Great Britain +had so emphatically reprobated and denounced. + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette, June 17, 1871. +[2] Ibid., July 20, 1872. +[3] Medical Times and Gazette, July 27, 1872. + +The Continental school of English physiologists seemed confident of +victory. But the leading exponents of English ideals in medicine were +not inclined to surrender at once; now and then we find them +vigorously maintaining their ground, and disposed to contrast the +science gained in the laboratory with that gathered by experience and +fortified by reflection. Some extracts from a leading editorial in +the Medical Times and Gazette are extremely suggestive of the conflict +of opinions: + +"The relation of physiology to practical medicine is a subject which +has been brought prominently into notice by the address of Dr. Burdon +Sanderson ... at the recent meeting of the British Association. That +address may be considered as the first authoritative and public +announcement made in this country that IT IS THE AIM AND INTENTION OF +THE PHYSIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT and work to separate themselves +more and more from the school of practical medicine; no longer to +consider themselves auxiliary to it except as other sciences--for +instance, chemistry and botany--may be considered auxiliary to it, but +to win a place in the public estimation for their science as one which +shall be cultivated FOR ITS OWN SAKE... + +"The teaching of experience is more reliable than physiological +theories and opinions.... The history of the advance of the cure of +disease is in the history of empiricism, in the best sense of that +much-abused word. The history of retrogression in the art of curing +disease is that of the so-called Physiological Schools of +Medicine... Physiological theory, based on experiments on dogs, wishes +us to believe that mercury does not excite a flow of bile; but here +the common sense of the Profession, educated by experience, has +refused to be led by physiological theory.... Modern physiological +science has taught us little more than the necessity of pure air, +water, and food, good clothing and shelter, moderation in eating and +drinking, and regulation of the passions--things, in fact, which are +as old as the Pentateuch. We may safely assert that all the +experiments made on luckless animals since the time of Magendie to the +present, in France, America, Germany, and England, have not prolonged +one tithe of human life, or diminished one tithe of the human +suffering that have been prolonged and diminished by the discovery and +use of Jesuits' bark and cod-liver oil."[1] + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), September 7, 1872. + +Early the next year (1873) was published the "Handbook of the +Physiological Laboratory," compiled by leading men of the +physiological party, among whom were Professors Sanderson, Foster, and +Klein. Describing the method of performing various experiments upon +animals, it included a particular account of some of the most +excruciatingly painful of the vivisections practised abroad. So +atrocious was one of the experiments thus described in this handbook +for students that Professor Michael Foster, who wrote the description, +afterward confessed that he had never seen or performed the experiment +himself, partly "from horror of the pain." Reviewing the work, a +medical journal justly declared that "the publication of this book +marks an era in the history of physiology in England.... It shows THE +PREDOMINANT INFLUENCE WHICH GERMANY NOW EXERCISES IN THIS DEPARTMENT +OF SCIENCE."[1] A professor of physiology, Dr. Gamgee, about the same +time, refers to the physiological laboratories of Edinburgh, +Cambridge, and London, and the part they sustained "in what I may call +the Revival of the study of experimental physiology in England."[2] + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette, London, March 29, 1873. +[2] Ibid., October 18, 1873. + +Emboldened by continuing success, the advocates of Continental +vivisection in England determined to advance yet another step. The +annual meeting of the British Medical Association for 1874 was to be +held that year in August in the city of Norwich. A French vivisector, +Dr. Magnan, was invited to be present, and to perform in the presence +of English medical men certain experiments upon dogs. On this +occasion, however, the public demonstration of French methods of +vivisection did not pass without protest; there was a scene; some of +the physicians present--among them Dr. Tufnell, the President of the +Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, and Dr. Haughton of the medical +school in Dublin, denounced the experiments at the time they were made +as unjustifiably cruel. Public attention was beginning to be aroused; +it was decided to test the question, whether such exhibitions were +protected by English law, and a prosecution was instituted against +some who had assisted in performing the experiments. Dr. Tufnell +appeared to testify in regard to the cruelty of the exhibition, and +Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the Queen, who had only just retired +from the presidency of the British Medical Association, not only +stigmatized one of the experiments as "an act of cruelty," but +declared that "such experiments would not be of the smallest possible +benefit."[1] The magistrates decided that while the case was a very +proper one to prosecute, yet the gentlemen named as defendants were +not sufficiently proven to have taken part in the experiment. The +decision was not unjust; the real offender was safe in his native +land. + +[1] British Medical Journal, December 12, 1874. + +It is not my purpose to trace the course of the English agitation +against vivisection, except as it may be seen in the medical +literature of the time; but one cannot refer to this period without +mention of the name of Frances Power Cobbe. In 1863, while in Italy, +she had protested, and not in vain, against the cruelties of Professor +Schiff in Florence. Taking up the question again in 1874, she devoted +the remainder of her life to the advancement of her ideals of reform. +It was to her zeal that in 1875 was founded the "Society for the +Protection of Animals liable to Vivisection." At this period, then, +three phases of opinion opposed one another; first, the +antivivisectionists, who desired the total suppression by law of all +animal experimentation; second, the physiological enthusiasts, few in +number, but favourable to the introduction of the Continental +irresponsibility, and eager to free vivisection from every semblance +of restraint; and, thirdly, the great body of Englishmen and of the +medical profession, whose views we have seen reflected in medical +journals of the day. The popular attack upon all animal +experimentation became so pressing that for a time the entire medical +profession seemed to unite in its defence; and editorial space once +filled with denunciation of vivisection in France was now given over +to criticism of the antivivisectionists of England. Yet, even at this +period, there appeared no repudiation of those humane principles, so +long professed by English medical men. One leading journal, the +Medical Times and Gazette, thus suggests that very oversight of +vivisection which we are told is impossible: + +"Just as the law demands that a teacher of anatomy should take out a +licence, and be responsible for the bodies entrusted to him, so a +teacher of physiology might be required to take out some such licence +as regards the teaching of practical physiology. We have never been +of those who advocate the wholesale performance of experiments by +students, especially on the higher animals, if they are of such a kind +as to require any degree of skill for their performance. When the +medical public seemed bitten with what was called `practical +physiology,' many were ready to advocate the performance of all kinds +of experiments on living animals by uninstructed students. Against +this notion we were first to protest, as being at once cruel and worse +than useless; for an experiment performed by bungling fingers is no +experiment at all, but wanton cruelty." + +After explaining his position in favour of scientific research, the +editor refers to a recent discussion on vivisection in London: + +"Dr. Walker declared that his desire was not to stop scientific +research, but the abuses which were connected with it. In the first +place, he would not allow vivisection to be practised by incompetent +students. This was nothing but wanton and unrighteous cruelty. +THEREFORE HE WOULD OBLIGE EACH VIVISECTOR TO OBTAIN LEGAL PERMISSION +FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY. Another abuse related to operations +performed merely to demonstrate physiological phenomena already +verified and established. Again, the number of animals vivisected was +shamefully high. Persons unacquainted with physiological laboratories +could form no idea of the lavish way in which animals were made to +suffer days and weeks of anguish and acute pain. If the people knew +of these sufferings, they would insist that the number of animals +annually vivisected should be limited, and that no animal rearing its +young should be experimented upon. Nor should it be allowable to +operate on an animal more than once.... Lastly, every licensed +vivisector should be obliged to send in an annual return, showing the +number of vivisections performed, and the scientific results attained, +which would prevent repeated operations with the same object. Nothing +in any of these proposals, urged Dr. Walker, would interfere with the +progress of science; they would simply stop the abuses which +existed."[1] + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), June 27, 1874. + +In January, 1875, we find the London Lancet also suggesting legal +supervision and restriction: + +"We are utterly opposed to all repetition of experiments for the +purpose of demonstrating established doctrines.... We believe an +attempt might be made to institute something in the way of regulation +and supervision. IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO IMPOSE +SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRACTICE OF THESE EXPERIMENTS as would +effectually guard against their being undertaken by any but skilled +persons, for adequate scientific objects."[2] + +[2] The London Lancet (Editorial), January 2, 1875. + +A month later the Lancet devotes its leading editorial to a discussion +of the ethics of vivisection. After criticizing the position taken +by the antivivisectionists, the writer says: + +"On the other side, the discussion has been conducted as if it +concerned physiologists alone, who were to be a law unto themselves, +and each to do what might seem right in his own eyes; that the matter +was one into which outsiders had no right whatever to intrude; in +fact, that `WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT,' and so unquestionably right as to +stand in no need of investigation or restriction. We have, from the +first, striven to take a middle course, not because it was safe, but +because it seemed to us the sound and true one. Without disguising +the difficulties, we have nevertheless expressed our conviction that +the subject was one about which it was impossible not to feel a sense +of responsibility, and a desire to ascertain whether the line between +necessary and unnecessary could be defined; and whether any attempt +could be made to institute something in the way of regulation, +supervision, or restriction, so as to secure that, while the ends of +science were not defeated, the broad principles of Humanity and duty to +the lower animals were observed. Animals have their rights every bit +as much as man has his...." + +Admitting the probable necessity of some repetition of experiments in +research, the writer continues: + +"It is for the purposes of instruction, however, that it becomes +questionable whether and to what extent experiments of this kind +should be performed. A chemical lecturer teaches well, in proportion +to the clearness with which he can demonstrate the correctness of his +statements by experiment, and there is no doubt it is the same with a +Lecturer on Physiology. Some persons seem to regard the advance of +knowledge as the whole duty of man, and they would perhaps consider +experimentation as justifiable in the one case as in the other. We +cannot so regard it, for the simple and sufficient reason (as it seems +to us) that the element of Life and Sensibility being present in the +one case and not in the other, carries a responsibility with it. We +contend that in any case where certain phenomena are known to follow a +given experiment, when the fact has been established by the separate +and independent observation of many different persons, a lecturer is +not justified in resorting to it FOR THE PURPOSE OF MERE DEMONSTRATION +WHERE ITS PERFORMANCE INVOLVES SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL."[1] + +[1] The London Lancet, February 6, 1875. + +It is an instructive and interesting fact that one of the first steps +toward the legal regulation of vivisection in England was taken by +scientific men. The Lancet of May 8, 1875, contains the following +paragraph: + +"Some eminent naturalists and physiologists, including Mr. Charles +Darwin, Professor Huxley, Dr. Sharpey, and others, have been in +communication with Members of both Houses of Parliament to arrange +terms of a Bill which would prevent any unnecessary cruelty or abuse +in experiments made on living animals for purposes of scientific +discovery. It is understood that these negotiations have been +successful, and that the Bill is likely to be taken charge of by Lord +Cardwell in the House of Lords, and by Dr. Lyon Playfair in the House +of Commons." + +A week later, the Lancet gives an outline of the proposed Act: + +"The Bill introduced by Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Spencer Walpole, and +Mr. Evelyn Ashley, `To Prevent Abuse and Cruelty in Experiments on +Animals, made for the Purpose of Scientific Discovery,' has been +printed. It proposes to enact that painful experiments on living +animals for scientific purposes shall be permissible on the following +conditions: + +"`That the animal shall first have been made insensible by the +administration of anaesthetics or otherwise, during the whole course +of such experiment; and that if the nature of the experiment be such +as to seriously injure the animal, so as to cause it after-suffering, +the animal shall be killed immediately on the termination of the +experiment. + +"`Experiments without the use of anaesthetics are also to be +permissible provided the following conditions are complied with: That +the experiment is made for the purpose of new scientific discovery and +for no other purpose; and that insensibility cannot be produced +without necessarily frustrating the object of the experiment; and that +the animal should not be subject to any pain which is not necessary +for the purpose of the experiment; and that the experiment be brought +to an end as soon as practicable; and that if the nature of the +experiment be such as to seriously injure the animal so as to cause it +after-suffering, the animal shall be killed immediately on the +termination of the experiment. + +"`That a register of all experiments made without the use of +anaesthetics shall be duly kept, and be returned in such form and at +such times as one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State may +direct. + +"`The Secretary of State is to be empowered to grant licences to +persons provided with certificates signed by at least one of the +following persons: the President of the Royal Society, the President +of the Royal College of Surgeons or of the College of Physicians in +London, Edinburgh, or Dublin; and also by a recognized Professor of +Physiology, Medicine, or Anatomy.'"[1] + +[1] Lancet, May 15, 1875. + +The Bill, though introduced in Parliament, was not pressed. Another +and more stringent measure for the regulation of vivisection had been +introduced a few days earlier through the efforts of Miss Frances +Power Cobbe and the Earl of Shaftesbury. In the conflict of opposing +statements and opinions, the Government wisely concluded that more +light on the subject was necessary, and a Royal Commission was +appointed to investigate and report. + +But if the Continental party was to conquer in England, its members +undoubtedly felt that it must be through audacity quite as much by +silence and secrecy. At the annual meeting of the British Medical +Association, therefore, Professor William Rutherford delivered an +address, wherein for the second time an English physiologist openly +advocated the vivisection of animals as a method of teaching well- +known facts. Commenting upon this address, the editor of the Lancet +remarks: + +"We confess that we think Dr. Rutherford presses his principle too far +when he argues that, teaching by demonstration being the most +successful method, we are thereby always warranted in having recourse +to it. Physiology and chemistry are both experimental sciences. The +chemical lecturer can have no hesitation in employing any number of +experiments, or repeating them indefinitely to illustrate every step +he takes; but we may fairly assume that the physiologist would be +restrained by the thought that the materials with which he has to deal +are not so much inert, lifeless matter, but sentient, living things. +We hold, therefore, that it would be both unnecessary and cruel to +demonstrate every physiological truth by experiment, or to repeat +indefinitely the same experiment, simply because by such +demonstrations the lecturer could make his teaching more definite, +precise, and valuable."[1] + +[1] The London Lancet, (Editorial) August 21, 1875. + +Again, somewhat later the same journal brings into prominence one of +the greatest difficulties attending all discussion of vivisection--the +lack of agreement upon the meaning of words: + +"It is extremely difficult to get at the exact meaning of the terms +used. The physiologist would be ready to declare his utter abhorrence +of all `cruelty,' BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HIS OWN DEFINITION OF THE +WORD. We hope Sir William Thompson was not justified in stating that +revolting cruelties are sometimes practised in this country, in the +name of vivisection, although we may concur with him in reprehending +the performance of experiments on animals in illustration of truths +already ascertained.... When the Cardinal (Manning) laid it down as +the expression of a great moral obligation that we had no right to +inflict NEEDLESS pain, he begged the whole question. By all means lay +down and enforce any restriction that will prevent the infliction of +NEEDLESS pain."[1] + +[1] The London Lancet (Editorial), March 25, 1876. + +We see how valueless, therefore, is the assertion so frequently made +in this country that "no NEEDLESS pain is ever inflicted." The +physiologist has his own interpretation of the word. + +The testimony given before the Royal Commission was of utmost value. +Leading members of the medical profession, such as Sir Thomas Watson, +physician to the Queen, and Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the +Queen, gave evidence against the unrestricted practice of animal +experimentation. Physiologists after the Continental school stated +their side of the controversy, usually with significant caution; but +one of them, Dr. Emanuel Klein, with an honest frankness of confession +that astounded his friends, made himself for ever famous in the +history of the vivisection controversy. It is hardly accurate to say +that no cruelty was uncovered by the Royal Commission. Everything +depends on the meaning of words, but the evidence of one of the most +noted of English physiologists as to his own personal practices in +vivisection was quite sufficient to justify the legislation that +ensued. How seriously this evidence was regarded at the time is +clearly shown in an extract from a confidential letter of Professor +Huxley to Mr. Darwin, dated October 30, 1875: + +"This Commission is playing the deuce with me. I have felt it my duty +to act as counsel for Science, and was well satisfied with the way +things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, --- was +examined; and if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he +gave, I might as well throw up my brief. I am told he openly +professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and he +only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet! + +"I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an +unmitigated, cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles, +and I would willingly agree to any law that would send him to the +treadmill. + +"The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster is profound, +and I am powerless (even if I desire, which I have not) to combat +it."[1] + +[1] Huxley's "Life and Letters," vol i., p. 473. This +characterization seems by no means fair, and probably it would have +been so regarded by the writer in calmer moments. Is indignation +chiefly directed to the "indifference to animal suffering," or to the +"OPEN PROFESSION" of the feeling? For men, perfectly familiar with +Continental indifference, to condemn with holy horror a young +physiologist because he "openly professes" the generally prevalent +sentiment of his class, is very suggestive. + +The result of the Commission's report was the introduction by the +Government of a Bill placing animal experimentation in Greta Britain +under legal supervision and control. As first drawn up, it appears to +have been regarded by the medical profession as unduly stringent and +unfair. Protests were made, amendments of certain of its provisions +were requested, concessions were granted, and at the close of the +Parliamentary session, August 15, 1876, the practice of vivisection, +like the study of human anatomy by dissection, came under the +supervision of English law. + +It is curious to observe how those who had vehemently opposed the Act +were able to approve it when once the law was in operation, and +criticism could no longer serve any purpose of delay. The British +Medical Journal of August 19, 1876, announcing to its readers the +passage of the Bill, says: + +"Taking the measure altogether, we think the profession may be +congratulated on its having passed.... So far, the Act facilitates the +prosecution of science by competent persons, while it protects animals +from the cruelty which might be inflicted by ignorant and unskilful +hands. THE ACT IS A GREAT STEP IN ADVANCE TOWARD PROMOTING KINDNESS +TO ANIMALS GENERALLY...." + +The Medical Times and Gazette also regained its equanimity, and an +editorial referring to the Act admits that "the profession may regard +it without much dissatisfaction."[1] There are even advantages to be +discerned: + +"It gives scientific inquirers the protection of the law; it protects +animals from cruelties which might be inflicted by unscientific and +unskilled persons, and it satisfies to a great extent a demand made by +a hypersensitive ... portion of the public." + +[1] December 30, 1876. + +Nor did further experience with the working of the Act appear greatly +to disturb this favourable impression. For instance, after the law +had been in operation nearly three years, the London Lancet in its +issue of July 19, 1879, editorially remarked: + +"There is no reason to regret the Act of 1876 which limits vivisection, +except on the ground that it places the interests of science at the +arbitration of a lay authority.... MEANWHILE, THE ACT WORKS WELL, AND +FULFILLS ITS PURPOSE." + +There can be no doubt, however, that the law has always been regarded +with marked disfavour by the extreme vivisectionists of Great +Britain. They had planned, as we can see, to introduce in the United +Kingdom the freedom of vivisection which obtained on the Continent. +They had failed, and instead of liberty to imitate Be'rnard, Magendie, +and Brown-Se'quard, they saw between them and the absolute power they +had craved and dreamed of obtaining, the majesty of English law. +Among American representatives of the same school--the strenuous +opponents of all legal supervision--it has been the fashion on every +possible occasion to cast discredit upon this Act. For obvious +reasons they have sought to represent it to the American public as +having proven a serious detriment to medical science and an +obstruction to medical advancement. The idea is absurd. English +physicians and surgeons are as well educated and equipped in every +respect as are the graduates of American schools. The complete +refutation of all such misstatements regarding the effect of the +English law will be found elsewhere. The Act is far from being an +ideal law--it is capable of amendment in many respects--but it is an +evidence of the acceptance by the English people of the principle of +State regulation, and of their wish that between the will of the +vivisector and the irresponsible and unlimited torment of the victim, +there hall be some power capable, if it so desires, of making +effective intervention. + + + CHAPTER IX + + THE GREAT PROTESTANT AGAINST VIVISECTION CRUELTY + +Among the critics of unlimited vivisection one American name of the +present century stands pre-eminently above all others, not only for +emphasis of denunciation, for vigour of condemnation, for clear +distinctions between right and wrong, but also for the distinguished +position which the writer held. Forty years ago in the medical +profession of the United States no name stood higher than that of +Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, the professor of surgery in Harvard University. +To estimate the value of his criticism it is necessary to outline his +career. + +He was born in Boston, March 11, 1818, his father being Dr. Jacob +Bigelow, one of the leading physicians of his day. After completing +his medical education in America, young Bigelow went abroad, and spent +nearly three years studying in the great hospitals of Paris. It was +at a period when the cruel vivisections of Magendie and his +contemporaries had become the scandal of civilization, and there can +be no doubt that Dr. Bigelow witnessed every phase of vivisection that +his sensibilities permitted him to observe. + +Returning to Boston in 1844, the young surgeon rapidly attained a +prominent position. In January, 1846, before he had completed his +twenty-eighth year, he was appointed visiting surgeon of the +Massachusetts General Hospital. Here on November 7, 1846, there +occurred one of the greatest historic events--the first surgical +operation in which insensibility to pain was secured by the inhalation +of ether. Dr. Bigelow's enthusiasm for the new discovery was very +great, and it has been said that to him "the world was indebted for +the introduction of anaesthesia in surgery at the exact time in which +it occurred." + +Dr. Bigelow was surgeon to the Massachusetts General Hospital from +1846 to 1886--a period of forty years. He was professor of surgery in +Harvard University from 1849 to 1882, or a third of a century. When +he resigned the latter position, President Eliot in his annual report +referred to him as "a discoverer and inventor of world-wide +reputation, a brilliant surgical operator, a natural leader of men." +The faculty of Harvard Medical School also spoke of him as one "who +had done so much to render this school conspicuous and to make +American surgery illustrious throughout the world." This is high +praise. Let it be remembered in reading his opinions concerning +vivisection. + +An abhorrence of pain was a marked trait in Dr. Bigelow's character. +Even to the infliction of necessary suffering he had an extreme +dislike. His gentleness to animals was akin to his tenderness for +children. He had a great respect for their intelligence, their +affection, their confidence in mankind. Toward the close of life he +had among his pets a number of the little animals most closely related +to human beings, and therefore the most-prized "material" of the +vivisector. But such was Dr. Bigelow's sympathy with his little +friends that he disliked to take visitors into their presence, and +when he did, always cautioned them to assume a smiling face. He was +unwilling to give his pets even the mental suffering of anxiety or +fear. + +He died October 30, 1890, at the ripe age of seventy-two. It was +Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself illustrious in science and in +literature, who referred to the name of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow as "one +of the brightest in the annals of American surgery, not to claim for +it A STILL HIGHER PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE HEALING ART." + +Such a tribute was well deserved. His was the most eminent name in +the annals of American surgery. It was from this man, occupying such +a position in the medical profession, that we have one of the +strongest protests, one of the clearest, most discriminating, and +emphatic criticisms of unregulated and unrestricted vivisection that +the world has known. It is particularly valuable, because Dr. Bigelow +was never an antivivisectionist, if by that term we mean one who is +opposed to all experiments upon animals. But there are things done in +the name of Science which he utterly repudiated and condemned as +cruelty, and against which he made a protest that should never be +forgotten until the evil shall be condemned by the universal judgment +of mankind. + +It is probable that Dr. Bigelow's first protest against the abuses of +vivisection was in course of an address delivered before the +Massachusetts Medical Society in 1871. It is not difficult, perhaps, +to detect the reason for its utterance. Dr. H. P. Bowditch, for very +many years afterward the professor of physiology in Harvard Medical +School, graduated in 1868 from that institution, and went abroad to +study physiology in Europe. There he remained about three years, and +on his return in 1871 he was given the opportunity of introducing +laboratory methods and all the newer processes of experimentation into +Harvard Medical School. Now, the address from which the following +extracts are taken was delivered on May 7, 1871. Perhaps the +inference is not an unreasonable one that Dr. Bigelow was here +protesting, and protesting in vain, against the introduction in +America of those methods of vivisection which he always regarded with +abhorrence and detestation. + +In this address he says: + +"The teacher of the art of healing has no more right to employ the +time of the ignorant student disproportionately in the pleasant and +seductive paths of laboratory experimentation--because some of these +may one day lead to pathology or therapeutics--than a guardian has to +invest the money of his ward in stocks or securities of equally +uncertain prospective value to him. + +"How few facts of immediate considerable value to our race have of +late years been extorted from the dreadful sufferings of dumb animals, +the cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practised under the +authority of science! + +"The horrors of vivisection have supplanted the solemnity, the +thrilling fascination of the old unetherized operation upon the human +sufferer. Their recorded phenomena, stored away by the physiological +inquisitor on dusty shelves, are mostly of as little present value to +man as the knowledge of a new comet or of a tungstate of zirconium, +perhaps to be confuted the next year, perhaps to remain a fixed truth +of immediate value,-- ... CONTEMPTIBLY SMALL COMPARED WITH THE PRICE +PAID FOR IT IN AGONY AND TORTURE. + +"For every inch cut by one of these experimenters in the quivering +tissues of the helpless dog or rabbit or guinea-pig, let him insert a +lancet one-eighth of an inch into his own skin, and for every inch +more he cuts let him advance the lancet another one-eight of an inch; +and whenever he seizes, with ragged forceps, a nerve or spinal marrow, +the seat of all that is concentrated and exquisite in agony, or +literally tears out nerves by their roots, let him cut only one-eight +of an inch farther--and he may have some faint suggestion of the +atrocity he is perpetrating when the guinea-pig shrieks, the poor dog +yells, the noble horse groans and strains--the heartless vivisector +perhaps resenting the struggle which annoys him. + +"My heart sickens as I recall the spectacle at Alfort in former times, +of a wretched horse--one of many hundreds, broken with age and disease +resulting from life-long and honest devotion to man's service--bound +upon the floor, his skin scored with a knife like a gridiron, his eyes +and ears cut out, his arteries laid bare, his nerves exposed and +pinched and severed, his hoofs pared to the quick, and every +conceivable and fiendish torture inflicted upon him, while he groaned +and gasped, his life carefully preserved under this continued and +hellish torment from early morning until afternoon, for the purpose, +as was avowed, of familiarizing the pupil with the frenzied motions of +the animal. This was surgical vivisection on a little larger scale, +AND TRANSCENDED BUT LITTLE THE SCENES IN A PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY. +I have heard it said that somebody must do it. I say it is needless. +NOBODY SHOULD DO IT. WATCH THE STUDENTS AT A VIVISECTION; IT IS THE +BLOOD AND SUFFERING, not the science, that rivet their breathless +attention. If hospital service makes young students less tender of +suffering, vivisection deadens their humanity, and begets indifference +to it." + +Let us pause for a moment. These are words of great import. They are +as true to-day as when first uttered. Who was the speaker? The most +eminent surgeon in America in his day. He was professor of surgery in +Harvard University, and the leading member of its faculty. He was the +surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He had seen the first +surgical operation under complete anaesthesia that the world had +known. Learned societies in Paris, in London, in other countries of +Europe, were proud to number him among their members. He had reached +the age of assured eminence, where all fear of opposing influences +that might disastrously affect the medical career of a younger man, +had no weight. Surely, if any living man can speak with authority, he +speaks now. + +And before whom does he speak? He is not addressing a general +audience. It is a meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, an +association of the physicians and surgeons of that Commonwealth. Some +of them had also seen vivisection as practised in Paris and Leipsic. +Here was a man at the head of their profession protesting against the +introduction of the vivisection laboratory system in his own country. + +He insists over and over again that we cannot tell the degree of agony +inflicted by experiments upon the nervous system, nor measure its +intensity: + +"Who can say whether a guinea-pig, the pinching of whose carefully +sensitized neck throws him into convulsions, attains this blessed +momentary respite of insensibility by an unexplained special machinery +of the nervous currents, OR A SENSIBILITY TOO EXQUISITELY ACUTE FOR +ANIMAL ENDURANCE? Better that I or my friend should die than protract +existence through accumulated years of torture upon animals whose +exquisite suffering we cannot fail to infer, even though they may have +neither voice nor feature to express it." + +It is not the fact of suffering, but the useless waste of suffering +that chiefly repels him: + +"If a skilfully constructed hypothesis could be elaborated up to the +point of experimental test by the most accomplished and successful +philosopher, and if then a single experiment, though cruel, would +forever settle it, we might reluctantly admit that it was justified. +But the instincts of our common humanity indignantly remonstrate +against the testing of clumsy or unimportant hypotheses by prodigal +experimentation, or MAKING THE TORTURE OF ANIMALS AN EXHIBITION TO +ENLARGE A MEDICAL SCHOOL, or for the entertainment of students--not +one in fifty of whom can turn it to any profitable account. The limit +of such physiological experiment, in its utmost latitude, should be to +establish truth in the hands of a skilful experimenter, and not to +demonstrate it to ignorant classes and encourage them to repeat it." + +One cannot but remark the clear distinction of views which these words +indicate. No antivivisectionist would accept the suggestion of a +single experiment. Dr. Bigelow is speaking as a restrictionist +against the free and unlimited vivisection which he rightly foresaw +was about to be introduced into this country, and which has become the +practice of the present day. He realizes that if once the laboratory +system gains a foothold in his own college, the system will spread +throughout America: + +"The reaction which follows every excess will in time bear indignantly +upon this. Until then it is dreadful to think how many poor animals +will be subjected to excruciating agony as one medical college after +another becomes penetrated with the idea that vivisection is a part of +modern teaching, and that, to hold way with other institutions, they, +too, must have their vivisector, their mutilated dogs, their guinea- +pigs, their rabbits, their chamber of torture and of horrors, to +advertise as a laboratory." + +Nor this the only expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions. In his work +on "Surgical Anaesthesia," he left on record an even stronger +condemnation of the abuses of vivisection and the cruelties which +pertain to it. As he quotes from Stanley's "In Darkest Africa," which +was published in 1890, it is evident that it represents his mature and +settled judgment, down to the very close of his long and distinguished +career. In this work he says: + +"There can be no question that the discussion of vivisection arouses +antagonistic human instincts. It is no common subject which enlists +such earnest and opposite opinions. That there is something wrong +about it is evident from the way in which the reputation of inflicting +its torture is disclaimed. That for some reason it is a fascinating +pursuit is equally evident from the bitter contest made for the right +to practise it. + +"There is little in the literature of what is called the `horrors of +vivisection' which is not well grounded on truth. For a description +of the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature, only reiterating +that what it recounts is largely and simply fact, selected, it may be, +but rarely exaggerated. + +"Vivisection is not an innocent study. We may usefully popularize +chemistry and electricity, their teaching and their experimentation, +even if only as one way of cultivating human powers. But not so with +painful vivisection. We may not move as freely in this direction, for +there are distinct reasons against it. It can be indiscriminately +pursued only by torturing animals; and the word `torture' is here +intentionally used to convey the idea of very severe pain--sometimes +the severest conceivable pain, of indefinite duration, often +terminating, fortunately for the animal, with its life, but as often +only after hours or days of refined infliction, continuously or at +intervals." + +It is here that Dr. Bigelow differs radically from the advocates of +free vivisection. To them there appears no reason why the science of +physiology should not "move as freely" in experimentation as the +sciences pertaining to any other subject. The closed laboratory +evinces the desire and intention to "move freely," without criticism +or restraint. + +No physician in America of Dr. Bigelow's eminence has ever stated so +distinctly the fact of torment in vivisection, and the reasons for its +condemnation: + +"A man about to be burned under a railroad car begs somebody to kill +him; the Hindoo suttee has been abolished for its inhumanity; and yet +it is a statement to be taken literally that a brief death by burning +would be considered a happy release by a human being undergoing the +experience of some of the animals who slowly die in a laboratory. +Scientific vivisection has all the engrossing fascination of other +physical sciences, BUT THE TRANSCENDENT TORTURE SOMETIMES INFLICTED +HAS NO PARALLEL IN ANY OF THEM. As to its extent, we read that in +course of ten years seventeen thousand dogs were dissected alive in +one laboratory." + +Why, then, does not a universal protest arise against such infamous +cruelty? On this point Dr. Bigelow is very frank. It is because of +the confidence which the general public places in the average +scientist. Is he deserving of that implicit faith? Dr. Bigelow does +not think so. He says: + +"The difficulty is that the community, for want of time or opportunity +themselves to investigate the subject, ARE WILLING TO RELY UPON THE +DISCRETION OF SCIENTIFIC MEN. This is an error.... A recent +distinguished writer, a good judge of men, makes the following +observation: `Who can say why the votaries of science, though +eminently kind in their social relations, are so angular of character? +In my analysis of the scientific nature, I am constrained to associate +with it (as compared with that of men who are more Christians than +scientists) A CERTAIN HARDNESS, OR RATHER INDELICACY OF FEELING. They +strike me as being ... coolly indifferent to the warmer human +feelings.'[1] + +[1] Sir Henry M. Stanley, "In Darkest Africa." + +"It should not for a moment be supposed that cultivation of the +intellect leads a man to shrink from inflicting pain. Many educated +men are no more humane--are, in fact, far less so--than many +comparatively uneducated people.... The more eminent the +vivisectionist, the more indifferent he usually is to inflicting pain; +however cultivated his intellect, he is sometimes absolutely +indifferent to it.... + +"But in order to oppose vivisection to best advantage, and especially +lest he should place himself in a false position, the anti- +vivisectionist should bear clearly in mind that what he opposes is +PAINFUL vivisection only. For there have been wholly painless +experiments upon living animals which have led to useful results. +Some of the greatest discoveries in medical science were made with no +pain whatever.... And yet they have been often and sophistically cited +by the vivisector as plausible arguments for inflicting both excessive +and useless pain. The fact that a few able men have made discoveries +by certain painless experiments upon animals is used to justify the +demonstration of torture to medical students (to whom it is as +profitless as any medical information can be), and its practice by +them. The discovery of anaesthesia has been time and again quoted in +favour of vivisection. THIS IS SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS. In making that +discovery, the experiments from the beginning were painless, and were +therefore wholly unobjectionable--as I happen to know, having seen the +first of them. The same is true of Jenner's vaccination, which was a +wholly painless discovery. Little pain was involved in all that was +needed to discover the circulation of the blood, which was inferred +from the valvular construction of the veins, and then easily +substantiated.... The greatest prizes in the lottery of physiological +and pathological discovery have involved little or no pain. But the +usual and staple work of a so-called `laboratory of vivisection, +physiology or pathology,' for the education and practice of medical +students in the unrestricted cutting of living animals, and for the +indiscriminate and endless repetition of experiments already tried, +where a live dog can be bought and its living nerves dissected, ... all +this is a very different affair. A distinguished vivisector once +remarked: `To us, pain is nothing.' When it is remembered that this +pain may be, and sometimes intentionally is, of the most excruciating +nature possible for human science to invent, and that in a large +majority of instances it is to little or no purpose, the remark of +this vivisector covers the objectionable ground." + +In view of the foregoing quotations, it would appear almost impossible +for Dr. Bigelow's position to be misrepresented or misunderstood. He +cannot be regarded as an antivivisectionist, for he repeatedly states +that to painless experiments upon animals no objection exists. But of +the reality of the torment, and of the blunted sensibility of the +professional tormenter, he seems to have no doubt. How may reform be +promoted? By legal supervision and regulation. A few further extracts +from Dr. Bigelow's writings will bring these points into prominence: + +"There can be no question that the practice of vivisection HARDENS THE +SENSIBILITY OF THE OPERATOR, and begets indifference to the infliction +of pain, as well as great carelessness in judging of its severity. + +"Indeed, vivisection will always be the better for vigilant +supervision, and for whatever outside pressure can be brought to bear +against it. Such pressure will never be too great, nor will it retard +progress a hair's-breadth in the hands of that very limited class who +are likely materially to advance knowledge by its practice. + +"The ground for public supervision is that vivisection, immeasurably +beyond any other pursuit, involves the infliction of torture to little +or no purpose. Motive apart, painful vivisection differs from that +usual cruelty of which the law takes absolute cognizance mainly in +being practised by an educated class, who having once become callous +to its objectionable features, find its pursuit an interesting +occupation under the name of science. In short, though vivisection, +like slavery, may embrace within its practice what is unobjectionable, +what is useful, what is humane, and even what is commendable, it may +also cover what is nothing less than hideous. I use this word in no +sensational sense, and appeal to those who are familiar with some of +the work in laboratories and out of them to endorse it as appropriate +in this connection.... + +"`But burning was useless, while vivisection is profitable.' Here we +reach the kernel of the argument of the pain-inflicting vivisector. +The reply is that by far the larger part of vivisection is as useless +as was an auto da fe'. It does not lead to discovery. The character +of the minds of most of those who usually practise it makes this +hardly a possibility. Real discoverers are of a different texture of +mind, which you cannot create by schools; nor can you retard their +progress by restrictions, put on all you may. But restrictions will +and should cut off THE HORDE OF DULL TORTURERS WHO FOLLOW IN THE WAKE +OF THE DISCOVERER, actuated by a dozen different motives, from a +desire for research down to the wish to gratify a teacher or to comply +with a school requisition." + +How carefully and how clearly the writer has phrased his distinctions +between what in vivisection is right and wrong! In all the literature +of advocacy for free and unrestricted vivisection can we find anything +resembling it? Certainly, I know no writer favourable to unlimited +experimentation who has been equally fair. One surgical +vivisectionist is fond of dividing the class interested in discussion +of vivisection as "Friends of Research," and "Foes of Research," +ascribing to the first all the virtues of good sense, and to the +latter all the folly that belongs to ignorance. In which class, we +may well wonder, would he place the first American surgeon of his time +because he objected only to cruelty and abuse? + +To Dr. Bigelow the legal supervision of the laboratory seemed the one +practical method by which cruelty might be somewhat restrained, +because in this way he believed the public would obtain some knowledge +of the practice which is now withheld. He says: + +"In order that painful vivisection may be as nearly as possible +suppressed, not only by public opinion, but by law, IT IS ESSENTIAL +THAT PUBLIC OPINION SHOULD BE FREQUENTLY INFORMED OF WHAT IT IS AND +MAY BE. Here lies the work of the antivivisectionist. Further, every +laboratory ought to be open to some supervising legal authority +competent to determine that it is conducted from roof to cellar on the +humanest principles, in default of which it should be, as slavery has +been, uncompromisingly prohibited wherever law can accomplish this +result." + +Is the cruelty of unrestricted and unregulated vivisection a reality +or a myth? Of his own views on this question we can have no doubt. +He says: + +"A TORTURE OF HELPLESS ANIMALS--MORE TERRIBLE BY REASON OF ITS +REFINEMENT AND THE EFFORT TO PROLONG IT THAN BURNING AT THE STAKE, +WHICH IS BRIEF--IS NOW BEING CARRIED ON IN ALL CIVILIZED NATIONS, NOT +IN THE NAME OF RELIGION, BUT OF SCIENCE." + + ------------------- + +"The law should interfere. There can be no doubt that in this +relation there exists a case of cruelty to animals far transcending in +its refinement and in its horror anything that has been known in the +history of Nations. + +"There will come a time when the world will look back to modern +vivisection in the name of Science, as they do now to burning at the +stake in the name of Religion." + +Concerning vivisection, then, the views of one of the most eminent +surgeons that America has produced may be summed up as follows: + +FIRST. He is not favourable to antivivisection, but to restriction. +"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain." + +SECOND. The cruelties which pertain to certain vivisections and +vivisectors are not myth, but realities. For a description of these +cruelties, Dr. Bigelow expressly refers to the literature of protest. + +THIRD. In defence of vivisection or of unrestricted experimentation, +he says that UNTRUTHFUL CLAIMS OF UTILITY have been made. + +FOURTH. The reasons for inflicting prolonged torment upon animals are +wholly inadequate for its justification. + +FIFTH. Vivisection has a hardening tendency upon its practitioners. +The more eminent the vivisector, the more indifferent he may become to +the infliction of torment. + +SIXTH. There is ample reason for the interference of the law. Every +laboratory should be legally supervised. Public opinion should be +frequently informed concerning vivisection, its objects, and its +methods. + +I have presented these opinions at length because they represent +exactly the position which I have personally maintained for over +thirty years. And if the time shall come, foreseen by him, "when the +world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of Science, as +we now do to burning at the stake in the name of Religion," then, +surely, it will be remembered that the first strong voice in America +raised, not in condemnation of all experimentation upon animals, but +solely in protest against its cruelty and secrecy, and in appeal for +its reform, was that of the leading American surgeon of his time, +Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University. + + + CHAPTER X + + THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION + +In the year 1906, a Royal Commission was appointed by King Edward to +investigate the practice of animal experimentation. Thirty years had +passed since the appearance of the earlier inquiry, upon which was +based the English law regulating the practice of such experiments. On +the one hand, it had been denounced as affording most inadequate +protection to animals liable to such exploitation; on the other hand, +in the United States it had been condemned as a hindrance to +scientific progress, and a warning against any similar legislation. A +new Commission was therefore appointed to inquire into the practice, +to take evidence, and to report what changes, if any, in the existing +statute might seem advisable. + +The composition of the new Commission leaned heavily toward the +laboratory. It included no opponent to all vivisection. On the other +hand, three of the Commissioners at one time or another had held a +licence to vivisect, and one of them seems to have held this +permission for some fourteen years. The Commission also included +among its members the permanent Under-Secretary to the Government--an +official whose acts had again and again been arraigned, and were soon +to be challenged once more. The unusual spectacle was therefore to be +presented of men sitting in judgment upon themselves. One of the +Commissioners--Dr. George Wilson, well known for his work regarding +the public health--had at various times questioned the conclusions of +certain experimenters, but he was not opposed to all research upon +animal life. From a Commission so constituted, we might have expected +as the final result of their labours a report favourable to the +interests of the laboratory, to marked modifications of the existing +law by a lessened stringency of inspection, to relaxation of +restrictions, and to an endorsement of every claim of utility which +the experimenters should put forth. + +Such an outcome of the deliberations of the Royal Commission must have +seemed to American vivisectors almost a certainty. During the past +twenty years, repeated attempts have been made in New York, in +Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, and in the city of Washington, to +obtain some legislation regulating the practice of animal +experimentation to the extent which obtains in England. At "hearings" +before various legislative and Senate Committees, all such attempts +have been vigorously combated by representatives and defenders of the +physiological laboratories, and their strongest argument has always +been the exceedingly detrimental effect of the English Act of 1876 +both upon medical education and upon the progress of medical science. +Professor Bowditch once said: + +"The amount of mischief which may be produced by the English law +depends very much on the good judgment of the Home Secretary.... In +general, it may be said that the system of licensing and Government +inspection is UNDER THE MOST FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS a source of serious +annoyance to investigation." + +We shall have reason hereafter to see the inaccuracy of this +statement, so far as may be evinced by the opinions of English +physiologists and teachers. + +Upon the secrecy now maintained in English laboratories, a vivid light +is thrown by the evidence given before the Commission. Quite as +strong as in America have been the precautions taken in England to +prevent any knowledge of the methods of vivisection from coming before +the general public except through the assertions of the experimenters +themselves. In America, where we have no legal limitations to +experimentation, such secrecy occasions no surprise; but that in +England the laboratory had secured so complete a degree of security +from criticism by concealment of that which we are told needs no +concealment gives reason for questionings. One of the Government +inspectors--a Dr. Thane--insists that although a physiological +laboratory is open to the visits of medical students at any time, it +would hardly be possible to permit a similar privilege to physicians +not in sympathy with experimentation. "I see no way of doing it," he +declares. He does not seem to be certain that one of the Royal +Commissioners before whom he was giving evidence could be admitted. +Dr. George Wilson asks him the question in regard to seeing the +various operations which are open to medical students. "I can go and +see them? I suppose I would have no difficulty?" Dr. Thane's reply was +by no means assuring. "I do not see how it could be done," he replied. +He could not see how one of the most distinguished physicians of +England could secure the legal right of admission to a physiological +laboratory! + +Some of the evidence given regarding this point seems a little +suggestive of a willingness to mislead a thoughtless questioner. Was +there any wish to give an impression that the secrecy of the +laboratory did not exist? One of the Government inspectors--Sir James +Russell--informed the Commissioners that HE never had any difficulty +in getting into laboratories. "I simply walk into them, and have +always found the doors open," as if that proved that there was nothing +to be concealed. The professor of physiology at University College +was particularly examined on this point. "Would there be any +difficulty in a doctor who was very strongly opposed on all grounds to +experiments on animals presenting his card and being present?" "None +whatsoever," was the Professor's answer to his questioner, the +Chairman of the Commission. "I want to see," added Lord Selby, "what +sort of check there is upon the neglect of the statute; ... whether +any medical man who disagreed with the Act and disagreed with +vivisection altogether would be able to attend?" "In these advanced +lectures there is no means by which we can prevent him from +attending," was the instant reply. "In point of fact, are ANY steps +taken with a view of preventing it?" "None whatever," was the reply. +"There is NOTHING to prevent it?" persisted Lord Selby; and the reply +of the professor was reiterated: "There is nothing to prevent the +attendance of any medical man at these advanced lectures." + +The distinguished jurist undoubtedly believed that by these repeated +interrogations he had reached a complete denial of the secrecy of +experimentation so far as the witness was concerned. + +On the day following, the same professor of physiology continued his +evidence, and another member of the Commission--A. J. Ram, Esq.--"one +of our counsel learned in the law," took part in the examination. "One +hears a good deal in lay papers and so forth about experiments +conducted with closed doors. IS THERE ANYTHING OF THAT SORT AT ALL?" +The very form of his inquiry would seem to indicate his disbelief in +the practice of secret vivisection. His question, however, admitted +of two different replies. The physiologist might assert the necessary +seclusion of physiological experimentation, or he might construe the +question in a literal sense as pertaining merely to the locking of his +inner door. He preferred the latter course. "I have ever come across +a laboratory where there were any closed doors. In my laboratory any +student wanting to speak to me walks straight in. The door of my +laboratory, where I do the chief part of my work, IS ALWAYS OPEN TO +THE PASSAGE." + +This is very clever. The two leading lawyers of the Commission have +sought to get at the truth concerning the secrecy of vivisection, and +apparently are quite satisfied. But some hours later another member +of the Commission, a plain Member of Parliament, without skill of +fence or experience in the examination of witnesses, asks a question +or two. "You have told us," said Mr. Tomkinson, "that any medical man, +on presenting his card, can obtain admission at once to a laboratory?" + +Here was an inquiry that could be answered but in one way. "No," +replied the physiologist; "to the advanced physiological lectures +which are given in the University of London." "NOT TO WITNESS ANY +OPERATION?" "No; only to witness the demonstrations that are given in +those lectures." "But might not the public be more satisfied if a +layman--a Member of Parliament, for example--had the right of entry on +presenting his card?" "Do you mean to the advanced lectures or to the +laboratory?" "I mean to an operation IN THE LABORATORY: say a Member +of Parliament or anyone whose position is assured?" "I should be only +too pleased to see any Member of Parliament or any layman who had any +doubt about it if he presented his card, but I SHOULD HAVE TO BE +SATISFIED OF HIS BONA FIDES." + +It is a pity that no one thought to ask the physiologist how he +expected a Member of Parliament to prove his "good faith" before he +could enter precincts open to every student of the University. Sir +William Church came to his assistance by suggesting that the professor +would admit anyone "vouched for" by a person whom you know, or whose +position you know; but the curt monosyllabic reply was not indicative +of a welcome, and it was quite different from the conditions which had +just been laid down. The doors of the laboratory are "open," but only +to those in whose silence and discretion the vivisector may trust. + +A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to the alleged +painfulness of vivisection. It is the great problem. If the absence +of sensation were a certainty in all operations of the kind, there +would be no reasonable objection to them, no matter to what extent +they might be carried. The physiologists of the present day occupy a +somewhat different attitude from those of half a century ago, or of +yet later periods. Thirty years ago, one of the leading experimenters +in England declared that he had "no regard at all" for the pain +inflicted upon a vivisected animal; that he never used anaesthetics +except when necessary for personal convenience; and that he had "no +time, so to speak, for thinking what the animal will suffer." We find +no such profession of indifference in the testimony of modern +physiologists. What seems to take its place is, in many cases, a +denial of the existence of pain in the experimentation of the present +day. Does anything here turn upon a definition of words? A professor +at King's College, London, giving his testimony, affirmed that "no +student in England has EVER SEEN PAIN in an animal experiment"--a +statement which in one sense everyone can accept, for who can say that +he ever SAW a pain anywhere? Professor Starling, of the University +College in London, declared that during his seventeen years of +experimentation "on no occasion HAVE I EVER SEEN PAIN inflicted in any +experiment on dog, cat, or rabbit in a physiological laboratory in +this country." The experimenter is undoubtedly correct. Neither he +nor anyone else in or out of a laboratory has ever "SEEN PAIN." + +Some of Dr. Starling's testimony on the subject of pain is very +curious. Pain, he tells the Commissioners, "would spoil the +experiment," and "A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT WHICH IS PAINFUL IS +THEREBY A BAD EXPERIMENT." He is asked whether "there are any +operations performed under circumstances in which the animal is +necessarily and intentionally sensitive to some pain?" Without any +apparent hesitation he replied: "NO, NEVER." Surely this is a +remarkable assertion. He is not speaking, so far as one can see, of +his own laboratory, but of all the laboratories of the world. If, +since the discovery of anaesthesia over sixty years ago, there has +been painful physiological experimentation in England, in America, or +on the Continent of Europe, IT HAS BEEN BAD EXPERIMENTATION. THE PAIN +INFLICTED HAS SPOILED THEIR WORK. One may not be inclined to dispute +this opinion, and yet be quite certain that some very eminent +vivisectors in Europe and America would question its accuracy so far +as their own work is concerned. + +It is interesting to compare these assertions with the testimony given +by another physiologist--Dr. Pembrey, the lecturer on physiology at +Guy's Hospital in London. He tells the Commission that "a common- +sense view should be taken of the question," and then makes a definite +admission that by no means bears out the contention of the +physiologist of University College. "I ADMIT," said Dr. Pembrey, "THAT +I HAVE DONE PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS, and I am not ashamed of admitting +it." He goes yet further, declaring that if you caused an animal to +suffer extreme agony, the pain itself might be so severe as to render +the creature unconscious. It is probable that the physiologist could +not have foreseen the results of his candid admissions. When the +Commission made their final report, they expressed unanimously the +opinion that "to grant a licence to any person holding such views as +those formerly expressed by Dr. Klein and as those entertained by +Dr. Pembrey is calculated to create serious misgiving in the mind of +the public." + +Closely allied to this question is the problem of anaesthesia. Fifty +years ago ether and chloroform were administered to animals very much +as they were given to human beings undergoing operations in surgery. +An animal returning to consciousness gave abundant evidence of its +sensibility to suffering by its struggles and cries. The experimenter +might try to believe that the pain was slight, but he never disputed +its existence. To-day, all this is changed. As much or as little of +the anaesthetic may be given as the vivisector desires, and yet he may +declare that "ANAESTHETICS WERE USED," no matter how slight the degree +of sensibility thus induced. It is a known fact that a dog is very +susceptible to the action of chloroform, so that during its +administration death frequently occurs. Sir Thornley Stoker, the +President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, and for many +years a teacher of science, testified before the Commission that a +dog's heart is very weak and irregular, and susceptible to the +poisonous influence of chloroform. Over and over again he expresses +the doubts that arise concerning the administration of chloroform. "I +fear that, particularly in the case of dogs, ANAESTHESIA IS NOT ALWAYS +PUSHED TO A SUFFICIENT EXTENT, as these animals often die from the +effects of the anaesthetic if given to a full extent.... I am never +sure, if I give a dog chloroform, that I will not kill it.... THE +ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE if the dog lives as long as is +necessary for some of these experiments." Even for one hour he +believes it would be generally impossible to keep a dog alive under +full anaesthesia. On the other hand, Dr. Starling declared that +"there is no difficulty in keeping an animal alive as long as you +like," and Sir Victor Horsley affirmed that one could keep a dog +under chloroform "FOR A WEEK, if you only take the trouble."[1] + +[1] See Minutes of Evidence, November 13, 1907, Q. 15,649. + +The discrepancy here would seem insurmountable. May it not be more in +appearance than in reality? One man tells me that arsenic is a poison, +very liable to cause death. Another affirms that he has taken it for +days in succession, and has experienced no unpleasant results. Both +statements can be true, for they need not refer to the same amount. +In the modern laboratory there is little danger that the animals will +succumb to the effects of anaesthetic. Assuredly we may question the +completeness of that insensibility which Sir Victor Horsley apparently +declares may be maintained for a week. + +The use of the substance known as CURARE, either alone or in +connection with anaesthetics or narcotics, was naturally a subject of +passing inquiry. So slight is the knowledge afforded by certain +physiologists that it would almost seem that they were united in a +"conspiracy of silence" regarding it; in neither of the last two +editions of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is there more than a casual +reference to the poison, and no reference to its origin. "What is it?" +asked one of the Commissioners. "Is it an herb?" A brief account of +the poison, in view of an ignorance so widespread, is not out of +place. + +Curare is the arrow-poison of certain tribes of South American +Indians. It was first brought to the knowledge of Europeans by Sir +Walter Raleigh on his return from a voyage to Guiana in 1595, over +three centuries ago. Its actual composition, even at the present +time, is unknown; it is probable that different tribes of savages have +their special methods of preparing it. Some travellers claim that it +consists only of a decoction of poisonous plants; others believe that +with such substances are mixed the fangs of snakes, and certain +species of poisonous ants, the whole compound being boiled down to the +consistency of tar. + +The action of the poison thus made is exceedingly rapid. Numerous +experiments by different observers have demonstrated that it swiftly +destroys the functions of the motor nerves of the body, leaving the +sensory nerves unaffected to any extent. Claude Be'rnard, who made +many experiments with curare, came to the same conclusion; it +abolishes the power of motion, but has no effect upon the nerves of +sensation. An American physiologist, Dr. Isaac Ott, tells us that it +is able to render animals immovable "by a paralysis of motor nerves +,LEAVING SENSORY NERVES INTACT." Be'rnard asserts as a result of +numerous experiments that in an animal poisoned with curare, "its +intelligence, sensibility and will-power are not affected, but they +lose the power of moving;" and that death, apparently so calm, "is +accompanied by sufferings the most atrocious that the human +imagination can conceive." Although it may seem to be a corpse without +movement, and with every appearance of death, "sensibility and +intelligence exist ... it hears and comprehends whatever goes on, and +feels whatever painful impressions we may inflict." It is only within +late years, and since the employment of curare has been denounced, +that anyone has suggested any doubt of these physiological +conclusions. + +It has been found by physiologists that if the throat of a dog be +severed and the windpipe exposed and artificial respiration kept up, +all the functions of life may be greatly prolonged; and if curare be +used, the creature does not die, although it feels. Supposing that +morphia or chloroform be administered at the same time--is the animal, +notwithstanding, conscious of pain? Professor Starling admitted in his +evidence that if the anaesthetic passed off, the curarized animal +would be unable to move or to show any sign of suffering; there would +be no possibility of a dog whining or moaning; "it could not, under +curare," he frankly admits. Dr. Thane, one of the Government +inspectors of laboratories, gave interesting evidence on this point, +in reply to questions of one of the Commissioners. + +"What is the object of giving curare when you are going to give an +anaesthetic?" + +"The object of giving curare is to stop all reflex movements...." + +"It would stop all struggling, would it not?" + +"IT WOULD STOP ALL STRUGGLING." + +"That is to say, it would put an end to the usual signs of the animal +not being properly under anaesthesia?" + +"That is so." + +"And in that case the experimenter has to depend solely, not upon the +attendant, but upon the accuracy of his apparatus? He cannot tell from +looking at the animal, which is perfectly still, whether it is +suffering or not?" + +"If his apparatus breaks down, the animal will die of suffocation; it +will not get air." + +"Yes, it may die; but so long as it is alive, HE could not say, YOU +could not say, I could not say--if I were present--that the animal was +properly under anaesthesia, IF THERE WERE NO SIGNS BY WHICH YOU CAN +TELL?" + +"We could say the animal is respiring air which is charged with +anaesthetic in sufficient quantity to keep it anaesthetized before we +gave it curare." + +"That is all you could say?" + +"That is all we could say."[1] + +[1] Evidence taken November 21, 1906. + +And this pious opinion Dr. Thane reiterates to other questioners. It +fails to satisfy except where faith is strong. "The curious thing to +me," said Dr. George Wilson, "is that you or anyone else can say +positively that an animal which cannot, by moving, give any indication +that it is not completely anaesthetized during all this time that it +is under a terribly severe operation does not suffer.... I cannot +understand such a positive statement." And after Dr. Starling had +admitted the impossibility of a dog, under curare, making any cry, +Dr. Wilson rejoins: "THEN HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT IT SUFFERS NO PAIN? +You may hope and believe, but how can you tell that during a prolonged +and terrible experiment, the animal suffers no pain?" The only reply +that the experimenter could give was a reiteration of faith in the +working of the apparatus. + +And here, for the present, the problem must be left. Its only answer +is a guess. Yet it should be capable of a definite solution. Every +year, in our great cities, it becomes necessary to put homeless dogs +out of existence in some merciful way. It should be possible, by use +of chloroform, to determine which theory is true. If, under proper +circumstances, a dozen animals were made absolutely unconscious by the +use of chloroform, as insensible as human being are made before a +capital operation, so that the corneal reflex is abolished, could this +degree of unconsciousness be maintained "as long as any experimenter +desired"? Would it even be possible as a rule to keep them alive a +week, yet completely anaesthetized? Or, on the contrary, would such +animals be peculiarly liable to sudden death from the effects of the +chloroform? One cannot doubt the possibility of laboratory anaesthesia +being maintained indefinitely; but how is it with complex and full +surgical anaesthesia? Until such appeal to science shall have been +made in the presence of those who doubt, and are able to judge, the +question cannot be regarded as settled. There are those who will +believe that the older investigators were right; that the perfect +insensibility to pain is not invariably attained in these cases; and +that both in English and American laboratories the most hideous +torments are sometimes inflicted upon man's most faithful servant and +friend. Even Dr. Thane, the Government inspector, admitted that in +making reports the inspector "never could determine which experiments +were painless and which were painful." + +The evidence given by experimenters was frequently very curious, and +sometimes suggestive. Professor Starling, for example, testified that +dogs exhibited no fright or fear at entering a vivisection chamber; +there are no signs "that they have ANY IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO +SUFFER," said the physiologist; "that is a great consolation in +dealing with animals, as compared with dealing with a man."[1] +"GOING TO SUFFER" is a somewhat significant admission. He is asked +whether the experimentation of to-day is more or less humanely +conducted than it was before the Act of 1876; and instead of replying +he tells the Commissioners that "there was very little work carried +out before the Act; THERE WERE ONLY ONE OR TWO PHYSIOLOGISTS." Upon +such ignorance of history comment is hardly necessary. We have heard +much concerning a "wonderful discovery" of a Dr. Crile, the giving of +morphia before a surgical operation, in order to quiet the +apprehensions of the patients and so to prevent the occurrence of +shock. Yet as long ago as 1906, Dr. Thane, a member of the Royal +College of Surgeons, testified, upon the authority of a distinguished +scientist, that such use of morphia before administration of +anaesthetics "is often done in surgical operations." The attention of +Sir Victor Horsley was called to the experiments of a Dr. Watson in +America. Had he heard of them? + +[1] Minutes of Evidence, Q. 3,885. + +"Yes, I know of those experiments," was the reply. + +"Were they, in your opinion, valuable experiments?" + +"I cannot, at the moment, call to mind whether they revealed any new +conditions. I should have to look them up again." + +"Were they justifiable, in your opinion?" + +"CERTAINLY," was Sir Victor Horsley's terse reply. + +Yet, when the account of these experiments was first published, the +British Medical Journal, in its editorial columns, thus commented upon +them: + +"The present pamphlet calls for our strongest reprobation as a record +of the most wanton and stupidest cruelty we have ever seen chronicled +under the guise of scientific experiments.... Apart from the utterly +useless nature of the observations, so far as regards human pathology, +there is a callous indifference shown in the description of the +suffering of the poor brutes which is positively revolting.... WE +TRUST THAT NO ONE, IN THE PROFESSION OR OUT OF IT, will be tempted by +the fancy that these or such-like experiments are scientific or +justifiable." + +It will be seen that concerning Watson's most cruel vivisections Sir +Victor Horsley was not in agreement with the British Medical Journal, +the official organ of the Association of which, before the Commission, +he appeared as the representative! + +The final report of the Royal Commission occupies a volume. The long +period over which the inquiry extended, the generally apparent desire +to permit every phase of opinion to have a hearing, all tended toward +views which, if not unanimous, at any rate indicated a desire to be +fair. Taken as a whole, the evidence and the final decisions of the +Commission constitute an important contribution to the literature of +animal experimentation which has appeared during the present century. + +The conclusions of the Commission are almost, yet not quite, +unanimous. All of the eight members signed the final report, three of +them, however, making their assent subject to a qualifying memorandum +that in certain respects indicated a considerable divergence of +opinion. The following are the conclusions of the Commission, the +words in italics and parentheses being the qualifying additions of one +of their number, Dr. George Wilson. + +"Altogether, apart from the moral and ethical questions involved in +the employment of experiments on living animals for scientific +purposes, we are, after full consideration, inclined to think-- + +"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time have been proved +by experiments upon living animals, and alleged to have been +beneficial in preventing and curing disease, have, upon further +investigation, been found to be fallacious or useless. (INDEED, THE +FALLACIES AND FAILURES ARE, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN +SUCCESSFUL RESULTS.) + +"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge has been +acquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of +disease, and that (SOME) methods for the prevention, cure, and +treatment of certain diseases (OTHER THAN BACTERIAL), have resulted +from experimental investigations upon living animals. + +"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that, +without experiments made upon animals, mankind would by now have been +in possession of such knowledge. + +"4. That in so far as disease has been successfully prevented, or its +mortality reduced, suffering has been diminished in man and the lower +animals. + +"5. That there is ground for believing that similar methods of +investigation, if pursued in the future, will be attended with similar +results." (FAILURES PLENTIFUL ENOUGH STILL, BUT SUCCESSFUL RESULTS +FEWER AND FEWER AS THE FIELD OF LEGITIMATE RESEARCH MUST BECOME +GRADUALLY MORE AND MORE RESTRICTED.) + +Other conclusions appear to be as follows: + +"We strongly hold that limits should be placed to animal suffering in +the search for physiological or pathological knowledge." + +How far interference with experimentation should extend appears to +have been a matter of divergent views. Five of the Commissioners took +the following position: + +"An Inspector should have the power to order the painless destruction +of any animal which, having been the subject of any experiment, shows +signs of obvious suffering or considerable pain, even though the +object of the experiment may not have been obtained; and + +"That in all cases in which, in the opinion of the experimenter, the +animal is suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, it shall be +his duty to cause painless death, even though the object of the +experiment has not been attained." + +Three of the Commissioners--Sir William J. Collins, M.D., Dr. George +Wilson, and Colonel Lockwood--do not agree with this clause. They +cannot approve of a rule which leaves to the discretion of the +vivisector the right of keeping alive for an indefinite period, a +suffering creature. They recommend that all observations, "likely to +cause pain and suffering shall be conducted under adequate +anaesthetics, skilfully and humanely administered, or if the nature of +the investigation render this impracticable, then, that on the +supervention of real or obvious suffering the animal shall be +forthwith painlessly killed." + +The Commission recommended that, in certain cases, immediate or +special records or reports of results should be furnished by the +experimenter. The three members just named agree with this, but would +have such reports the rule, and not the exception. With this view I +am personally in emphatic accord. Every experiment should have its +complete record, available for publication if so desired. + +That part of the final report which in certain respects is more +valuable than all the rest, is the reservation memorandum of +Dr. George Wilson, one of the Commissioners. He is not an anti- +vivisectionist, for he agrees with the unanimous conclusion of his +associates that "experiments upon animals, adequately safeguarded by +laws faithfully administered, are morally justifiable." Regarding the +practice as now carried on, he maintains the only scientific position, +that which more inclines to doubt than to credulity. The assurances +of witnesses, that in certain experimental operations no pain was +inflicted, Dr. Wilson accepts "as opinions to which the greatest +weight should be attached, and not as statements of absolute fact, so +far as specific instances are concerned." That insensibility to pain +is invariably maintained is by no means sure; "however confident +the operator may be that he has abolished all pain, VIVISECTIONAL +ANAESTHESIA, WITH ALL ITS VARIETIES OF AGENTS AND METHODS OF +INDUCTION, CAN NEVER BE DIVESTED OF AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY." + +What are we to say of the results, either to science or the art of +healing, which modern vivisection has contributed? It is regarding +this point that Dr. Wilson has brought together a mass of evidence of +unquestionable value, in a field of inquiry peculiarly his own. For +more than thirty years he had been a writer upon topics pertaining to +the Public Health. One by one, in his memorandum, Dr. Wilson has +examined the claims of vivisection regarding the chief forms of +disease which have occupied the attention of experimenters--cancer, +which still maintains its advance in fatality; tuberculosis, which +began to decline in England more than forty years ago, before it was +associated with experimentation; hydrophobia, diphtheria, tetanus, +typhoid fever, snake-poison, sleeping-sickness, and certain animal +ailments of an infectious character. What is his conclusion regarding +all the claims of vastly increased potency of modern medicine over +these powers of darkness and death? That experiments have been utterly +valueless? No; some useful knowledge has been acquired, in certain +directions. "But I still contend, and have endeavored to prove, that +the useful results which have been claimed, or may still be claimed, +HAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY OVER-ESTIMATED." And the final conclusion of this +keen observer and lifelong student of medicine is this: "That +experiments on animals, no matter with what prospective gain to +humanity, are repellant to the ethical sense; and that those who +persistently advocate them as beneficial to human or animal life MUST +JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS BY RESULTS.... Even admitting that experiments on +animals have contributed to the relief of human suffering, such +measure of relief is infinitesimal compared with the pain which has +been inflicted to secure it." + +What changes to the existing law of England regarding animal +experimentation, or in the administration of the Act, did this +Commission recommend? + +FIRST. AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS. "The inspectors +should be sufficiently numerous and should have at their command ample +time to afford to the public reasonable assurance that the law is +faithfully administered." + +SECOND. RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF CURARE. "We are all agreed, that +if its use is to be permitted at all, an inspector, or some person +nominated by the Secretary of State, should be present from the +commencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the +animal is throughout the whole experiment and UNTIL ITS DEATH IN A +STATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." + +This is a most remarkable recommendation. Can it imply anything else +than distrust of the experimenter? + +THIRD. "STRICTER PROVISIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF PITHING." The +operation must be complete; performed only under an adequate +anaesthetic; and by a licensed person when made on a warm-blooded +animal. + +FOURTH. "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS REGULATING THE PAINLESS DESTRUCTION +OF ANIMALS which show signs of suffering after the experiment." + +To this recommendation and its suggested amendment by three of the +Commissioners, reference has already been made. + +FIFTH. "A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF SELECTING and in the constitution of +the Advisory body to the Secretary of State." + +SIXTH. "SPECIAL RECORDS BY EXPERIMENTERS IN CERTAIN CASES." On this +point we have seen that three of the Commissioners went yet farther, +and believed that in ALL cases of painful experiment--and, possibly, +in all cases whatsoever, such reports should be made. + +It is now upwards of thirty-five years since the Act regulating the +practice of vivisection in England came into effect. During all that +period, in the United States, the law has never ceased to be an object +of misrepresentation and attack. Before Legislatures and Senate +Committees, on the platform and in the press, by men of good +reputation but associated with laboratory interests, the English law +has been denounced as a hindrance to scientific progress and a warning +against similar legislation in the United States. And yet nothing can +be more evident that all these attacks were based upon ignorance and +misstatement. We find a Royal Commission in England, composed almost +entirely of scientific men, everyone of them favourable to animal +experimentation, devoting years to an inquiry concerning not +vivisection only, but the working of the law by which it is +regulated. And the conclusions reached are in every respect opposed +to the statements made by the laboratory interests here. THEY FULLY +ENDORSE THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE REGULATION, WHICH EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA +IS SO STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED. But this is not all. Every recommendation +made for modification of the Act is in the direction of animal +protection, and toward an increased stringency of the regulations +relating to animal experimentation. In not a single instance was +there recommendation that the regulations should be less stringent; +not an instance in which it was suggested that privileges of the +vivisector should be enlarged. That this should be the result of an +inquiry in this twentieth century, extending over five years, is +remarkable indeed. Perhaps there is no reason for surprise that all +these conclusions of the Royal Commission were never made known to the +American public by the periodicals of the day. Is it possible for +anyone to believe that such conclusions would ever have been attained +if the denunciations of State regulation of vivisection, proceeding +from the American laboratory, had been grounded in truth? + + + CHAPTER XI + + THE GREAT ANAESTHETIC DELUSION + +A popular delusion is often the basis of a great abuse. If at one +time witches were burnt by countless thousands, it was at a period +when implicit faith in the reality of diabolic conspiracy was +undisturbed by sceptical questionings. Human slavery existed for +centuries, not only because it was profitable, but because it came to +be regarded as the only conceivable permanent relation between the +negro and the white man. The Spanish Inquisition existed for ages, +because the pious Spaniard could not believe that the good men who +upheld, encouraged, and promoted its activity could be liable to +error, or actuated by other than the loftiest principles. Men find +themselves deluded not merely because of their faith in the integrity +of their fellow-men, but because they have also extended that faith to +the accuracy of their opinions. + +There can be no doubt of the fact that public apathy regarding the +abuses of vivisection as now carried on without limitations or +restrictions is grounded upon the great anaesthetic delusion. This +misinterpretation of facts, this misunderstanding of scientific +statements, constitutes the most singular delusion of the present +time. + +What is anaesthesia? It has been defined as a state of insensibility +to external impressions, sometimes introduced by disease, but more +generally in modern surgery by the inhalation of the vapours of ether +or chloroform. The discovery of the properties of these drugs +constitutes a very interesting chapter in the story of scientific +achievement; but in this connection the chief point of interest lies +in the fact that the most wonderful of all advances in medicine was +made without resort to the vivisection of animals. Sir Benjamin Ward +Richardson, an English scientist who had much to do with its various +methods, tells us that "the instauration of general anaesthesia came +from experiments on man alone; there is no suspicion of any experiment +on a lower animal in connection with it"; and Professor Bigelow, of +Harvard Medical School, as we have seen, makes the same statement. + +The extent to which insensibility may be carried depends entirely on +the amount of the vapour inhaled. Suppose the quantity to be very +small. Then the result will be a diminished sensibility, without +entire loss of consciousness. Let the quantity inhaled be +considerably increase, and we may produce a profound stupor with +muscular relaxation, the eyes are fixed, and the eyelids do not +respond when the eyeball is touched. There is now deep anaesthesia, +and complete unconsciousness to the surgeon's knife. The borderline +between life and death is not distant; and if still more of the +anaesthetic is administered, we may reach a condition from which there +is no awakening. The skill of the anaesthetist is not unlike that of +a pilot, who needs to know just how far the ship may be steered in a +difficult channel without running upon the rocks. + +For a slight operation, a very little of the drug will often suffice. +In some hospitals abroad--and perhaps in America--it is the custom not +to give anaesthetics to charity patients when the pain is not greater +than the extraction of a tooth. Between a light anaesthesia and the +deep insensibility required for some capital operation, THERE IS EVERY +CONCEIVABLE DEGREE. We see the same thing in ordinary sleep. The +deep unconsciousness of a thoroughly exhausted man is vastly different +from the light slumber of an anxious mother, who is aroused by a word +or touch. Yet both conditions are what we call "sleep." + +Now, one of the popular delusions regarding what is called +"anaesthesia" arises from ignorance of its innumerable degrees. We +are told, for instance, "anaesthetics were used" in certain +vivisections. That assertion alone, in a majority of cases, will +quiet any criticism. If "anaesthetics were used," then the average +reader assumes that of course there was no pain. The experimenter may +know better. But if ignorance persists in misinterpreting statements +of fact, it is possible that he may think he is not obliged to make +the truth plain, to his positive disadvantage. If such method of +reasoning ever obtains, it may explain very much. + +And yet it would seem that only very ignorant people could be so +blinded by authority as not to perceive where the fallacy lies. A +slight amount of ether or chloroform may mean to a vivisected animal +no protection whatever from extreme pain. The fact has long been +known. Many years ago Dr. George Hoggan declared that "complete and +conscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted, the animal getting +at most a slight whiff of chloroform by way of satisfying the +conscience of the operator, OR OF ENABLING HIM TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF A +HUMANE CHARACTER." In other words, it enables him to say, +"Anaesthetics are always used." Shall we always be blind to the +insignificance of that phrase? + +That chloroform or ether will suppress the consciousness of pain +during a surgical operation, every reader is aware. But when we speak +of certain vivisections, we are on different ground. The pains to be +inflicted are sometimes far more excruciating than any surgical +operation. In the stimulation of sensory nerves, and in various +operations upon these nerves, there may be excited agonies so great +that they break through the limited unconsciousness induced by +chloroform. One of the most experienced vivisectors in America has +given his testimony on this point. Speaking of his experiments upon +some of the most exquisitely sensitive nerves, Dr. Flint says: "WHEN +we have used anaesthetics"--not the significance of the phrase--"WE +COULD NEVER PUSH THE EFFECTS SUFFICIENTLY TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY +OF THE ROOT OF THE NERVE. If an animal, brought so fully under the +influence of ether that the conjunctiva had become absolutely +insensible" (the degree of insensibility required by the surgeon), +"the instant the instrument touched the root of the nerve in the +cranium, THERE WERE EVIDENCES OF ACUTE PAIN."[1] Of other experiments +upon the same nerves he tells us that "in using anaesthetics, we have +never been able to bring an animal under their influence SO COMPLETELY +AS TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY.... In cats that appear to be thoroughly +etherized, as soon as the instrument touches the nerve, there is more +or less struggling."[2] + +[1] Flint's "Physiology," vol. iv., p. 97. +[2] Flint's "Physiology," vol. iv., p. 193. + +This statement needs to be remembered. The agony may be so keen, so +exquisite, so far beyond the pain of a surgical operation, that it +makes itself felt. Pain, then, conquers the anaesthetic, exactly as +the anaesthetic usually conquers the pain. + +What, then, is the value of the phrase, "ANAESTHETICS WERE USED"? +Dr. Hoggan has told us. It has no value whatever. + +Sir Thornley Stoker, President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in +Ireland, and an inspector of laboratories under the Act, was +questioned about the pain endured by an animal in course of a +prolonged vivisection, and he frankly admitted that a vivisector +"could do no more than give an opinion. He could have no CERTAINTY as +to the entire absence, the continuous absence, of pain."[2] Dr. Thane, +a professor at University Medical College, London, and a Government +inspector, being asked whether one might not be able to distinguish +between painful and painless experiments, replied that "the inspector +never could distinguish exactly which experiments were painless and +which were painful, AND THE EXPERIMENTERS AND OBSERVERS THEMSELVES +cannot distinguish IN A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CASES."[3] + +[2] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 1,064. +[3] Ibid., Question 1,335. + +These are the opinions of experts. This attitude of uncertainty is +the only ground possible for a scientific man who aims at stating the +whole truth. When a professional vivisector gives us assurance that +no pain was felt during the severest operations, he is only putting +forth an opinion. He is but mortal. We are not obliged to assume his +infallibility in a region where experts are in doubt, and where there +may be a desire for concealment. + +During the last decade of the nineteenth century, a work was published +describing in detail experiments upon surgical shock--so termed to +distinguish it from a similar condition arising from overwhelming +emotions. These experiments were almost exclusively made upon dogs, +man's faithful friend and companion; and their number was so great and +their character so horrible that their publication at first excited +general criticism and condemnation. At one the suggestion was put +forth that the experiments were painless, because "anaesthetics were +employed." The vivisector had said: + +"In all cases the animals were anaesthetized, usually by the use of +ether, occasionally by chloroform, either alone or with ether. In a +few cases CURARE AND MORPHINE WERE USED." + +In a number of succeeding volumes, the same assertion has been put +forth; and as understood by the average reader, it has tended to +dispel doubts regarding the character of the experiments. It seems +worth while to examine the account of these investigations a little +closely. The question for us is not whether anaesthetics were +employed, but to what extent we may find ourselves assured regarding +their efficiency in abolishing sensibility in every case. + +The experiments in question were of a peculiar kind. They differ in +certain respects from anything to be found in the records of American +vivisection. The number of dogs sacrificed--148--was far greater than +seems necessary to establish any working hypothesis. It would appear +that the methods of vivisection selected were generally designed for +the purpose of making the strongest possible impression, and, if +consciousness was present, the sharpest pangs that human ingenuity +could invent were repeatedly inflicted. The most sensitive parts of +the body were crushed in various ways. The lungs were stabbed, or +shot through; the intestines were lifted from the body, and burned or +placed in boiling water; the nerves were exposed and scraped; loops of +intestines were manipulated or crushed; the ear was penetrated; the +jaws were opened as far as "the maximal normal separation," and then +by extraordinary force separated still more; the paws were crushed, +and sometimes burnt by the application of a Bunsen's flame; the +stomach was dilated by pumping air and water into it till the stomach +burst; one animal was subjected to "all kinds of operations for a +period of three hours more," including the cutting out of kidneys and +double hip-joint amputations; another suffered the opening of the +abdomen, the crushing of the kidneys, "severe manipulation of the +eye," "severe manipulation of the tongue, puncture, crushing," etc., +and lastly, a "stimulation of the sciatic nerve"; in one case, the paw +"was placed in boiling water for a considerable time"; in another, +"boiling water was poured into the abdominal cavity"; in yet another, +flame was applied over the heart. I am not quoting all this from +memory; the work describing all these experiments lies open before me +as I write. No Iroquois savage, no Spanish inquisitor, no +professional tormentor of any age ever devised more exquisite +torments, more excruciating agonies, more lengthened tortures than +these 148 vivisections imply--UNLESS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT +THE COMPLETE INSENSIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS WAS SECURED BY RECOGNIZED +ANAESTHETICS, BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT. + +Such assurance as this it is now impossible for anyone to give with +scientific certainty. The absolute insensibility of each and every +animal thus vivisected cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, there +are reasons which compel belief that, in many instances, these +vivisections implied the most horrible and prolonged torments that the +practice of animal experimentation has ever been permitted to evoke. + +What are some of these reasons? + +FIRST. In the work describing these experiments, the author has +nowhere asserted that EACH ANIMAL SUBJECTED TO EXPERIMENT WAS FROM THE +BEGINNING TO THE END SO DEEPLY AND PROFOUNDLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF +ETHER OR CHLOROFORM AS TO BE TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS OF PAIN. + +Now, the omission of this statement is peculiarly significant. If it +had been possible, we may be quite sure that such a statement would +have been made. Suppose, for example, that in place of vague +generalities the experimenter had said: + +"Before the commencement of each experiment, the animal was deeply +anaesthetized by the inhalation of chloroform or ether, or both; and +the insensibility thus induced before the experiment began was +maintained until the death of the animal. Curare was never used. In +no instance and at no time during any experiment was the anaesthesia +otherwise than profound; the corneal reflex was never to be obtained, +nor was any other sign of sensibility to pain ever to be noted." + +A statement like this would have been definite. But with due regard +for truth, it could not have been made. Instead of an explicit +statement, we have merely the assertion--so easily misunderstood-- +that "in all cases the animals were anaesthetized." And this statement +may mean nothing whatever, so far as concerns the painlessness of +these vivisections. + +SECOND. GREAT CARE WAS APPARENTLY TAKEN IN SOME CASES TO PREVENT DEEP +ANAESTHESIA. + +It is a well-known fact that dogs are peculiarly susceptible to +chloroform, and very likely to die while under its influence. The +president of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, a teacher of +science for many years, Sir Thornley Stoker, stated in his testimony +that a dog's heart is very weak and irregular. "I fear that in the +case of dogs, anaesthesia is not always pushed to a sufficient extent, +as these animals often die from the effects of the anaesthetic if +given to a full extent.... THE ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE, if the +dog lives as long as is necessary for some of these experiments."[1] + +[1] Testimony before Royal Commission, Questions 761, 836. + +Now, one of these experiments lasted over three hours, and many of +them over an hour. How many of the 148 animals died because the +anaesthesia was TOO DEEP? + +On this point the admissions of the experimenter seem especially +significant. "OVER-ANAESTHESIA rendered the animals subject to early +collapse, and decidedly less capable of enduring a protracted +experiment." During certain experiments, "CONSIDERABLE CARE was +necessary to prevent excessive inhalation of the anaesthetic by the +animal." And yet all that could happen to the unfortunate victim would +be a painless death; to prevent that would require, doubtless, +considerable care. "If the animals were allowed PARTIALLY TO RECOVER +FROM THE EFFECT OF THE ANAESTHETIC, care was necessary in reducing +them again to surgical anaesthesia, as an excess of the anaesthetic +was liable to be inhaled."[1] This admission is evidence complete, +that the insensibility was not always maintained from beginning to +end; the creatures were in some cases--how many we can never know-- +"ALLOWED PARTIALLY TO RECOVER." + +In the detailed accounts of these vivisections, we find more than one +proof of the sensibility of the animals. Take the following: + +EXPERIMENT 126. "The animal did not take the anaesthetic well, and +part of the experiment was made under INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." There +was noted, also, "contraction of the abdominal muscles, on account of +INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." + +EXPERIMENT 133. "Bunsen's flame to the right paw.... In the control +experiments, as well as this, THE DOG WAS NOT UNDER FULL ANAESTHESIA +... THE ANIMAL STRUGGLED ON APPLICATION OF THE FLAME." + +EXPERIMENT 5. "UNDER INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA, crushing of foot caused a +very sharp rise, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure. +THIS WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES. Under full anaesthesia crushing of +paws caused rise again." + +EXPERIMENT 4. "First, crushing of paw.... Second, crushed foot +extensively, JUST BEFORE CORNEAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED." + +To the average reader the last few words convey no definite meaning, +but their significance is plain. Until the corneal reflex is +abolished, the surgeon does not begin to operate, for sensibility +remains. It is needless to quote further; even a single instance of +incomplete anaesthesia, admitted by the vivisector himself, suffices +to overturn the claim that the insensibility was complete in every +case. "Words," says Bishop Butler, "mean what they do mean, and not +other things"; and no amount of literary juggling can prove that +whether the insensibility is complete or incomplete, the pain is +precisely the same. + +THIRD. CURARE AND MORPHIA, NEITHER OF WHICH IS AN ANAESTHETIC, WERE +SOMETIMES USED IN THESE EXPERIMENTS, APPARENTLY TO PREVENT THE ANIMALS +UNDERGOING VIVISECTION FROM MAKING ANY MOVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT DISTURB +THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED. + +The use of CURARE rests upon the admission of the vivisector himself. +After mentioning the employment of chloroform and ether, as before +quoted, he adds: "In a few cases, CURARE and MORPHIA were used." Now, +these drugs are not anaesthetics, and curare especially is only used +when it is desired to keep the vivisected creature incapable of any +movement--no matter what degree of torment it may be suffering. In +his textbook on physiology, Professor Holmgren calls curare the "most +cruel of poisons," because an animal under its influence "it changes +instantly into a living corpse which hears and sees, and knows +everything, but is unable to move a single muscle; and under its +influence no creature can give the faintest indication of its hopeless +condition." Dr. Starling, the professor of physiology at University +College, London, states that when an animal has had an anaesthetic +administered and also a dose of CURARE, if the anaesthetic passed off, +the animal would be unable to move, or to show any sign of suffering. + +Nor is morphia an anaesthetic. "So far from suppressing sensibility +completely," says Claude Be'rnard in his lectures, "morphine sometimes +seems to exaggerate it." An animal under its influence "FEELS THE +PAIN, BUT HAS LOST THE IDEA OF DEFENDING HIMSELF." + +We should have been very glad if the author had stated in his book the +precise experiments in which curare and morphia were employed. We are +told that the number was "few." But in comparison with the total +number--146--how many may that phrase signify? Were there twenty? +Possibly. It would seem that in every case after the preliminary +administration of anaesthetics--the dog's throat was cut, so that +artificial respiration could be easily maintained; "tracheotomy was +performed," to use the scientific phraseology. This is done when +curare is given, for then not the slightest movement of the tortured +animal can disturb the delicate instruments which are attached to it. +We may therefore assume that every case wherein only curare and +morphia were used--how many there were we do not know--implied torment +for the wretched victims. + +Human beings are not submitted on the surgeons' table to operations of +this character, prolonged for hours. If, in the interest of Science, +some experimenter would place himself in like condition to that of the +animals upon which he worked; if, under anaesthesia--complete or +incomplete--he would permit a hand to be "crushed," a nerve trunk +"stimulated," his feet placed in boiling water "for a considerable +time," and a Bunsen's flame applied for two minutes to some part of +his body--we might possibly learn whether the acutest pains inflicted +could be absolutely suppressed. Perhaps he would survive to tell us; +but the animal cannot speak. No assurances suffice to clear our +doubts; assurances prove nothing. It may be, to use the words of a +great surgeon, that "in this relation, there exists a case of cruelty +to animals far transcending in its refinement and in its horror, +anything that has been known in the history of nations." + +Such are some of the reasons which induce doubt of the theory that all +of the experiments of these vivisectors were conducted upon animals +wholly insensible to painful impressions. To become the victim of the +anaesthetic delusion regarding them is to justify; and to justify is +to share responsibility. But this is not all. There would seem to be +other evidence of the most convincing character, that some of the +animals thus subjected for hours to the stimulation of nerves and to +the most frightful mutilations were not at all times in such state of +unconsciousness as to prevent the occurrence of one most significant +indication of pain. It is proof to which the attention of the public, +so far as known, has never yet been directed; and I propose to +illustrate somewhat at length what has been done in the name of free +and unlimited vivisection, not only during the closing years of the +past century, but down almost to the present time. + + + CHAPTER XII + + VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY + +If the reform of vivisection may only be hoped for, when the secrecy +concerning it shall have been dispelled, the beginning of the present +century is not propitious of any changes. Against all intrusion upon +its rites, the physiological laboratory in England and America +maintains as successful an opposition as ever characterized the +Eleusinian mysteries of the pagan world. No laboratory--so far as +known--dares to invite inspection at any hour, even from men of the +highest personal character, and leave them free to reveal or to +publicly criticize whatever in the experiments upon animals there +conducted seems worthy of caution or reproof. Silence and +concealment, so far as the outer world is concerned--these are yet the +strange ideals of modern vivisection. + +Within the realm of scientific literature, however, this reticence is +not maintained. Experiments may be there described in terms so +abstruse and technical, that, while clear enough to the professional +reader, they convey little or no meaning to the man in the street. +There would seem to be a growing tendency to state certain facts in +carefully shrouded phraseology, in complete confidence that the full +meaning will not be discerned. Within the past few years, therefore, +a large number of vivisections have been described in full-- +vivisections which half a century ago would have aroused the horror +and execration of the English-speaking world--without exciting any +very general condemnation beyond the circle of those who ask for +reform. Experimentation of this kind, exhibiting the practice as it +is carried on to-day, seems worth of a somewhat careful examination. +It will not be necessary to go beyond the work of a single vivisector +who has made his name a household word wherever experiments upon +animals are discussed in England or America. + +The principal point toward which inquiry must be directed is the +question of pain. One reason why they have been partly condoned by +the public is not difficult to discover. In language which seemed to +have no element of ambiguity, the experimenter apparently affirmed the +entire absence of sensation on the part of the dogs which he and his +assistants subjected to operations of various kinds and of an extreme +character. It is true that, as a general rule, this affirmation was +not as explicit as might perhaps be desired. He was writing for +professional men only, not for the general public, and it is quite +unlikely that any physiologist or medical reader could have been at +any time misled in the slightest degree. If the language used was +capable of more than one interpretation, if possibilities of +insensibility were exaggerated into definite assertions, nothing of +the kind was apparent to the general reader. Glancing at the +statement that "the animals were completely anaesthetized," his doubts +were abolished. Indescribably disgusting and hideous as were some of +the vivisections, if they were absolutely painless, their performance +was a matter of taste. Can we criticize the humaneness of one who, at +the butcher's bench, mutilates the body from which life has gone? +Complete and perfect anaesthesia, maintained till death, is +practically only premature death. Deprived of sensibility--a +deprivation that is never to cease--a living creature is beyond the +infliction of cruelty. But is it certain that all these various +experiments, made upon nearly five hundred dogs were without pain? +Reasons for doubt concerning some of them have been given. Let us now +look into the question so far as concerns vivisection in its relation +to the pressure of the blood. + +A little over two centuries ago the Rev. Stephen Hales, the rector of +an obscure country parish in England, became interested in problems +pertaining to the circulation of sap in plants, and blood in the +higher animals. By various experiments he discovered that the blood +of a living animal is subject to a definite pressure, and with some +approach to accuracy he succeeded in measuring it. The subject seems +to have attracted but little attention for over a century after the +discovery of Hales; it was then again investigated by physiologists, +and certain conclusions definitely reached. Without going into the +subject at length, it suffices to state that this blood-pressure +constantly varies slightly, being somewhat influenced by every +disturbing condition, and probably by every physiological act. Any +injury tending to lower the tone of the general system, or to induce +the condition of shock, tends to cause the blood-pressure to fall. On +the other hand, if the animal is sensible to pain, the stimulation of +sensory nerves, or any sharp or sudden pang, TEND TO CAUSE A RISE IN +THE PRESSURE OF THE BLOOD, unless the creature has become exhausted by +the experimentation to which it has been subjected. + +Upon this point the attention of the reader should be specially +directed. What authorities support this conclusion? Only a few need +be named, for there would appear to be no difference of opinion among +physiologists regarding the fact. + +Sir Thomas Lauder Brunton, one of the leading medical writers in +England, in a contribution to the latest edition of the "Encyclopaedia +Britannica," tells us: + +"IRRITATION OF SENSORY NERVES tends to cause contraction of the +bloodvessels, AND TO RAISE THE BLOOD-PRESSURE."[1] + +[1] Enc. Brit., Art. "Therapeutics," p. 800. + +Dr. Isaac Ott, an American physiologist of distinction, states in a +description of certain vivisections made by him: + +"IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT IRRITATION OF A SENSORY NERVE causes an +excitation of the vasomotor centre, WHICH IS INDEXED BY A RISE OF +PRESSURE.... As indirect irritation ALWAYS PRODUCES A RISE OF +PRESSURE, the sensory nerves and the conductors of their impressions +up to the (spinal) cord are not paralyzed."[2] + +[2] Ott, "On Physiological Action of Thebain," pp. 11-12. + +Dr. Leonard Hill, in an article contributed to Schafer's "Textbook of +Physiology" upon the circulation of the blood, says: + +"Arterial pressure is affected reflexly BY STIMULATION OF ANY SENSORY +NERVE IN THE BODY.... The usual result of stimulating a sensory nerve +is A REFLEX RISE OF ARTERIAL PRESSURE."[3] + +[3] Schafer's "Textbook of Physiology," vol. ii., pp. 166-167. + +The writer goes on to explain that when the tone of the system in +weakened "after prolonged experiment OR DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF +CHLOROFORM AND CHLORAL," then a fall of pressure may occur. + +This phenomenon was known to physiologists many years ago. For +instance, Dr. J. C. Dalton, professor of physiology at the College of +Physicians and Surgeons, in his well-known textbook on physiology, +says that the most frequent instance of reflex constriction of +arteries is that "which follows irritation of the central extremity of +a sensitive nerve." + +"This effect has been observed by many experimenters, and is regarded +as nearly invariable. Galvanization of the central extremity of the +sciatic nerve causes general constriction of the bloodvessels +throughout other parts of the body, INDICATED BY INCREASED ARTERIAL +PRESSURE. A similar result is produced by the irritation of ... other +sensitive nerves, or nerve roots."[1] + +[1] Dalton's "Physiology," pp. 507-508. + +And, referring to another experimenter, Dr. Crile, puts the case +clearly: + +"PAIN INCREASES (BLOOD)-PRESSURE. In four cases of trauma (injury), a +rise of 20 to 40 was noted upon pressure upon a nerve. Even in a +healthy person, pinching the integument was noted increase the +pressure."[2] + +[2] Crile "On Blood-Pressure," p. 341. + +It would seem unnecessary to accumulate evidence regarding a +physiological phenomenon so long and so firmly established. We may +therefore take it for granted that in a living animal or in a human +being, as a general rule, the irritation of a sensory nerve will cause +a rise of blood-pressure. + +Let us now suppose that an animal destined to be vivisected lies +before us, "stretched" on the vivisection dog-board, so securely +fastened that voluntary movement is almost impossible. An incision +has been made in the neck, and in the principal artery has been +inserted a part of a delicate instrument designed to indicate the +fluctuations of the blood-pressure of the animal. The sciatic nerve +has been laid bare; the animal is supposed to be under the influence +of an anaaesthetic continuously administered, and if our imagination +is vivid and our faith implicit, we may believe that no suffering will +be felt. BUT HOW MAY WE BE CERTAIN? This question came up more than +once before the Royal Commission on Vivisection. How can one tell +that an animal may not be insufficiently anaesthetized IF IT CAN MAKE +NO SIGN, WHEN ALL THE ACTS BY WHICH IT MIGHT EVINCE ITS SUFFERING ARE +CAREFULLY RESTRAINED? The animal which lies before us cannot move; +every physical movement is as far as possible totally suppressed. It +cannot use its voice, for the trachea is cut and otherwise used. ARE +THERE NO MEANS WHEREBY WE CAN TELL WHETHER THE ANIMAL IS SUFFERING +what one of the Royal Commission called "a nightmare of suffering"? + +The answer to this question has been given by some of the leading +physiologists of England. + +Dr. J. M. Langley, professor of physiology in the University of +Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society, gave explicit testimony on +this point. His examiner was desirous of knowing upon what he would +depend, other than upon the dose of the anaesthetic and watchfulness, +if in the animal he could see nothing that would satisfy him. + +"There is the state of the blood-pressure, which would indicate to +some extent the reflexes on the vascular system," Professor Langley +replied. + +"WOULD PAIN CAUSE AN INCREASE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE?" + +"IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE," replied the physiologist. +Of course, he insisted upon the sufficiency of the anaesthesia, but he +had made the most important admission which his evidence affords. IF +PAIN WERE FELT, IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE. + +Dr. W. E. Dixon of King's College, London, representing one of the +sections of the Royal Society of Medicine, gave evidence before the +Royal Commission on various matters pertaining to anaesthesia. Dogs, +he asserted, "very easily die of chloroform; but if one goes +sufficiently slowly they never die." (18,677)[1] + +[1] Figures in parentheses refer to the questions or replies in the +printed evidence. + +"Supposing you were giving chloroform with CURARE, then it might be +said you were not giving enough chloroform. BUT YOU CAN SEE WHETHER +YOU ARE GIVING ENOUGH BY LOOKING AT THE BLOOD-PRESSURE." (18,690) +Professor Dixon tells us that one of the gauges used for determining +whether anaesthesia is present or not IS THE BLOOD-PRESSURE. "The +blood-pressure goes DOWN BECAUSE THE CHLOROFORM IS GIVEN. The heart +beats more feebly; therefore the blood-pressure goes down." (18,742) + +Another expert physiologist, whose testimony on this point is +enlightening, was Dr. Eh. H. Starling, professor of physiology at +University College, London. + +"Are there any means, other than the cries or struggles of the animal, +by which you can tell whether the anaesthetic is passing off?" + +"YES, YOU CAN TELL IT BY THE BLOOD-PRESSURE," Dr. Starling +replied. "When one is working without curare, one notices THAT THE +PRESSURE GOES UP, and then, if one does not attend to it, after that +comes a little movement, AND YOU GIVE MORE ANAESTHETIC." (4,054) + +We need not follow Professor Starling in his repeated assurances of +complete anaesthesia in his vivisections; all this is merely an +expression of faith in the accurate and perfect working of his +instruments, a faith which some of the Commissioners did not share. +What interests us is the statement that IF THE ANAESTHESIA IS +IMPERFECT, THE BLOOD-PRESSURE WILL REVEAL IT. "The pressure goes up"; +there is some slight motion on the part of the animal; IT FEELS, and +that returning sensibility to painful impressions is indicated by an +increase in the pressure of the blood.[1] + +[1] Sir Victor Horsley admitted that "changes in the blood-pressure" +afford an indication whether anaesthesia is perfect or not +(Ques. 16,057). + +But how is the measurement of the blood-pressure to be ascertained? +One of the instruments in use is thus described: + +"The pressure exerted upon the blood in the arterial system may be +measured by attaching the carotid artery of a living animal to a +reservoir of mercury, provided with an upright open tube or pressure- +gauge.... Under pressure of the blood, the mercury rises in this tube, +and the height of the mercurial column becomes an indication of the +pressure to which the blood itself is subjected within the artery. +The arterial pressure is found to be equal to the average of a column +of mercury 150 millimetres, or 6 inches, in height." + +Instruments for ascertaining the blood-pressure in human beings record +it merely for a moment or two. In experimenting upon a living animal, +an incision is made in the neck, the principal artery exposed and +severed, and connected with the recording instrument. + +"Pain" is a word which as a rule the modern physiologist prefers to +exclude from his vocabulary. "We know absolutely nothing about pain +except that which we ourselves have suffered," says a leading +experimenter. We are unable neither to see, hear, smell, taste, or +feel the pain of another being, and although the cries or struggles of +an animal which is being vivisected may suggest that it is +experiencing intense agony, the physiologist insists that in reality +we know nothing about it, and we can only infer that it is +experiencing something which our reason suggests that we should feel +in its place. Of course we might say the same thing regarding agony +undergone by another human being. What the physiologist does is note +the phenomena following the stimulation of nerves, and to register it +by appropriate instruments. + +To stimulate a nerve is to excite its activity in some way. When the +dentist touches with his instrument the exposed nerve of a tooth, +there is immediate "stimulation," as many of us have had reason to +assert, even if the dentist can know nothing of our sensations, and +can only infer them by remembering his own. One may stimulate the +nerve of a vivisected animal by mechanical means, by pinching or +scraping it when exposed; and although the movements of the animal may +indicate an exquisite sensibility, yet other methods are more +effective for the purposes of the experimenter. "Electricity," +Professor Austin Flint tells us, "is the best means we have of +artificially exciting the nerves. Using electricity, we can regulate +with exquisite nicety the degree of stimulation. WE CAN EXCITE THE +NERVES LONG AFTER THEY HAVE CEASED TO RESPOND TO MECHANICAL +IRRITATION." A French vivisector, M. de Sine'ty, removed the breasts +of a female guinea-pig, nursing its young, and laid bare the mammary +nerve, and he tells us that "the animal exhibits signs of acute pain, +ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NERVE IS STIMULATED BY AN ELECTRIC CURRENT."[1] + +[1] Gazette Me'dicale de Paris, 1879, p. 593. + +In 1903 there was published in America an account of a large number of +vivisections involving blood-pressure which a well-known experimenter +had made, either personally or by his assistants. The number of dogs +thus sacrificed was no less than 243; the experiments to which they +were subjected amounted to 251. Ether alone was used in 107 +experiments, or about 43 per cent. of the whole number; ether and +morphia were employed in 80 experiments, or 32 per cent. of the +total. Chloroform combined with ether was used but ONCE. In no less +than 15 per cent. of the experiments no anaesthetic whatever is named, +and CURARE was employed in nearly 10 per cent. of the investigations. +Why was curare used? We have seen that the professor of physiology in +Upsaal University regards it as "the most cruel of poisons." An animal +under its influence, Professor Holmgren tells us, "changes instantly +into a living corpse, WHICH HEARS AND SEES AND KNOWS EVERYTHING, but +is unable to move a single muscle, and under its influence no creature +can give the faintest indication of its hopeless condition." The +French vivisector, Claude Be'rnard, tells us frankly that death under +the influence of this poison "is accompanied by sufferings the most +atrocious that the imagination of man can conceive." Precisely the +reason why this poison was employed in the investigations before us we +have no means of knowing by anything the vivisector has stated in his +report. He tells us, indeed, that "the animals were all reduced to +full surgical anaesthesia before the experiments began, a nd were +killed before recovery from the same." We see no reason for doubting +why this may not have been true. It is quite probably that as a rule +the preliminary cutting operations necessary were made while the +animal was deeply insensible. But was this deep insensibility +maintained for hours? Was it so absolute that doubt is impossible? +Since it is certain that the irritation produces a rise in blood- +pressure, was this phenomenon never witnessed during the terrible +operations to which these dogs were subjected for hours at a time? If, +as Professor Langley of the University of Cambridge explained, pain +"WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE," was this sign of agony ever +evoked when the bare nerve was subjected to "stimulation," or the paws +"slowly scorched" one after another? Let us see. + +We observe that as a rule each vivisection consisted of two +procedures, aside from the preliminary operation. In the first place, +the normal pressure of the blood was reduced by various methods, +calculated to depress the vital powers of the animal, and to induce a +condition of collapse, and this was followed by such "stimulation" of +nerves as would tend to cause the blood-pressure to rise in an animal +not perfectly anaesthetized. The means taken to depress the vital +powers were as varied as the ingenuity of the vivisectors could +devise. Sometimes it was accomplished by skinning the animal alive, a +par of the body at a time, and then roughly "sponging" the denuded +surface. Sometimes it was secured by crushing the dog's paws, first +one and then the other. Now and then the dog's feet were burnt, or +the intestines exposed and roughly manipulated; the tail was crushed, +the limbs amputated, the stomach cut out. Then came the "stimulation" +of the exposed nerve, carried on and repeated sometimes until Nature +refused longer to respond, and death came to the creature's relief. +No torments more exquisite were ever perpetrated unless absence of +feeling was completely secured. Was it so secured? Let the +experimenter's own report give us the facts, remembering that if there +was pain, "THE BLOOD-PRESSURE WOULD RISE." + +EXPERIMENT 42. The material used was a little dog, weighing only 11 +pounds. How it was "reduced to shock"--whether by skinning or +crushing--we are not informed; all we know is that it was "reduced to +shock." The sciatic nerve was exposed, the artery in the neck laid +bare, and the instrument for measuring the blood-pressure carefully +adjusted. Ether, we are told, was used. Was all sensibility thereby +wholly suppressed? Let us see what is revealed by the changes of the +blood-pressure.[1] + +[1] In all experiments cited in this chapter the italics are not in +the original descriptions. + +"10.30 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. SLOW RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 10.35 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 10.51 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 11.30 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE + 13 MILLIMETRES. + 11.59 a.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE + 5 MILLIMETRES." + +Noon has come. It is the hour when experimenters need their +accustomed refreshment, and we note a long interval during which there +were no observations. The victim lies stretched upon the rack. After +nearly two hours the pastime began again, or, we may say, "the young +scientists resumed their arduous labours." + +"1.55 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. ABRUPT RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE + 17 millimetres. + 3.3 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF 14 MILLIMETRES. + 4.44 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF 2 MILLIMETRES." + +The little animal is growing weaker. For more than six hours it has +been on the rack. The play upon its nervous system is about over. At +five o'clock the dog died. + +The full details of this experiment do not here concern us, and are +not given. Whether useful or not is another matter Pain, said +Professor Langley, "WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE." Did not the +blood-pressure rise when this creature's nerve was stimulated? + +EXPERIMENT 114. In this experiment four dogs were simultaneously +vivisected. Some of them lasted but a short time; but one--a young +dog--was "in splendid condition," and subserved the object of the +vivisection for many hours. The usual incisions were made in the +trachea and carotid artery, and the femoral vein and sciatic nerve was +exposed. At 10.59 a.m. the blood-pressure was found to be 125 milli- +metres; at 10.42 it had been reduced to 99 millimetres--by what means +we are not informed. Further details are as follows: + +"11.42 a.m. Blood pressure 99 millimetres. + 11.45 a.m. Stimulated sciatic nerve. PRESSURE ROSE TO 115 + MILLIMETRES. + 12 midday. Blood-pressure 95. Sciatic nerve stimulated: + BLOOD-PRESSURE 115. + 12.19 p.m. Blood-pressure 92. + 1.23 p.m. Blood-pressure 108; sciatic nerve stimulated. + 1.26 p.m. Blood-pressure 110; three minutes later." + +Between 1.29 p.m. and 2.19 p.m. there is no record of any +observations. Perhaps we may venture the hypothesis that during this +period of nearly an hour's duration, the young experimenters went out +to luncheon. The dog, while stretched upon the rack, could have had +no other refreshment than cessation from the stimulation of its +nerves. + +But after about an hour's intermission the young vivisectors would +seem again to have begun their observations concerning the effect +produced by stimulating the sciatic nerve. What was that effect? It +appears to have been very uniform. + +"2.28 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. ABRUPT RISE AND FALL IN + BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 3.32 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE AND FALL IN + BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 4.16 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE TO 120, + FALLING TO 105. + 4.34 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. ABRUPT RISE AND FALL OF + BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 4.53 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. THE USUAL RISE AND FALL + FOLLOWED." + +Do we find in the last observation an indication of a growing distaste +for such work? One cannot tell. Between 5.49 p.m. and 6.36 p.m. there +are no observations recorded. Perhaps this period of forty-seven +minutes--three-quarters of an hour--were devoted by the young +vivisectors to the conviviality of their evening repast. Then the +usual observations were renewed. But at 7.10 p.m., while again +"stimulating the sciatic nerve," suddenly the dog's heart stopped. At +7.12 p.m. "the dog died." During a period from eleven o'clock in the +forenoon until after seven o'clock in the evening--EIGHT HOURS AND +THIRTEEN MINUTES--the little animal had been stretched upon the rack. +Its "splendid condition" had enabled it to survive the tortures to +which its three less vigorous companions in martyrdom had long before +succumbed, and had made it possible for many hours to play upon +exquisite sensibility. + +"PAIN," said Professor Langley to the Royal Commissioners, :WOULD +CAUSE A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +WAS THERE NOT REPEATEDLY A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE IN THIS EXPERIMENT? +We call attention to no other details. + +Let us study these vivisections further. When animals were subjected +to injuries calculated to make the strongest impression uppon their +sensibility, was not the response A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE? + +EXPERIMENT 38. A small female spaniel, weighing about 13 pounds. +Ether is said to have been used for anaesthesia. + +"12.54 p.m. Blood-pressure 98 millimetres. + 1.11 p.m. HIND-FOOT BURNED. THE BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE RAPIDLY TO 118 + MILLIMETRES. A slow fall followed. + 1.42 p.m. THE FOOT WAS BURNED. A SHARP RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE + FOLLOWED." + +The dog died of heart failure, after an experience of nearly five +hours in the hands of the vivisectors. + +EXPERIMENT 73. A dog, weighing about 15 pounds. Morphia and ether +said to have been used. Did they prevent sensation under such +"stimulation" as follows: + +"APPLICATION OF THE BUNSEN FLAME TO THE FOOT FOR FOUR SECONDS WAS +FOLLOWED BY A DECIDED RISE IN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE.... The blood- +pressure was maintained higher BY REPEATED BURNINGS." These are the +final words of the report of this experiment. We do not know when the +dog died, nor to how many burnings he was subjected. + +The use of fire as a method of "STIMULATION" of nerves seems to have +been very attractive. For example: + +EXPERIMENT 74. Dog. "GRADUAL BURNING OF THE LEFT HIND-FOOT PRODUCED A +VERY MARKED RISE (of blood-pressure). THE RISE WAS MAINTAINED BY +SLOWLY SCORCHING THE PAWS. AFTER THE EFFECT BEGAN TO WEAR OUT IN ONE +PAW, ANOTHER WAS STIMULATED IN A SIMILAR MANNER, SO THAT THE BLOOD- +PRESSURE WAS MAINTAINED FOR TWENTY MINUTES." + +Of what possible value was such an experiment? Does any one believe +that in a human being blood-pressure will ever be maintained by slowly +scorching the hands and feet of the patient? + +EXPERIMENT 75. Small dog, weighing about 13 pounds. Morphia and +ether said to have been used. During this experiment the intestines +were exposed and manipulated, and the foot and tail "CRUSHED." "THE +LEFT HIND-FOOT WAS BURNED; A RISE IN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE FOLLOWED." + +EXPERIMENT 96. Dog. NO ANAESTHETIC MENTIONED. Artificial +respiration. "BURNING HIND-PAW PRODUCED A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE." +After administration of CURARE, there was another "BURNING OF THE +PAW," the blood-pressure did not respond, and shortly after, the dog +died. + +EXPERIMENT 95. Dog, in good condition. NO ANAESTHETIC MENTIONED. +Integument removed from three-fourths of the body. "BURNING OF THE +HIND-PAW. ABRUPT RISE (of blood-pressure), 55 MILLIMETRES, then an +equal fall. The denuded surfaces were roughly sponged for a +considerable time." Then CURARE was given, and artificial respiration +followed. + +EXPERIMENT 46. Mongrel; good condition. An excessive amount of ether +given at beginning; artificial respiration became necessary. +Extensive operations were made, such as crushing the paws, breaking +the legs, and manipulating the nerve trunks. These were followed by A +RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE. + +EXPERIMENT 104. NO ANAESTHETIC NAMED. Dog. + +"11.26 a.m. Animal reduced to surgical shock by skinning and + mechanically irritating the raw surface. + 11.36 a.m. CURARE given. + 11.58 a.m. Electrical stimulation of sciatic (nerve). RISE OF + BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 12.48 p.m. Sciatic nerve stimulated. RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 1.12 p.m. Electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve cause A RISE ... + IN BLOOD PRESSURE. + 2.40 p.m. Animal died." + +When Dr. Francis Gotch, F.R.S., the professor of physiology in the +University of Oxford, was examined before the late Royal Commission +on Vivisection, he testified that under curare an animal could not +even blink an eye, so complete is the immobility produced by this +drug. Yet to the eye of the experimenter would there not be something +to tell him whether or not the animal was feeling pain? + +"I should say so," replied the physiologist--"in the alternations of +blood-pressure." + +"IT IS A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE, is it not?" inquired one of the +Commissioners. + +"YES," was the physiologist's curt reply. + +"But it would be diminished if the animal was absolutely +anaesthetized?" + +"YES," was the reply of Dr. Gotch. + +"Is a change in blood-pressure the only mode by which you can +objectively determine whether the animal is conscious, or suffering +pain, if under the influence of curare?" somewhat later, he +physiologist was asked. + +"I suggest that THAT IS ONE OBVIOUS WAY." + +Let us turn again to the experiment just quoted. No anaesthetic is +mentioned. Curare was administered, the sole effect of which is to +render the living animal as motionless as a corpse. Three times the +greta nerve was electrically "stimulated," and each time there was +that RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE which we are told upon the highest +authority was the "ONE OBVIOUS WAY" of determining the presence of +pain. + +Keeping in mind this testimony of the professors of physiology at the +Universities of Oxford, of Cambridge, and of London, that if pain were +present during a vivisection IT WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF THE BLOOD- +PRESSURE, let us now examine a little more carefully some of the +experiments referred to in the volume reviewed in the previous +chapter. We have had assurances of their painlessness. But to the +scientific man assurances are of little value as compared with the +testimony of the instrument. Were any of these experiments associated +with a "RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE"? It is unnecessary to study them in +their relation to other phenomena. In the early "stimulations of a +nerve trunk, a rise in blood-pressure was always produced"; but after +a number of repetitions the time came when no effect was produced, or +the pressure fell; the point of exhaustion had been reached. But let +us note what the instrument recorded. The italics are ours. + +EXPERIMENT 5. "Under incomplete anaesthesia, CRUSHING OF FOOT CAUSED A +VERY SHARP RISE, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure. +This was repeated several times." (The author also tells us that +"under full anaesthesia, crushing of the paws" caused a rise. One may +question the completeness of the insensibility.) + +EXPERIMENT 8. Fox terrier, two years old; ether.... CRUSHING OF THE +PAW WAS ATTENDED BY IMMEDIATE RISE..... Crushing of the fore-leg WAS +ATTENDED BY A RISE.... Crushing of the foot, ATTENDED BY A RISE. +Cutting skin of thigh and leg was ATTENDED BY A RISE. + +EXPERIMENT 9. "CRUSHING OF THE PAW WAS FOLLOWED BY A RISE, and +continual cutting and crushing of the paw BY A STILL FURTHER RISE OF +PRESSURE." + +EXPERIMENT 17. Several loops of intestines were withdrawn and placed +IN BOILING WATER, ATTENDED BY A RAPID RISE of the blood-pressure, +followed soon by a fall. + +EXPERIMENT 28. Hip-joint amputation made on both sides caused a rise +in pressure. GRASPING SCIATIC NERVE WITH FORCEPS and MAKING TRACTION +(pulling upon the nerve) CAUSED A RISE. + +EXPERIMENT 36. Small white dog.... HOT WATER introduced into +abdominal cavity PRODUCED A RISE. + +EXPERIMENT 59. Spaniel, female; weight only 13 pounds. It has "been +nursing its puppies," and is very cross. Duration of experiment, one +and a half hours. Manipulation of ovaries caused slight RISE OF +BLOOD-PRESSURE. + +EXPREIMENT 76. Dog. Among other procedures, the vivisectors "APPLIED +A LARGE GAS-FLAME to the posterior extremities in the region of the +knee; a slight rise. Repeated the application for a longer time; +slight rise.... APPLICATION OF A BUNSEN FLAME TO THE NOSE, PRODUCING A +SLIGHT RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +EXPERIMENT 82. A small female dog; weight oly 9 pounds. Time of +experiment, one hour and fifty-five minutes. "One-third of a grain of +CURARE and one-twelfth of a grain of morphia were injected into the +jugular vein." After various manipulations, there was "APPLICATION OF +BUNSEN'S FLAME TO THE RIGHT HIND-FOOT," causing "AN APPRECIABLE RISE +IN THE BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +EXPERIMENT 87. Dog. Time of experiment, two hours and forty-five +minutes. "Injected CURARE and morphine into the jugular vein; +artificial respiration maintained.... The sciatic nerve was exposed +and stimulated by a faradic current. A SHARP INCREASE IN +BLOOD-PRESSURE during the period of stimulation was noted."[1] + +[1] Concerning the rise of blood-pressure as the sign of an animal's +sensibility to painful impressions, when under the influence of +CURARE, see testimony of Professor Gotch of Oxford University, quoted +on a preceding page. + +EXPERIMENT 94. "Electrical stimulation of sciatic nerve produced +MARKED INCREASE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... Application of Bunsen's flame to +the foot; RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... REPEATED APPLICATION OF BUNSEN'S +FLAME FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MINUTES PRODUCED DECIDED RISE IN BLOOD- +PRESSURE." + +EXPERIMENT 95. "Application of Bunsen's flame to the paw produced but +slight rise.... Bunsen's flame applied to the foot, CAUSING RISE IN +BOTH PRESSURES.... Application of BUNSEN'S FLAME NOW PRODUCED A SHARP +RISE IN THE PRESSURES." Then the blood-pressure fell, and though the +vivisector applied flame to the intestines, it produced no effect so +far as the blood-pressure was concerned. + +EXPERIMENT 97. "Application of A BUNSEN'S FLAME PRODUCED THE +CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.... Stimulation of the +sciatic nerve by the faradic current produced an INCREASE IN BLOOD- +PRESSURE.... Repetition of the stimulus produced A FURTHER RISE IN +BLOOD-PRESSURE...." + +EXPERIMENT 110. "Application of Bunsen's flame PRODUCED A SHARP +RISE...." + +EXPERIMENT 113. "Bunsen's flame applied to the posterior and anterior +extremities PRODUCED A MARKED RISE IN PRESSURE.... BUNSEN'S FLAME OVER +REGION OF THE HEART PRODUCED A GRADUAL RISE." + +EXPERIMENT 131. "Bunsen's flame to the right hind-foot was followed by +A RATHER MARKED RISE IN CENTRAL BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +EXPERIMENT 132. "BUNSEN'S FLAME TO THE NOSE CAUSED A GENERAL RISE IN +BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +In the year 1900 the same vivisector published an account of certain +experiments on the respiratory system, 102 in all. We have the usual +assurances of anaesthesia, which, of course, can only be regarded as +the operator's opinion. Fire is an element of some of these +experiments. We are told that "a large blow-flame burner used for +glass-blowing supplied a flame that could be adjusted to a very great +range of intensity." Of this statemnet one can have no doubt upon +reading some of the experiments described. Upon "a healthy little +poodle," weighing only ten pounds, with a blood-pressure of 120 +millimetres, the following experiment was made: + +"The mouth was held wide open, and THE BLOW-FLAME DIRECTED INTO THE +PHARYNX AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. The immediate effect upon the blood- +pressure was A TEMPORARY RISE. Again the flame was applied; THE +BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE TO 204 MILLIMETRES, CONTINUING AT THIS HIGH RATE +FOR SOME TIME." + +Probably this little creature was the pet of some child. From whose +door, one day, did it wander, to be snatched up by some thief, sold to +a laboratory, and sent to a death like this? + +In another experiment a Newfoundland dog "CONTINUOUSLY BREATHED THE +FLAME FOR TWELVE MINUTES." In a similar experiment that followed, "the +results were practically identical. In this case THE FLAME WAS SO +INTENSE AS TO MELT THE ADIPOSE TISSUE AROUND THE TRACHEA." The animal +was broiled alive. + +During the first year of the twentieth century the same writer +presented the public an account of an "Experimental and Clinical +Research into Certain Problems," a work containing a considerable +number of experiments of a nature similar to those before published. +We are again told that in all cases "the animals were anaesthetized, +usually by ether, occasionally by chloroform," alone or combined with +other substances, although, in a few cases, "CURARE and morphine were +used"--neither of which is an anaesthetic. A curious statement seems +to imply a confession that all these experiments were not absolutely +painless, for the writer says: + +"Every precaution was taken to inflict AS LITTLE PAIN OR DISTRESS AS +POSSIBLE." + +Is not this an admission that in some experiments there was pain? How +senseless is such statement! When Ridley and Latimer were burnt alive +at Oxford, the executioner might have protested with equal assurance +that "every precaution was taken to burn the condemned with as little +pain and distress as possible." + +Between the experiments recorded in this volume and those which have +been reviewed, there is no very great difference. There is a rise of +blood-pressure after any mutilation or stimulation calculated to cause +pain, except in the few cases where a sufficiency of the anaesthetic +appears to have been given; to these attention will be called. A new +procedure seems to have been the use of the injection of a hot salt +solution into the blood. Some of the results of experiments were as +follows: + +EXPERIMENT 12. "Burning right hind-foot caused a slight RISE IN BLOOD- +PRESSURE. + +"Ten minims (drops) of chloroform on inhaler produced a DECIDED FALL +in blood-pressure." + +EXPERIMENT 56. "Dog. Hind-foot burned, FOLLOWED BY A RISE IN BLOOD- +PRESSURE.... Burning the nose caused A VERY MARKED RISE in +blood-pressure. The animal, after the injection of cocaine, WAS NOT +UNDER FULL ETHER ANAESTHESIA, CUNJUNCTIVAL REFLEX BEING PRESENT." + +EXPERIMENT 27. "Dog. Ether anaesthesia. Hind-foot was burned, +producing A SHARP RISE in the blood-pressure. + +"Right paw again burned, and ARTERIAL PRESSURE ROSE.... Animal +subjected to FURTHER BURNING, which was followed by ADDITIONAL SLIGHT +RISE IN PRESSURE." + +A considerable number of experiments involved the adding of hot salt +solution to the blood. + +EXPERIMENT 34. Dog, in good condition. Saline solution in jugular +vein.... In this and in preceding experiments with the hot saline, the +animal, THOUGH UNDER SURGICAL ANAESTHESIA, STRUGGLED. + +That shows the worth of the "surgical anaesthesia." When Professor +Starling was asked how he might know that the anaesthesia was passing +off, he told the Royal Commission that it was by noting the SLIGHT +MOVEMNET of the the animal, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RISE OF BLOOD- +PRESSURE.[1] Scalding water in the blood seems to have given both of +these signs: + +[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 4,054. + +EXPERIMENT 11. At 3.35 saline at 64 degrees C. (this is 147 degrees +F.). THE DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT. The blood-pressure ROSE MARKEDLY. + 3.45. Saline in jugular vein. Slight fall, then a quite ABRUPT RISE +in blood-pressure.... THE DOG AGAIN STRUGGLED VIGOROUSLY. + 3.48. Saline at 60 degrees C. (140 degrees F.). Slight RISE in +blood-pressure. DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT. + 3.54. Saline at 60 degrees C. An immediate RISE in blood-pressure. + 4.12. One-half drachm of chloroform on inhaler. + 4.13. MARKED FALL in blood-pressure. + 4.13. CHLOROFORM TAKEN AWAY. BLOOD-PRESSURE IMMEDIATELY AROSE to +previous level. + +EXPERIMENT 32. A few drops of chloroform were given instead of ether, +the BLOOD-PRESSURE FALLING immediately.... After a few minutes, +several drops of chloroform were again administered, a marked FALL (of +blood-pressure) following. + One-half drachm of chloroform given, PRODUCING A GRADUAL FALL IN +BLOOD-PRESSURE. On removing the chloroform, the blood-pressure +recovered. + At 5.30, saline stopped. Eye reflex not gone. At 5.36 THE +ANAESTHESIA REMOVED. SLIGHT RISE in blood-pressure. REFLEXES NOT +ABOLISHED. + +Does all this seem obscure to the reader? At all events, he can see +that the effect of even a "few drops of chloroform" is a fall of the +blood-pressure, and that when the "anaesthesia is removed" there comes +the rise which is so constantly associated with sensibility. + +Some of the experiments related to the effect of cocaine in "blocking" +sensation. These effects have long been known; the necessity of all +this burning of flesh is not apparent. + +In another experiment, a large dog was reduced to "surgicla +anaesthesia," and both sciatic nerves exposed. In one nerve cocaine +was inject, in the other salt solution. + +The cocaine paw was subjected to burning by a Bunsen flame, UNTIL THE +PAW WAS CHARRED. There was no effect on the blood-pressure. But on +applying the Bunsen flame to the other paw, "THERE WAS A DELIBERATE +DRAWING UP OF THE LEG, AS IF TO REMOVE THE PAW FROM THE FLAME." The +writer tells us elsewhere that "under general anaesthesia--no matter +how deep--if the paw of an animal is subjected to the flame of a +Bunsen's burner, after the lapse of a short time, the leg is drawn up +... in a deliberate but rather forceful manner, removing the foot from +the flame." When cocain is injected into a nerve trunk, we are told +that an effectual physiologic "block" is produced. The difference is +manifest. Yet the vivisector would have us believe that in all cases +of his "anaesthesia" the dog is unconscious. May it not be rather +that there are phases of agony so great that the anaesthesia of the +laboratory does not suppress them? Is this a matter of uncertainty? +Then why not permit the vivisected dog to have the benefit of the +doubt? + +Here is a most significant experiment: + +EXPERIMENT 17. "... The animal was allowed to come out of the +influence of the general anaesthesic sufficient (sic) to make a slight +struggle.... THE FEET WERE BURNED just previous to the application of +cocaine, and ... BLOOD-PRESSURE WAS INCREASED. More cocaine was then +applied; THE ANIMAL BECAME TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, THE CORNEAL REFLEXES +WERE ABOLISHED, and on applying a Bunsen flame to the paws, NO EFFECT +WAS PRODUCED." + +Here we have an instance of a dog allowed to come out of the influence +of the anaesthetic and to struggle; the feet burned; and finally, such +a degree of total anaesthetization as to prevent the usual phenomena. +But why are we told that "the animal became TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, and +that the corneal reflexes were abolished"? Is it a confession that in +other experiments such a state of deep insensibility was not +invariably produced? + +What is the necessity for all this burning? The smell of scorched and +charred living flesh may have hung as heavily in the laboratory of the +hospital as before the altars of Baal; it could hardly have been an +attractive savour. Here are other instances: + +EXPERIMENT 62. "Dog, in good condition; fox-terrier. As a control, +THE RIGHT HIND-FOOT WAS BURNED BEFORE THE CONJUNCTIVAL REFLEX WAS +ABOLISHED. There was RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE." + +Here, then, was sensation; the eye responded to the touch. + +EXPERIMENT 72. Dog; weight 12 pounds. (Spinal) cord exposed. + 5.5. Burning foot was followed BY RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE. + 5.10. BURNING FOOT. "A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE FOLLOWED." + Cocaine was then injected, and burning of paws "produced no effect." +There was a difference in the phenomena produced. + +In the year 1909 the same vivisector published stll another volume +recording experiments upon haemorrhage and the transfusion of blood. +To many of these experiments we should take no exception on the ground +of inutility or excessive production of pain. Others, however, are to +be criticized, particularly when studied in connection with the claim +put forth of complete absence of animal sensation. In his +introduction the experimenter seems to assert in the most distinct and +emphatic way the complete unconsciousness of each victim. He says: + +"No experiment was performed in which the particular animal used was +not reduced to complete insensibility by means of ether, or some other +equally efficient anaesthetic. If the statement is made that the +anaesthetic was stopped during an experiment, it does not mean that +the animal could suffer pain, but that death was threatened from too +much anaesthetic, more being given as soon as signs of revival were +shown. In every experiment in which necessary mutilation was +performed, the animal was killed before coming out of the anaesthetic; +therefore absolutely no suffering was undergone. Very few recovery +experiments were performed, no more than were necessary to prove a +given fact." + +What is the scientific value of this assurance--that "absolutely no +suffering was undergone"? + +It can have no value, except as an opinion on the part of one +extremely interested in the maintenance of a particular view. So far +from being a series of painless experiments, we do not hesitate to +suggest that IF RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE BE A SIGN OF PAIN, then, in all +probability many of them involed torments as exquisite as it is +possible to imagine. + +Take, for example, the folloowing vivisections: + +EXPERIMENT 10. The subject was a dog, said to be in a good +condition. From time to time blood was abstracted from the body. + 4.26. ON BURNING A PAW UNDER LIGHT ANAESTHESIA, THERE WAS A RISE OF + PRESSURE OF 16 MILLIMETRES. +10.16. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE. +11.13. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of + 13 millimetres. + 1.42. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of + 13 millimetres. + +EXPERIMENT 33. "ON BURNING A PAW UNDER LIGHT ANAESTHESIA, THERE WAS A +RISE OF PRESSURE OF 19 MILLIMETRES." + +What is "LIGHT anaesthesia"? + +It is a condition which a few drops of chloroform will produce; a +state in which the loss of consciousness is so slight that any pain +may be as keenly felt as if no stupefying agent had been given. What +are we to think of a statemnet that in a condition of such light +slumber the keenest of pains--THE BURNING OF LIVING FLESH--INVOLVED NO +SUFFERING? How can one speak with authority on a matter like this +against the evidence of the "one obvious sign" of sensibility? When +the paws of the miserable animal were burned, was there not the rise +of blood-pressure which indicated suffering? "Pain would cause a rise +of blood-pressure," said the professor of physiology of the University +of Cambridge. Should we find the significant rise of the +blood-pressure in other experiments where fire was used for the +"stimulation" of the nerves? Let us see. + +EXPERIMENT 2. "On burning a paw, there was a RISE OF PRESSURE OF 10 + millimetres. Stimulation of sciatic nerve resulted in + A RISE of systolic pressure." +EXPERIMENT 4. "11.45. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE. + " 1.27. Sciatic nerve stimulated; RISE OF + BLOOD-PRESSURE." +EXPERIMENT 6. "Burned a paw. A RISE OF PRESSURE of 4 millimetres + resulted." +EXPERIMENT 12. "On burning a paw, there was a RISE OF PRESSURE of 16 + millimetres." +EXPERIMENT 14. "On burning a paw, A RISE OF 12 MILLIMETRES, followed + by a temporary fall, and then a rise to a higher level. + "On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE + OF 2 MILLIMETRES." +EXPERIMENT 15. "11.12. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE + OF 8 MILLIMETRES. + "11.36. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE + OF 12 MILLIMETRES." +EXPERIMENT 16. "Dog. Condition good. + "11.22. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE + OF 22 MILLIMETRES. + "11.33. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF 29 + MILLIMETRES. + "11.44. Contrl. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF + 24 MILLIMETRES. + "12.26. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE + OF 8 MILLIMETRES. + "12.35. On burning a paw, there was A STEADY RISE OF + PRESSURE." +EXPERIMENT 22. "Dog. On burning a paw, there was A RISE IN PRESSURE + OF 36 MILLIMETRES." +EXPERIMENT 24. "On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE + OF 12 MILLIMETRES. + "12.19. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE + OF 18 MILLIMETRES." +EXPERIMENT 29. "2.13. Blood-pressure 43. On burning a paw it rose 12 + millimetres. + "2.30. On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF BLOOD- + PRESSURE." + "3.6. On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF BLOOD- + PRESSURE." +EXPERIMENT 31. "3.35. On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF PRESSURE. + "4.14. On burning a paw, THERE WAS A RISE OF + PRESSURE." + +The foregoing experiments are not quoted in full; in many of them, at +intervals, the animals were bled; and these observations of the +effects of "burning a paw" were incidental to others. BUT WHY ALL +THIS BURNING AND STIMULATION TO PROVE A PHENOMENON SO UNIFORM? + +One exceptional experiment must not be overlooked. On one occasion +two dogs were vivisected at the same time. At the outset a paw of +each dog was burned, causing A RISE of blood-pressure in each case. A +little later the sciatic nerve was stimulated: + +"11.25. On stimulating the sciatic nerves of each dog, Dog A showed a +rising and falling pressure, and Dog B (MORE ETHER WAS GIVEN JUST +THEN) showed an initial FALL, and a rise, with a sudden second FALL +and a rise. + +"11.32. BOTH DOGS WERE DEEPLY ANAESTHETIZED. Dog A: Stimulation +PRODUCED NO EFFECT. Dog B: On stimulating the sciatic nerve, there +was A FALL OF (BLOOD)-PRESSURE, WITH SLOW RECOVERY." + +Here we have recorded by the experimenter himself the difference in +the effect of stimulation of nerves in an animal "deeply +anaesthetized" and the results produced when the anaesthesia was +light. + +It has seemed necessary to examine at some length these peculiar +experiments. The volumes describing them are not easily to be seen; +some appear to be out of print; even Sir Victor Horsley; in whose +laboratory in London some of the experiments were performed, confessed +that he did not know about the vivisections made in the United +States--whether or not they differed from those performed in England. +In the vast number of these vivisections, so far beyond anything +previously reported in our country by a single experimenters; in the +ingenuity and variety of the mutilations to which the victims were +subjected--mutilations and stimulations calculated to cause the +extremest agony, unless the anaesthesia was perfect; in the seeming +affirmation of absolute insensibility of the wretched animals, +although contradicted by the only sign of suffering that in some cases +could possibly be seen; in the apparent uselessness of experiments, +repeated again and again simply to elicit precisely the same +phenomena; above all, in the absence from criticism which some of +these "investigations" have managed to secure--all this constitutes a +claim for especial consideration. There can be little doubt that they +merely illustrate what goes on to-day, in many a laboratory in the +United States, in secret--as these were made in secret--and untouched +by the criticism of the outer world. + +Of the absolute uselessness of the vast majority of these experiments +much might be said, but it is aside from this inquiry. The question +of utility is not here raised. The one matter of inquiry is the +existence of pain. + +If a vast number of the experiments recorded may have involved the +keenest agony of the victims, how are we to explain the repeated +assertions that sensation was absolutely removed? Among +antivivisectionists there are those who belive that any human being +who could thus subject animals to torment would not find it impossible +to deny the fact. Such explanation implies an inveracity which it is +not necessary to impute. Mankind is still liable to error; the false +deductions of honest men have more than once led to mistaken +affirmations of facts; and the most illustrious scientist that ever +lived can hardly claim infallibility in matters of opinion. A +distinguished philosopher and vivisector of three hundred years ago, +Rene Descartes, put forth the theory that animals, being without +souls, cannot suffer pain, and that their cries under vivisection were +simply as the whirring of wheels in an intricate piece of machinery. +We can easily imagine a modern follower of Descartes declaring, as the +philosopher would have done, that "NO SUFFERING WAS FELT." A professor +of physiology in Harvard Medical School, in course of an address +before a State medical society, laid down the theory that "it is +ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to draw conclusions with regard to the sensations +of animals by an effort to imagine what our own would be under similar +circumstances"; and when a vivisector has reached the stage where he +can hold that belief, he may define pain as something pertaining only +to human beings, and feel himself justified in declaring that +"VIVISECTION OF ANIMALS NEVER CAUSES PAIN," according to his +definition of the word. It is well for the world that with this +theory the vast majority of thinking men and women have no sympathy +whatever. The organized efforts for the protection of animals from +cruelty have no meaning if animals are without capacity for that +anguish which cruelty implies. We believe, on the contrary, that +many, if not all, of the higher species of animals, especially those +nearest to man in structure and intelligence, receive, when subjected +to the torment of fire or steel, precisely the same sensations that, +under a like infliction, a human being would suffer. At any rate, if +doubt be possible, should they not have the benefit of it? + +If one were asked whether he surely could demonstrate the emotions of +any animal made incapable of movement, fixed immovably as in a vice, +and subjected to the stimulation of fire, he might confess that +inference and not proof was all he could offer. But if one goes +farther, and inquires whether in any of the experiments recorded in +this chapter there was evoked any sign of sensibility which delicate +instruments could detect and record, then, assuredly, we are on safe +ground. With startling uniformity we find recorded by the +experimenters themselves the fluctuations of blood-pressure following +the stimulation of exposed nerves, the crushing of pawes, the burning +of the feet, the scalding with boiling water, and other mutilations. +What is their significance? If, as Sir Lauder Brunton tells us, "the +irritation of sensory nerves tends to cause contraction of blood- +vessels AND TO RAISE THE BLOOD-PRESSURE"; if, as Straus affirms, "PAIN +INCREASES BLOOD-PRESSURE," so that in a healthy person the pressure is +increased even by pinching of the skin; if, as the physiologist Dalton +declares, the irritation of any of the sensitive nerves induces a +constriction of bloodvessels indicated by icreased arterial pressure; +if the professor of physiology at University College, London, being +asked if there were any means, other than the cries or struggles of an +animal, by which one could tell if the anaesthesia of an animal was +passing off, answered with scientific accuracy when he replied, "YAou +can tell by the blood-pressure," adding that when sensibility was +returning "THE PRESSURE GOES UP"; if it be true, as Professor Dixon, +of King's College, London, told the Royal Commissioners, "you can see +whether you are giving enough (of the anaesthetic) BY LOOKING AT THE +BLOOD-PRESSURE"; if the professor of physiology at Oxford was correct +in stating that "A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE" would tell an experimenter +whether or not an animal undergoing vivisection was feeling pain, even +though curare had rendered it so helpless that it could not even wink +an eye, and that this rise of blood-pressure was the "ONE OBVIOUS WAY" +of determining such sensibility; if we may depend upon the evidence of +the professor of physiology at the University of Cambridge, that "PAIN +WOULD CAUSE A RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE"; if the agreement of all these +scientific authorities concerning the rise of blood-pressure as an +indication of pain or returning sensibility can be accepted as +scientific truth--then may we not be sure that all of the living +animals whose vivisection we have here reviewed, in whose bodies, by +fire and steel and every phase of mutilation, there was so constantly +elicited this RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE, cannot be said to have attained +a painless death? "A man about to be burned under a railway car begs +somebody to kill him, yet iti s a statemnet to be taken literally, +that a brief death by burning would be considered a happy release by a +human being undergoing the experiences of some of the animals that +slowly die in a laboratory." So wrote Dr. Bigelow of Harvard +University, the most eminent surgeon that New England has yet +produced; and were he living to-day, it is not improbable that he +would point to some of the experiments here reviewed as examples of +the vivisections he intended to condemn. It may be that although the +present generation be indifferent, posterity will not condone, and +that one day it will hold up some of the experiments of the twentieth +century as involving the most prolonged, the most useless, the most +terrible, the most cruel torments, that the annals of animal +vivisection have ever supplied. + + + CHAPTER XIII + + WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM? + +Every reflecting man must recognize that the settlement of the +vivisection question is a problem that must find its solution at some +period in future rather than to-day. But the duty of the hour remains +the same. Admitting the existence of the wrong, what can we do to +promote reform? What should we ask with the hope that popular judgment +will gradually come to approve? How may we be faithful to that ideal +of justice toward our inferior brethren, which underlies all +humanitarian effort, and lack nothing in fidelity to Science to whose +achievements we reverently look for the amelioration of the human +race? There are those who would oppose the slightest use of animals +for any scientific purpose whatever. There are others who would grant +to the vivisector the secrecy and silence, the complete +irresponsibility and unbounded freedom which he demands as his right. +There are those to whom a middle course seems the only one leading to +ultimate reform. What is the most reasonable attitude toward the +laboratory and its claims possible to an honest and clear-minded +investigator who is anxious to protect all living creatures from cruel +acts, and equally concerned in the conservation of every legitimate +privilege which Science can claim? + +Such a man stands, let us say, before some great biological +laboratory, richly endowed, slendidly equipped, and in the present +enjoyment of freedom that is without bounds, and in a secrecy that +to-day is as complete as can be imagined. What can he learn with +certainty of what goes on within? If he hears claims of superlative +gains by the experiments there carried on, how is he to weigh and +decide their value? If there is cruelty behind those barred doors, how +is he to prevent its constant recurrence? What, in short, should be +the reasonable attitude of every intelligent man or woman anxious to +know the truth and to promote reform of abuse? + +For many years I have insisted upon the necessity for a certain degree +of scepticism regarding every claim put forth by the laboratory, +unsupported by convincing proofs. We may judge the future by the +past. Has there not been evinced a disposition to exaggerate +achievement, to deny secrecy, to mislead regarding the infliction of +pain? No intelligent person, it seems to me, can study the vidence +carefully, year after year, without reaching this attitude of distrust +and doubt in a great number of instances. This by no means indicates +that every claim of utility is false. A great many statements are +accurate. Some claims will be partly true, but magnified by the +enthusiasm of youth far beyond what devotion to a strict veracity +would require. And some claims may be doubted altogether. It may be +doubted whether any reliabce whatever can be placed upon the +assertions or protesting denials of any profession vivisector now +drawing a large income from the vivisection of animals, whose +interests would possibly be affeted by failure to produce startling +results, or by removal of the secrecy that now enshrouds the +laboratory. The defenders of absolute licence have not told us the +truth on every occasion it has been sought from them, and it must be +gained from other sources and by other means. + +It would seem, therefore, that the first step toward reform must be +the creation of a public sentiment, eager, not so much to pass +condemnation as to know the facts. That the laboratory, of its own +accord and initiative, will ever open its doors and give to the world +a complete knowledge of what goes on within its sacred precincts, is +more than we can expect. The doors will open only when public opinion +so demands. The laboratory is perfectly aware of this. With ever +yenergy that such consciousness gives, it will fight to keep +everything that it now hides from the light of day. Take, for +example, the question of vivisection in our institutions of learning. +To what extent is experimentation carried on therein merely to +demonstrate what every student knows in advance? It would appear that +certain lines of experiment are now permitted in such institutions +which hardly more than a generation ago were condemned as cruel by the +medical profession of Great Britain. We ought to inquire why it is +that experiments which scarcely thirty years ago were thus condemned, +are less abhorrent to-day. The removal of secrecy is the first and +most important step toward any true reform. + +It is the fashion of certain apologists for vivisection without +control to represent their opponents as guided by sentiment alone. +Perhaps it would be well to quote the opinions of one whose work for +science should absolve him from that imputation. + +One of the most illustrious philosphers which America has produced was +Dr. William James, professor of psychology in Harvard University. In +that institution, thirty-five years ago, he was assistant-professor of +physiology, and knew exactly what was done. Harvard made him a +professor of philosophy, and then of psychology; Princeton and Oxford +and Harvard conferred upon him their highest honours. He lectured +both at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh. He +wa s a member of various scienfitic societies in France, in Germany, +in Denmark, and England. If any man was entitled by experience and +study to speak with some authority concerning vivisection, it was +William James of Harvard University. + +He knew to what extent the practice of vivisection was carried on. +Calling upon me one day in Cambridge, we compared views, and although +he told me of certain experiments he proposed to make the next day, he +was emphatic in his denunciation of the atrocities which over and over +again were repeated in physiological laboratories throughout the +land. The men who raised their voices against all reform were--he +said--neither candid, nor honest, nor sincere. + +Somewhat later, with some knowledge of his views, he was asked to hold +an honorary relation to the Vivisection Reform Society. His reply was +so characteristic of the man that it is here given: + +"Dear Sir, + +"I am made of too unorganized stuff to be a Vice-President of the +Vivisection Reform Society, and, moreover, I make it a principle not +to let my name appear anywhere where I am not doing practical work. +But I am glad to send you, in answer to your request, a statement of +my views, which you are at liberty to publish if you see fit. + +"Much of the talk against vivisection is, in my opinion, as idiotic as +the talk in defence of it is uncandid; but your Society (if I rightly +understand its policy) aims not at abolishing vivisection, but at +regulating it ethically. AGAINST ANY REGULATION WHATEVER I understand +the various medical and scientific defenders of vivisection to +protest. Their invariable contention, implied or expressed, is that +it is no one's business what happens to an animal so long as the +individual who is handling it can plead that to increase Science is +his aim. + +"This contention seems to me to flatly contradict the best conscience +of our time. The rights of the helpless--even though they be brutes-- +must be protected by those who have superior power. The individual +vivisector must be held responsible to some authority which he fears. +The medical and scientific men, who time and time again have raised +their voices in opposition to all legal projects of regulation, KNOW +AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE does the unspeakable possibilities of +callousness, wantonness, and meanness of human nature, and their +unanimity is the best example I know of the power of club opinion to +quell independence of mind. No well-organized sect or corporation of +men can ever be trusted to be truthful or moral when under fire from +the outside. In this case, THE WATCHWORD IS TO DENY EVERY ALLEGED +FACT STOUTLY; to concede no point of principle, and to stand firmly on +the right of the individual experimenter. His being `scientific' +must, in the eye of the law, be a sufficient guarantee that he can do +no wrong." + +It may be questioned whether more serious charges against the +laboratory have ever been made than are contained in these statements +by an expert in vivisection. The man of the world wonders at the +unanimity of scienitfic writers of the day in opposing every step +tending to reform. Professor James tells us it is due to "the power +of club opinion to quell independence of mind." That the professional +vivisectors as a body "CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUTHFUL WHEN +ATTACKED," that they combine "to deny every alleged fact stoutly," +these are the admissions of an expert experimenter, whose record as a +man of science is surely equal if not superior to that of any +vivisector in America. + +Professor James believed that some abuses had been rectified. He +says: + +"That less wrong is done now than formerly is, I hope, true. There is +probably a somewhat heightened sense of responsibility. There are, +perhaps, fewer lecture-room repetitions of ancient vivisections, +supposed to help out the professors' dulness with their brilliancy, +and to `demonstrate' what not six of the students are near enough to +see, and what all had better take, as in the end they have to, upon +trust. The waste of animal life is very likely lessened, the thought +for animal pain less shamefaced in the laboratories than it was. +These benefits we certainly owe to the antivivisection agitation, +which ,in the absence of producing actualy State regulation, has +gradually induced some sense of public accountability in +physiologists, and made them regulate their several individual selves. + +"But how infinitely more wisely and economically would these results +have come if the physiologists as a body had met public opinion half- +way long ago, agreed that the situation was a genuinely ethical one, +and that their corporate responsibility was involved, and had given up +the preposterous claim that every scientist has an unlimited right to +vivisect, for the amount or mode of which no man, not even a +colleague, can call him to account.[1] + +"The fear of State rules and inspectors on the part of the +investigators is, I think, well founded; they would probably mean +either stupid interference or become a sham. But the public demand +for regulation rests on a perfectly sound ethical principle, the +denial of which by the scientists speaks ill for either their moral +sense or their political ability. So long as the physiologists +disclaim corporate responsibility, formulate no code of vivisectional +ethics for laboratories to post up and enforce, appoint no censors, +pass no votes of condemnation or exclusion, propose of themselves no +law, so long must the antivivisectionist agitation, with all its +expensiveness, idiocy, bad temper, untruth, and vexatiousness, +continue, as the only possible means of bringing home to the careless +or callous individual experimenter the fact that the sufferings of HIS +animals are somebody else's business as well as his own, and that +there is `a God in Israel' to whom he owes account. + + "WILLIAM JAMES. + "Cambridge, Mass., + "May 5 (1909)." + +[1] "Unnecessary and offensive in the highest degree would it be, +... by legislation of any kind, to attempt to dictate or control how, +and by whom, and for what purposes, and under what conditions and upon +what animals in the laboratories, ... experiments should be made. The +decision in these matters SHOULD BE LEFT WHOLLY TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF +THESE INSTITUTIONS."--From a memorial of Dr. Simon Flexner, +Dr. W. T. Councilman, Dr. H. C. Ernst, and other members of the +Association of American Physicians against Senate Bill regulating +vivisection in the District of Columbia, May 4, 1896. + +This is a very strong indictment. If he misunderstood the +antivivisectionists, we must remember that Henry Clay in 1851 could +see nothing good in William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition party. +But James knew precisely what the vivisection of animals meant, for he +had taught physiology, and had been engaged in experimentation for +more than a quarter of a century. When he speaks of the power of +"club opinion to quell independence of mind," he explains a situation +which otherwise might remain obscure. When he asserts that certain +groups "cannot be trusted to be truthful or moral," we have the +explanation of a philosopher who was not given to over-statement. + +Do we not find in this letter an outline of what Professor James would +suggest as steps toward vivisection reform? In perfunctory inspection +of laboratories or supervision by State inspectors, he has no +confidence; such inspection would probably degenerate into a sham. A +well-known experimentor once said to the rwiter: "Your inspectors of +laboratories must be either well-educated and competent men, or else +officials of the grade of the average policemen. If the belong to the +first class, do you think they will become detectives and spies? If, +on the other hand, they earn the salary of the average policeman, will +they be intelligent enough to discover abuses, and invariably of such +rectitude that a ten-dollar bill will not induce official blindness?" + +It would seem that this objection to State inspection cannot be +lightly considered. For the prevention of cruelty it may be right to +permit certain persons always to have the right to enter any +laboratory whatever without previous notice; the fact that they may +come at any time constitutes the safeguard to a limited degree. But +such men must be persons unpaid by the State, of intelligence +sufficient to comprehend all peculiarities of experimentation, and of +a probity that no bribe can disturb. It would be far better to allow +things to go on as they are than to have cruelty protected by public +confidence in a legal supervision that did not sufficiently supervise +and restrian. + +It appears to me, as I have said elsewhere, that first of all public +opinion should be aroused, not so much to condemn all experimentation +upon animals, as to know with certainty the facts about it. Of the +vivisection of animals in England and America carried on in secret, +the general public, even of the more intelligent class, has no more +accurate inforumation than two centuries ago it had of the methods of +the Spanish Inquisition in the dungeons of Madrid or Seville. How did +it happen that an institution so execrated and so universally +condemned to-day, managed for centuries almost unchallenged, to exist? +Precisely as the closed laboratory manges to exist among us, becauseof +the secrecy in which it was surrounded, and the general confidence +which it claimed as its due. Reform canot make headway so long as the +dungeon is dark and the laboratory is locked. The strongest line of +defence is the maintenance of ignorance, even though we have the +curious anomaly, existing nowhere else, of Science covering herself +with darkness and hiding behind ignorance. It was one of the ablest +advocates for vivisection that America has produced, who, in an +address before the American Academy of Medicine, condemned the secrecy +of the physiological laboratory as "a grave and profound mistake," +adding that "if there be necessary secrecy, there is wrong." No more +significant condemntation of present-day methods has ever been +uttered. + +An eminent London physician, Dr. Greville Macdonald, wrote not long +ago in favour of that publicity of vivisection, or rather of that +knowledge of its methods which should precede any attempt at +legislation. The question of interference is one that the State must +decide, though the dangers and advantages of vivisection can only be +arrayed in intelligible order by one who understands the subject. "But +the public, HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE, must decide whether or no the +State shall more willingly sanction cruelty in the secret laboratory +than in the highway.... I most reluctantly admit, it is almost +impossible to get evidence upon such points, and for the reason THAT +THE THINGS WHICH WE FEAR ARE PRACTISED IN SECRET PLACES. +Nevertheless, it is just because of this secrecy that the public have +a right to make trouble. But for John Howard's crusade against the +horrors of the prisons, the public had never known the truth, their +infamies had never been remedied; and the public have now as much +right to question the physiologist's repudiations as they had then to +doubt the denials of the gaolers. The evidence is sufficient to +justify, in my own mind, a large measure of sympathy with the +antivivisectionists, though I am not of them." + +What lines of procedure in the direction of reform would Dr. Macdonald +advocate? He admits that "to prohibit vivisection altogether would be +to invite its performance in such secrecy as no system of espionage +could unearth. Legislation can seldom do more than compromise, +because it cannot essay the impossible." He admits that "no Act of +Parliament can eradicate the spirit that makes cruelty possible." But +there are some things that may be done, and upon four points +Dr. Macdonald believes legislation is desireable. "The first is that +vivisection ought to be prohibited for the purposes of teaching, +because it is often misleading and always demoralizing. The second is +that the inspection of the physiological laboratories should be +carried out more systematically and always unexpectedly, and that the +inspectors should largely be increased in number. Thirdly, I would +prohibit all dissections, with or without anaesthetics, upon live +horses and dogs. Fourthly, I would make the administration of curare +for purposes of experiments a criminal act." + +One method of obtaining information concering the practice in America +is through a Legislative commission. Guided intelligently, such a +Commission should be able to present in its final report a large +accumulation of important facts. It is evident, however, that if such +disclosures are likely to tell against present methods of research, +the appointment of any such Commission will be strenuously opposed by +everyone connected with the laboratories. The strange thing is that +precisely this opposition has been evinced in the State of New York, +as elsewhere shown. The powers that control prefer the present +darkness, and for the time being have been able to secure it. But +this very opposition is so significant that no effort should be +relaxed to bring every phase of the practice of vivisection into the +light of day. + +That altogether too much reliance may be placed upon Government +inspection of laboratories seems unquestionable. If one could be sure +that it would always be conducted by intelligent and educated men, +with due appreciation of scientific aims, yet in thorough sympathy +with humane motives and objects, it would undoubtedly be of use. But +no such reliance can be ours. The experience of England should convey +a lesson in this respect. + +Suppose, therefore, that in place of demanding the State inspection of +laboratories, or any present interference with the conduct of the +vivisector, we endeavor first of all to learn the facts through the +experimenters themselves. Of course they will not volunteer any +information that may seem to tell against the practice; we must expect +the laboratory to put forward ever obstacle that might hinder the +facts from becoming public if there is anything wrong to hide. But +unless the claim be soberly put forth--and I am not sure that this may +not be the case--that the vivisector has a right to work in complete +secrecy, and to hide his methods from the world, he cannot complain at +being the reporter of his own activities. + +Assuming then, that our object be solely the acquisition of knowledge +without interference until necessity be shown, what can be done by +legislation in America to attain the end desired? + +1. THE REGISTRATION OF LABORATORIES.--Every place where experiments +upon animals are to be legally made should be licensed by the State. +It has been suggested that such regulation should recognize the +occasional necessity for experiments upon animals relating to the +transmission of diseases at other places than laboratories, as, for +example, on farms. A liberal recognition of all genuine exceptions +might easily be made; the only object of such regulation is to insure +that all experimentation whatever comes upon the record. So long as +this is accomplished, every exceptional case of such investigation +outside a laboratory may easily be permitted without injury to the +principle involved. + +2. REGISTRATION OF EXPERIMENTERS.--Every man who desires to perform +experiments upon animals should be required to obtain a licence from +the State granting such privilege for a definite time. This could +work no injury to science in America, for in England it has been a +rule in force for many years. When one remembers that a physician or +surgeon, even though possessed of the greatest skill, cannot practise +unless licensed by the State, it is difficult to see why a practice so +liable to abuse and crulety should be without this simple recognition +of the experimenter's ability, humaneness, and skill. + +3. REPORTS OF EXPERIMENTS.--We are sometimes told that if there is any +secrecy in vivisection, it is only that which scientific men +everywhere demand for scientific work. The dissecting-room has its +enforced privacy; the chemist must have his period of uninterrupted +attention, and to the observatory of the astronomer it is not easy to +obtain admittance at any and all times. Suppose Society to grant the +privacy for a time, asking in return from every registered laboratory +and from every experimenter, the completest reports of all experiments +upon animals. What objection can be raised if there is nothing to +conceal? The Savings Bank, the Insurance Company, even the National +Treasury, are all required to give at regular intervals information +concerning the disposition of funds. Let us place the creatures +liable to vivisection and taken into a laboratory on a plane of equal +importance with bags of silver coin taken into a banking-house. From +greta financial institutions we require detailed information and +reports attested by oath concerning the disposition made of money +taken into its treasury. No cashier would dream of objecting to such +reports; they are the tribute which conscious integrity +unhesitataingly pays to secure public confidence and trust. Now, in +the interests of science--which means always truth demonstrated, not +truth concealed--and in the interests of humanity as well, let us ask +for ever material fact pertaining to the creatures entering a +laboratory for vivisection, whether it be the dog, "stolen, to begin +with" (to use the phrase of the London Lancet), or animals more +legitimately acquired, so long as their lives are to be exploited in +the professed interests of mankind. + +In every registered laboratory, therefore, the law should require that +a register be kept concerning every animal of the higher species +brought upon the premises for purposes of experimentation. The +species of every such animal, its sex, colour, condition, and apparent +age; from whom it was acquired and the price paid for it; and to whom +for experimentation it was finally delivered--all these facts should +be a part of the permanent record of every laboratory. It ought not +to be difficult to devise a register, which at the outset would +probably meet the suggested requirements.[1] + +[1] See Appendix, pp. 340-343. + +One advantage of such a register as this would be the assistance it +would render in all attempts to trace animals which are stolen or +lost, and which find their way to the laboratory. Every animal which +may possibly have been a pet should be kept for redemption for two to +three weeks, and no animal should be purchased unless the purchaser is +able to have a record of the address of the seller. Anyone can +distinguish between a homeless vagabond of the street and an animal +which must have been well treated in a good home, and I believe that +experimentation upon a pet animal under any conditions should be +forbidden by law. + +The gain arising from such registration is obvious. It would mark the +entrance within the laboratory of every creature intended for +experimentation of any kind. It makes possible to an extent the +tracing of pet animals, lost or stolen, which now find themselves +devoted to vivisection. The inspection of such a register should be +permitted to any person whatever endeavouring to trace a lost or +stolen pet. A summary should be regularly furnished for publication, +attested by oath, precisely as the cashier of a national bank +periodically attests the accuracy of his reports. Such a report is +but a promulgation of facts which ought to be within the reach of the +public. By no stretch of the imagination can one honestly declare +that such knowledge will constitute an impediment to justifiable +research. Yet no one acquainted with this subject can doubt that +every resource of the laboratory will be brought forward to resist to +the uttermost even the giving of so little information as this. + +But we must go beyond this. To trace animals to the door of the +laboratory, and there to drop them, leaves the curtain unlifted; they +enter the darkness, and that darkness must be dispelled. It must be +the privilege of the public to know as completely as possible EXACTLY +WHAT IS DONE AFTER THEY PASS THE DOOR. How is this to be +accomplished? How may we know what is done to the animals thus traced +to the door of every laboratory without being charged with impeding +the legitimate researches of science? For reasons stated, inspection +will not accomplish it. As carried out in England, it certainly has +accomplished but little for the protection of animals. The published +reports of experiments made in that country under one or another +"certificate," are practically of no value whatever except to show the +constant increase of such experiments every year. The plummet must +sink to deeper depths. If Society is to grant to the physiological +laboratory that isolation and freedom from interference which it +craves, THEN SOCIETY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK IN RETURN THE COMPLETEST +DISCLOSURE THAT CAN BE GIVEN OF METHODS AND RESULTS. + +It has the right. Unfortunately it cannot persuade or compel. That +is the province of Legislation. + +Vivisection, we must always remember, is an exceedingly complex +practice. It is a means of demonstrating well-known facts; it is also +a method of original research. How many animals in any given +laboratory are used in each of these phases of experimentation? No one +can tell us. If the laboratory keeps no account, it is unlikely that +the information could be given by anybody else. A strong impression +exists that "original research" for any object of conceivable utility +to mankind is vastly more infrequent than vivisection for the +repetition--painful or otherwise--of facts perfectly well known. We +need to have the question settled with an accuracy upon which as much +reliance may be placed as upon the oath of the cashier of a bank. +"Every laboratory," said Dr. George M. Guld, in an address before the +American Academy of Medicine, "should publish an annual statement +setting forth plainly the number and kind of experiments, the objects +aimed at, and, most definitely, the methods of conducting them." This +wise suggestion, however, bore no fruit. No such "annual statemnet" +has ever been issued by any American laboratory, so far as I am +aware. Even if thus issued it would not go far enough. Such reports +should be attested under oath by each individual experimenter, exactly +as the officers of a bank are required by law to make reports +regarding its financial standing. Every experimenter should therefore +be required to state what he has done during the three preceding +months; to give the number of animals of each species which have been +delivered to him, the object of each experiment, and the cases in +which curare was employed. Especially should a careful distinction be +drawn between original investigations made in private and experiments +made before students or by students themselves, solely for the +illustration of well-known facts. An outline of a report that would +cover these facts will be found in the appendix. + +And yet this is hardly enough. It is not sufficient to have the +results of individual experience; we should have a summary of all +experimental work made upon the higher animals in each laboratory +given us by the responsible head of that institution. An outline of a +report that would give us the information desired is not difficult to +devise.[1] + +[1] See Appendix. + +There is little doubt but that violent objection will be made to any +such reports. But in the opinion of very many persons the truth about +a vivisection laboratory is quite as desirable as the truth about a +country bank. Verification in either case implies the same. It would +mean that the statement was not made carelessly, but with a due +appreciation of the solemnity of an oath. Any gross misstatement on +the part of a bank cashier would almost certainly subject him to a +rigid examination, and to the penalty of dismissal. It should be the +same with a laboratory. If gross missatements should be made with +apparent design to hide something that should have been made known, it +seems to me that those who thus offend should have their licences +suspended or revoked. We cannot forget that Society is here dealing +with a peculiar institution, where secrecy is regarded as a virtue. +If one could imagine a bank or an insurance company, where every +official or employee, from the president down to the scrub-woman, was +seeking in every way to keep its affairs hidden from the general +public, we should in one respect have the counterpart of the +physiological laboratory of to-day. + +On the other hand, when the law asks for the truth, whether it be of a +bank or a laboratory, under penalties for concealment that cannot be +easily disregarded, we may be very certain that in the vast majorty of +instances compliance will be accorded to its demands. Instances of +attempted concealment will, of course, occur; the cashier who has +speculated with the funds of the bank will endeavour to conceal his +crime, and the vivisector who has carried his private experiments or +his demonstrations before students to cruel and unwarrantable lengths +will seek by all possible means to prevent revelation of his +transgression. In both cases there will be occasional success. But +as regards vivisection, it cannot be questioned that whenever in +future the law makes a demand for such reports as are here outlined, a +vast amount of information, now carefully concealed from the +possibility of public judgment, will become known. We shall obtain +it, too, withut crossing the threshold of a single laboratory, without +hindering in any way whatever the least important investigation of a +single scientific inquirer. + +Ought we not to go beyond this and require reports to state the facts +regarding anaesthetics? Eventually such information should undoubtedly +be required. So far as the immediate present is concerned, it would +seem perhaps the wiser course not to complicate the inquiry in this +way. There are vivisectors who would declare that "anaesthetics are +always used" when ether or chloroform has been given in quantity and +in time absolutely insufficient to secure for the vivisected animal +immunity from pain. Sometimes we shall ask how many animals and of +what species are subjected to mutilations and observations that last +for days and weeks, and how many, if any, have had "nerves torn out by +the roots," as one American physiologist connected with a medical +school tells us he has repeatedly done. Into the thousand and one +phases of experimentation Society must one day make inquiry. But may +it not be best to wait till some knowledge of the leading facts are +secured? A report regarding anaesthesia might be utterly useless, +except to keep hidden the very facts we wish to know. What some of +these facts are may be indicated hereafter, but it would seem best not +to include them in any present demand. + +What may we conceive will be the attitude of the laboratory interests +toward any attempt to secure information concerning the practice, not +by State inspection, but by and through reports made by themselves? If +the popular conceoption of physiological investigation were true, +should we not be sure of the hearty approval of all physiologists +regarding any measure so calculated to remove misunderstanding and +distrust? Here would be the wished-for opportunity to demonstrate the +vast importance of the problems pursued, and the wonderful results +attained compared with the small cost of animal life, the humane and +ever-present solicitude of the experimenter, the immunity from +suffering. Here, too, we should have that "organized, systematic, and +absolute frankness" in regard to the practice of vivisection, for +which one of its greatest American defenders once appealed. But, on +the other hand, suppose that the laboratory in England and America +dare not permit the whole truth to be known? Suppose that it would not +willingly permit the general public to know even the number of animals +which are now sacrificed in the demonstration of well-known facts? +Then assuredly the laboratory interests will unite to prevent any +legislation that could tend to destroy the secrecy that now exists, or +to bring the facts of vivisection to the light of day. Which +hypothesis is the true one, some day will reveal. We shall then +discover whether the laboratory will yield to a demand for publicity, +or whether, contending for continued secrecy, faithless to Science, it +will resist every attempt to make known the whole truth, and cling to +the ideals and traditions of the Spanish Inquisition of three hundred +years ago. + + + CHAPTER XIV + + THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES + +It is necessary to make a distinction between societies aiming to +destroy animal experimentation, root and branch, and those which hope +only to prevent abuses and cruelties. Antivivisection societies have +been organized in different States. Of their activities it is not +necessary here to speak. But another kind of organization has made +its appearance, societies aiming solely at the prevention of abuse and +the restriction of the practice within limits compatible with humane +ideals. + +The first society in America organized for the express purpose of +prevention of cruelty in animal experimentation appears to have been +the American Antivivisection Society, founded at Philadelphia in +1883. The object of the society, as defined by its first charter, was +"the restriction of the practice of vivisection within proper limits, +and the prevention of the injudicious and needless infliction of +suffering upon animals under the pretence of medical or scientific +research." To Mrs. Caroline Earle White of Philadelphia, more than to +any other, was due the credit of bringing this first society of +protest into being over thirty years ago. + +It was believed by the founders of this society that the medical +profession--so many members of which had recognized the reality of the +abuses and the necessity of reform--would join in some common endeavor +to restrict and to regulate the practice. But attempts in direction +of any legislation met with decided opposition from the principal +laboratories in the State, and although a few physicians of eminence +lent their influence to the promotion of reform, the great body of +medical practitioners stood aloof. And gradually the founders of the +society came to believe that their position was wrong; that the policy +of concession and compromise ought to be abandoned, and that instead +of asking that any experimentation be legalized, the society should +demand the total abolition of all experiments upon living animals. + +At a meeting held in 1887 a resolution was brought forward favouring +the change of the name of the society and the aim which hitherto they +had had in view. Opposition merely to experiments of a painful +character was not sufficient; from that time forward every phase of +experimentation was equally to be condemned. The resolution was +carried. And now for more than a quarter of a century the society has +striven to influence public sentiment in favour of its ideal, the +total suppression of all scientific experiment upon living animals, +whether painful or otherwise. It is needless to say that they have +done this in the face of innumerable obstacles, and doubtless with a +recognition of the impossiblity of present success. Three times they +have introduced into the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania a +Bill for some restriction of animal experimentation, and always +without avail. + +Other antivivisection societies in different parts of the country, +adopting the same ideal, were organized shortly afterward. So far as +legislation is concerned, their efforts have met with uniform +failure. They have succeeded, however, in keeping the subject before +the world in making known the abuses of the practice and voicing a +condemnation of its cruelties wherever discerned. I have elsewhere +expressed the opinion that, even if their ideals are beyond present +possibility of attainment, the constant, persistent, and unwearied +protest of these societies against the cruelties and abuses of +vivisection have helped, more than anything else, to keep the question +a living issue. + +In 1896 was organized the first society having for its object solely +the repression of abuse, the American Society for the Regulation of +Vivisection. Its object was distinctly stated in its title, and its +work was confined almost entirely to the publication of literature. +In 1903 the Vivisection Reform Society, organized to advance the same +moderate views, was incorporated under United States laws, and the +earlier society became merged therein. The president was Dr. David +H. Cochran of Brooklyn, a distinguished educator, and the secretary, +upon whose shoulders fell nearly all the work of the organization, was +Sydney Richmond Taber, Esq., a member of the legal profession. Among +its supporters were Cardinal Gibbons, Professor Goldwin Smith, Senator +Gallinger, Professor John Bascom, ex-President of the University of +Wisconsin, Professor William James of Harvard University, and men of +standing and influence in the medical and legal professions. For +several years its work was carried on with efficiency and enthusiasm, +chiefly by the propaganda of the press. It has always seemed to me +that the name of the society was especially felicitous, for it +expressed tersely the object of the organization, not the abolition of +all scientific utilization of animal life, but the repression and +elimination of abuse. A year or two later there was incorporated at +Washington the National Society for the Humane Regulation of +Vivisection, the objects of which were identical with those of the +earlier societies. For many reasons it did not appear expedient to +keep in activity two societies with precisel the same objects, and +into the new organization the Vivisection Reform Society was finally +merged. + +Another American society which has done particularly good work is the +Vivisection Investigation League of New York. The object of this +association is fairly expressed by its name; it seeks to investigate +the practice, so far as inquiry is practicable, and to make known from +the writings of experimenters themselves exactly what is done in the +name of scientific research. In this direction the League has already +done work of exceptional value and interest. + +An organization which more than any other has distinguished itself for +persistent, unwearied, and vigorous attempts to secure reform by legal +enactment is the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal +Experimentation, organized in Brooklyn, New York, in 1907.[1] From the +first it repudiated the suggestion that it was opposed to scientific +experimentation upon animals under all circumstances; it has never +denied that some benefits have accrued through animal experimentation, +even though such benefits have been exaggerated, but it has bent all +its energies toward securing such legislation in the State of New York +as should limit the practice to competent men, place it under such +legal control, render its abuse a misdemeanour, and all unnecessary +and wanton cruelty a legal offence. Bills were therefore introduced +for the appointment of a Commission of inquiry regarding the extent +and nature of the practice at each annual session of the Legislature. +Some of these Bills were reported out of the Committee, and one +reached debate in the Senate. But investigation of the practice was +precisely what the supporters of the modern laboratory do not seem to +desire. They were strong enough to influence the Legislature against +such inquiry, and their attempts to open the laboratory have so far +failed. Will it be possible for ever to maintain this secrecy? That +is the question for the future. + +[1] To the discriminating and energetic work of Frederic P. Bellamy, +Esq., the counsel of the society, and of Mrs. William Vanamee, the +secretary, the success of this society is particularly indebted. In +the public journals, on many occasions, they have definitely and +comprehensively outlined the aims of the organization, and in this +respect there has been no excuse whatever for any misunderstanding or +misstatement. + +In its early efforts to secure investigation an attempt was made by +this society to secure the co-operation of members of the medical +profession, and in union with a large number of persons belonging to +various professions over seven hundred physicians in the State of New +York signed a petition in 1907-08 in favour of a measure that would +have tended to elicit the facts. As soon as the Medical Society of +the State of New York became aware of this endorsement, it sent out to +each of these physicians a request that he would withdraw his name. +What Dr. William James called "the power of club influence to quell +independence of mind" could hardly have been more significantly +exercised, yet less than forty signers were willing to accede to such +demand. Upon the files of the society are now the signatures of over +six hundred physicians in the State who have favoured legislation +restricting the practice of vivisection to competent men, and +providing against cruelty and abuse. + +In the fall of 1911 the Society circulated a petition throughout the +State. It asked the Legislature of the State of New York to provide-- + +"an immediate and impartial investigation by a non-partisan commission +into the practice of animal experimentation as conducted in this +State. In view of the inherent possibility of cruelty in the +practice, and the obvious inadequacy of the existing laws to prevent +such cruelty, we deem the existing status of vivisection in this State +to be a menace to the community, which calls for legislative +investigation." + +To this petition more than twelve thousand signatures were obtained. +Again the influence of the laboratory was effective in preventing the +Legislature from granting the investigation desired. + +Some of the most scholarly editorials which have appeared in the +newspaper press in favour of inquiry have been those of Hon. St. Clair +McKelway, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the State of New +York and editor of the Brooklyn Eagle, the leading evening newspaper +in the United States. Referring to one of the Bills introduced by the +Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation, +Dr. McKelway said: + +"The Bill ought to be passed. It would secure an unpaid +representative Commission to investigate animal vivisection, +protecting it from abuses, and allowing it to be properly pursued +within safeguards of necessity and mercy.... The regulation of +vivisection is not the abolition of it, but the civilization of it. +Such of the medical profession as are a Trade Union on a large scale, +as afraid of one another as they are deaf to the voices of humanity +and to public opinion, should be forced by the State to courses that +should long ago have been volunteered by themselves. The beginning of +the end of licensed cruelty has come. The struggle may still take +time, but the time will be well spent and the result is as certain as +the triumph of every other benign movement for the Kingdom of God in +the hearts of men and in the laws of the State." + +Of another bill introduced by this society, Chancellor McKelway wrote: + +"The Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation +necessarily has an awkwardly long name; necessarily, to state just +what the Society is, and to show just what it is not. It is not to +prevent animal experimentation, but only to prevent the abuse of it. +It is not an antivivisection body, ut it is a body to control the work +of vivisection within the confines of actual necessity, and to bring +the work under accountability to law as affected by a relation to +reason, to humanity, and to the mercy which is mightiest in the +mighty, and which becomes a State more than its sovereignty, and a +monarch more than his crown. + +"The Legislature again has before it a Bill to bring animal +experimentation, or the infliction of pain on animals, in the interest +of the treatment of human beings, within law and under responsibility +to law. Not for the first time is this Bill brought. It will be +brought again and again until the Bill becomes law. The instinct of +mercy and justice backs this measure and annually augments its +supporters. That instinct will not become extinct until God abdicates +or creation reverts to chaos. The movement is on the gaining hand. +Doubt of its eventual and nearing success is unthinkable, for in its +favour are all the forces that maintain and advance justice and mercy +in the hearts of men and in the action of States. + +"State-regulated vivisection should be differentiated from +antivivisection or from no vivisection, just as civilized and +necessary war should be from the impossible abolition of all war. +Between reulation and prohibition is a difference. Between +responsibility and wantonness is a difference. Yet regulated +vivisection has been confounded with antivivisection by the union of +zany cranks and trade-unionized men of medicine, who have not +refrained from the coercion of patients, from the deception of the +public, from the inoculation of legislators with mendacity, capsuled +in sophistry, and from the direct or indirect corruption or +intimidation of not a few public journals. The discovery of the ways +and means and men is bringing the evil to an end. + +"That discovery coincides with the arousal of the public conscience +against political corruption, party corruption, and interparty as well +as intraparty bribery and tyranny. There is accord between all the +forces for betterment. Barbarism and cruelty toward the brute +creation are as certainly doomed as polygamy and human slavery were. +The needs of surgery will be preserved from wanton slaughter in the +name of surgery, in times past, and now wrought by men called doctors +and by cub-boys called students. The statesmen in politics are +realizing this. The demagogues and opportunists in Legislatures are, +too. So are the men of mercy, conscience, and vision in medicine +itself. The impact of banded pretension in trade-unionized medical +schools and societies is resented and resisted by teachers and +practitioners, who are becoming ashamed not to be free, and who are +abetting those who would free them. + +"There is a good time coming around the whole circle of uplift. The +time will not be long coming; but when it shall come, its duration +will have no end, and its progress will be perpetual."[1] + +[1] Editorial, Brooklyn Eagle, April 4, 1910. + +It is an interesting fact that the American Society for the Prevention +of Cruelty to Animals, founded by Henry Bergh, the first organization +of its kind in America, joined in the demand for further +investigation. Under the heading, "The Facts Demanded," the editor of +its periodical makes known its position regarding vivisection: + +"The above caption defines the attitude of the Society to-day toward +the practice of `animal experimentation.' In the common phrase, `we +want to know,' and we are not to be deterred from what we believe to +be a duty by being told from sources more or less reputable that it is +none of our business. For many years this Society has been the chief +representative in this country and in this city of that large class +among our people who feel and cherish an interest in and a sense of +humanity for what are called the `dumb animals.' One great life--that +of the founder, Henry Bergh--was spent in this service, and +prematurely sacrificed in his devotion to these interests. With +faults and failures to reach his ideal, with stumbles and falls, +freely admitted, but with a persistent purpose to attain it in the +end, this Society has never faltered in its effort to follow the path +where he had blazed the way. It has never been seriously accused of +acting from fear or favour or from other than altruistic motives, and +by so doing it has gained and kept the confidence and respect of a +great part of what is best in our community. It is far too late in +the day for any newspaper or anay group of citizens, no matter how +influential in the one case or highly respected in the other, to say +to this Society: `You shall not do the work for which you were +chartered, and which for forty-five years you have performed in this +community.' + +"Now, what is that work in the present instance? Expressed in its +simplest terms, it is a demand that the practice of animal +experimentation shall be investigated by the State to determine what +is actually being done, and that thereafter legislation shall be had +that shall place it under such supervision and restriction as shall +insure differentiation between scientific investigation performed for +wise and adequate ends and purposes on the one hand, and on the other +acts of a painful and brutal character performed from unworthy +motives, with no adequate benefit possible as a resultant, and which +clearly come within the classification of cruelty. + +"We submit that this is an eminently fair proposal, and one that +should not be opposed by any friend of scientific work, and least of +all by the physicians of this city. Yet what do we find? The attitude +of that profession is clearly shown by the letter of Mr. Bergh, which +we reproduce in our columns, and which will unquestionably receive +credence from its frankness and from the eminent name attached to it, +now borne by a worthy and devoted descendant of our first president. + +"The attitude of the medical profession on this subject is this: `We +know what we are about.' `We practice vivisection for wise purposes.' +`We surround it with as humane conditions as the object sought will +permit.' `We have made great and beneficial discoveries by its means.' +`We assert that we con trol it within the above limits.' `But we will +not state what we do, or how.' `We will not permit our assertions to +be verified if we can help it.' `We will oppose any movement in the +Press or the Legislature looking to this end.' `And we will encourage +the Press to defeat such an effort, not only by ridicule and irony but +by a definite misrepresentation of the motives and views of the +Society that seeks "to know."' + +"We do not at this moment question the truth of the assertions as to +the practice and control which we have put (accurately, we think) into +the mouths of the medical profession; but it is startlingly evident +that these assertions can only apply TO THAT PART OF ANIMAL +EXPERIMENTATION WHICH THEY PRACTICE OR CONTROL. What of the other +part? Will those who champion unrestricted, uninvestigated, +unsuperintended vivisection assert that they will guarantee to the +people of this city that no act of cruelty or wantonness is or ever +shall be committed here by a medical practitioner under the guise of +scientific investigation? Will they guarantee that such acts are not, +and never shall be, committed in this State? Will they guarantee the +humanity and the practice of the thousands of medical students who +annually graduate from the colleges? Will they enter into bonds to the +community for the acts of those who, from time to time, they expel, +for cause from the medical societies? Will they place their own great +reputations and highly esteemed characters behind, and as vouchers +for, many a practitioner with whom they would not meet in +consultation, and whom they would not allow to practice or malpractice +in the house of a friend or a patient? We think not--we KNOW they +would not, for such endorsements and guarantees would be impossible of +fulfilment. And if they will not and cannot, they wshould cease to +stand between the society that seeks `to know' and the evils it seeks +to expose and eliminate. + +"Gentlemen of the medical profession, understand once for all that +this Society does not seek to abolish vivisection. It recognizes the +good, the great good, that has and that may come to the human race +from its careful, humane, and scientific use. But it aims to abolish +its ABUSES, and in that aim it is entitled to your advice and +co-operation." + +Enough has been given to indicate the purpose of the present movement +for vivisection reform. It is not the same as antivivisection, and +although it has been persistently misrepresented as such by the +advocates of unrestricted freedom in the physiological laboratory, +perhaps we have no reason to expect from that quarter any other +course. Yet in expressing appreciation both of purpose and +accomplishment, it may perhaps be well to suggest a single caution. +The time is probably coming when those who have most persistently +opposed all appeals for more light concerning vivisection will +announce willingness to accede to the public demnad, provided the +vivisector may himself appoint the investigators, and define the +limitations of the inquiry. It needs but little discernment to +foresee that an inquiry so conducted may be no better than a farce, +and conduce to no real change in the present obscurity. To be of any +value the commission of inquiry regarding vivisection must be so +intelligent regarding all phases of the practice that it shall know +how to penetrate to hidden recesses, where things not desired to be +revealed shall be concealed; capable, too, of distinguishing between +the work of the expert scientist and that of the ignorant and careless +student, untouched, it may be, by any sense of pity or compassion for +the creature in its power. The greatest cruelties may yet be found, +not in the laboratory of the investigator, but in that of the +demonstrator of well-known facts. Perhaps no investigation of the +practice of vivisection can be expected until public opinion shall +have been educated to demand it, and then, in point of thoroughness, +let us trust it may leave nothing to be desired. Meantime the work of +agitation for reform must continue; no matter how slight the +accomplishment, surely something is done. "All work," said Carlyle, +"is as seed sown; it growns and spreads, AND SOWS ITSELF ANEW, and so +in endless palingenesia lives and works." + + + CHAPTER XV + + UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY + +One phase of the vivisection controversy is of singular significance. +It is the peculiar tendency to unfairness which the advocates of +unrestricted experimentation seem to display in every discussion +regarding the practice. In all controversy there is something to be +said on both sides of the question, yet it would seem to be impossible +for anyone writing in advocacy of unlimited and unrestricted +vivisection to state fairly the views to which he is opposed. +Statements, the inaccuracy of which may easily be ascertained, are +again and again repeated, until it would almost seem that upon +reiteration of error and untruth a certain degree of dependence has +been placed for the creation of prejudice against reform. + +To demonstrate the truth of such a charge would require a volume. Let +it here suffice to mention a few instances of what may at least be +termed an unfairness in controversy. Partly, of course, it is the +result of ignorance, and of imperfect acquaintance with the past +history of vivisection; partly it is due to that enthusiasm of youth +which sometimes prefers a seeming victory to any close fidelity to +truth. Other instances cannot be thus explained. Some of them are +worth consideration as problems for which no solution is easily to be +found. + +In January, 1913, a Bill was introduced into the New York Legislature +providing for an inquiry into the practice of animal experimentation. +There was no suggestion of any restriction of vivisection; it was +simply an attempt to get at the real facts concerning the practice as +now carried on. If it be assumed that no objectionable practices +exist, it would seem difficult to oppose such inquiry upon any +reasonable grounds. It might possibly have been expected that the +Laboratory would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the general +public that nothing deserving censure could be found to exist. + +For reasons not difficult to understand, the proposal to investigate +the laboratory and its methods has been resisted quite as strongly as +if it had been an attempt to prohibit experiments altogether. To +justify rejection of inquiry would not appear to be an easy task. To +create a sentiment of approval of the policy of secrecy it doubtless +seemed necessary to make an appeal to the general public by editorial +utterances, in journals supposed to be impartial and of high standing +in other directions. In a New York daily paper which claims to be +conducted with special regard for respectability and avoidance of +unseemly sensationalism, there appeared, therefore, an editorial +opposing all inquiry on the part of the legislature into the methods +of animal experimentation. It is worth while to see how matters of +history were placed before its readers by one of the most reputable of +New York journals: + +"... An outcry was raised against the English doctors in the early +seventies, and it was decided to investigate their laboratories. A +Royal Commission was appointed in 1875 by Queen Victoria. The +Commission took elaborate testimony, and found no material abuse; but +owing to the inflamed state of the public mind, and the attitude of +many members of the medical profession, who at that early date did not +appreciate the importance of the experimental method, a restrictive +law was recommended, which resulted in the calamitous measure of 1876. + +"Far from allaying the British agitation, as was expected, the +investigation only served to stimulate it.... A demand was made in +1906 for a second full investigation of laboratory methods. Again a +Royal Commission was created, which took testimony for a year and +half. Its report, submitted in March last year, overwhelmingly +disproved the charges that the medical experiments upon animals are +immoral and unjustifiable.... THE DOCTORS OF ENGLAND HAVE FOR A +GENERATION HAD TO FLEE TO THE CONTINENT to prosecture their necessary +labours. Is the experience of Great Britain to be repeated in the +United States at the hands of persons who have become deluded into +insensibiity to human suffering?"[1] + +[1] Editorial in New York Times, January 28, 1913. + +Now, this editorial utterance is not exceptionally misleading. In +scores of newspapers throughout the United States just as ignorant and +as prejudiced statements find editorial expression every year. It +aims to justify the closing of the laboratory to all investigations +whatever, and it attempts to do this by misstatements regarding +historical facts. It tells us of an "outcry raised against the +English doctors in the early seventies," forgetting to mention the +attacks made by the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, and other +medical periodicals, against the terrible cruelties of the practice +long before the "early seventies." The Royal Commission of 1875, we +are told, "found no material abuse." What is meant by the qualifying +adjective "material"? Let us see how the inquiry impressed an +impartial observer, the Lord Chief Justice of England. + +"Is, then, the present law reasonable? It is the result of a most +careful inquiry, conducted by eminent men in 1875, men certainly +neither weak sentimentalists nor ignorant and prejudiced +humanitarians, men among whom are to be found Mr. Huxley and +Mr. Erichsen, Mr. Hutton, and Sir John Karslake. There men +unanimously recommended legislation, and legislation, in some +important respects, more stringent than Parliament thought fit to +pass. They recommend it on a body of evidence at once interesting and +terrible. Interesting, indeed, it is from the frank apathy to the +suffering of animals, however awful, avowed by some of the witnesses; +for the noble humanity of some few; for the curious ingenuity with +which others avoided the direct and verbal approval of horrbile +cruelties which yet they refused to condemn.... Terrbile the evidence +is for the details of torture, of mutilation, of life slowly destroyed +in torment, or skilfully prolonged for the infliction of the same or +diversified agonies, for days, for months, in some cases for more than +a year."[1] + +[1] Fortnightly Review, February, 1882. + +This was the view of the Lord Chief Justice of England of that day; +and yet the unknown scribe, writing in a New York newspaper, without +adducing a particle of evidence, would have his readers to believe +that the Commission of 1875 "FOUND NO MATERIAL ABUSE." + +Equally unfair and inaccurate is the editorial reference to the report +of the Royal Commission of 1906. The conclusions set forth in this +report cannot possibly be stated in a single sentence without leaving +essential matters unstated. The six principal recommendations of the +Royal Commission were all in the direction of reform, AND OF REFORM +THAT IMPLIED THE EXISTENCE OF ABUSES that requierd change. The +subject has been treated in a previous chapter, and need not occupy +attention again. + +But the worst misstatement in this editorial intended to incite +prejudice against any inquiry in the State of New York was that which +referred to the effect of the English law governing the regulation of +vivisection. It is now nearly forty years since this law came into +force. The editor speaks of it as "the calamitous measure of 1876"; +and after declaring that "the doctors of England have for a generation +had to flee to the Continent to prosecute their necessary labours," +asks his readers whether "the experience of Great Britain is to be +repeeated in the United States?" If this assertion were true, then +assuredly the law would have been regarded with detestation and +abhorrence by the medical profession of England, and by the teachers +of medical science throughout the land. + +Now, it so happens that the impression given is wholly false. It did +not originate with the editorial writer; for many years the assumed +evil results of the English law have been held up for our warning by +those who desire a free hand in vivisection in America. But is it +true that the law of 1876 is regarded in England as a calamitous +measure, which Parliament should hasten to repeal? On the contrary, so +far from being thus regarded, a large majority of the representatives +of medical science in England are in favour of the law. Of course, +every authority can suggest modifications for its betterment, but the +principle which underlies the measure, of inspection of laboratories +and the restriction of vivisection, they do not condemn. That it is a +perfect measure, the leaders of the medical profession do not assert, +but they evidently consider it as better than no law at all. It +certainly is not considered, as the American editor calls it, "the +calamitous measure of 1876." + +The proofs of this attitude of the English medical profession may be +found in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on +Vivisection, the final report of which appeared in 1912. The +misapprehension concerning the working of the English law is so +widespread in America and is so sedulously cultivated by those who +oppose any reform, that it seems worth while to show just how the law +is regarded in the land to which it applies. + +Sir Douglas Powell, President of the Royal College of Physicians, the +physician to the King, and Senior Physician to Guy's Hospital, was +asked whether the laws at present governing vivisection "have been in +any way noxious to Science?" "No, I do not think so," was his reply. +"I think, as administered at the present time, they have not +interfered with the advance of Science." Sir Henry Morris, President +of the Royal College of Surgeons, being asked substantially the same +question, replied: "I think the present Act of 1876, under which +vivisectional experiments are done, WAS AMPLY PROTECTIVE AGAINST +CRUELTY, AND SUFFICIENTLY FREE AND LIBERAL FOR THE DUE PROSECUTION OF +PROPER SCIENTIFIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INQUIRY." Considering their +source, are not these remarkable testimonies concerning what is the +fashion in America to designate as "the calamitous measure of 1876"? + +What is the opinion of the law held by men engaged in teaching in the +medical schols of England? Do they demand its repeal? + +Dr. Pembrey, the Lecturer on Physiology at Guy's Hospital, London, +does not like many of the restrictions; yet, being asked if he +advocated the abolition of the Vivisection Act, replied: "No, I would +not do that.... I think only people interested and people who are +competent should be allowed to make vivisection experiments." The +professor of physiology in the University of Cambridge, +Dr. J. N. Langley, told the Commissioners: "I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE +THE ACT THAN NO ACT. I think it would not be fair to the animals to +allow anyone to experiment upon them without control." Dr. Francis +Gotch, professor of physiology in the University of Oxford, being +asked whether the law had restricted scientific research in +experiments upon warm-blooded animals, answered: "No, I do not think +it restricts it. I THINK IT HAS OPERATED WELL." Dr. Lorrain Smith, +professor of pathology in the Univesity of Manchester, when asked if +he had any objection to the present restrictions placed by law upon +operations on living animals, answered, "No." Dr. E. H. Starling, a +Fellow of the Royal Society, and professor of physiology at University +College, London, declared that at the present time, the physiological +school in England occupied a very high place in the world, "not +inferior to that of any other nation"--surely a strange fact for a +country suffering from what the American editor calls "the calamitous +measure of 1876"! + +Everywhere we find substantially the same testimony. Sir James +Russell, being asked whether the law had operated in way of preventing +legitimate research, replied in the negative, giving it as his opinion +that "the Act has worked with substantial smoothness." Sir Victor +Horsley, widely known as an experimenter and as a surgeon, criticized +many of the details of the law, yet when asked whether or not he was +opposed to the Act altogether, answered: "Oh, no. I look upon the Act +as necessary in view of public opinion.... To the purpose of the Act, +that experiments should only be done in registered places and only by +persons who hold a licence from the Home Secretary, there can be no +objection whatever; at least, I cannot see any." Sir John Rose +Bradford, professor of medicine at University College Hospital in +London, being asked if it might not be better if the Act were +abolished altogether, replied: "No; I think experiments on animals +should be regulated by an Act." Whether there were any alterations +that might be valuable, was a subject to which he had given no thought +during recent yeaars. Dr. Dixon, a professor in King's College, +declared that in his opinion "THE MEDICAL PROFESSION WOULD BE STRONGLY +AGAINST THE ACT BEING REPEALED NOW." Dr. Thane, one of the Government +inspectors, admits that science has not suffered materially by any +restrictions, and has no recommendations to make. And Dr. Martin, a +director of the Lister Institute, being asked if English scientific +men "are less advanced than their brethren on the Continent in +consequence" of the regulation of vivisection, answered very promptly, +"No." + +It is impossible here to quote the evidence in full; to do that would +require a volume. No one of these experts claimed that the law was +perfect; each representative of English science was doubtless able to +indicate some detail capable of improvement and pertaining to the +better working of the law. But when it came to repealing the law +altogether, not one of the distinguished men here quoted was in favour +of it. The principle of State regulation, against the adoption of +which in America every art of prevarication has been employed, that +principle is fully accepted by the English medical profession to-day. +Was it fair for the editor of a leading journal to misstate so obvious +a fact? Can one imagine that the leading representatives of medical +science in England, the leading teachers and professors in medical +colleges and schools, would have given the evidence just quoted if for +thirty years the "doctors of England" had been flying to the Continent +to escape the stringency of the law of 1876? Should we not have found +some witness before the Royal Commission of 1906 making allusion to +this flight of the doctors of England? It is quite possible that when +the law went into operation, over thirty-five years ago, its working +was less satisfactory than it is to-day. Was it fair to make these +early criticisms annul the evidence given by a large body of +representative men before this Commission of the twentieth century in +favour of the regulation of vivisection by law? Of course such an +editorial tended to strengthen prejudice against legal regulation in +America. It did its work. But can success so achieved ever be worth +of admiration?[1] + +[1] The reader may ask why correction of so inaccurate a statement +concerning the English law was not sent to the journal in question. +This was done. A synopsis of all the medical opinions here given and +taken from the evidence given before the Royal Commission was sent to +the editor of the periodical. So fafr as seen, it did not appear. + +An editorial in a morning paper would hardly seem worth noticing. +Upon the opinions of its readers it makes its impress, and is quickly +forgotten. But the same untrue assertions will be made again more +than once in order to create prejudice against any legal regulation of +vivisection in America. It has seemed worth while, therefore, to set +forth the evidence of the absolute untruth of such statements, +regarding the English law.[1] + +[1] In demonstrating that the English law for the regulation of +vivisection is not there regarded with the disapprobation alleged by +certain writers in this country, I must not be taken as claiming that +the law from a humane standpoint is satisfactory. Until amended as +advised by Dr. Wilson, a member of the Royal Commission, it cannot +adequately protect animals liable to experimentation from hte +possibility of abuse. + +The extent to which an untruth concerning vivisection may be worked to +create prejudice against reform is afforded by a curious legend +concerning the late Lord Lister, one of the most eminent men of the +last century. + +So far as I have been able to discover, the first appearance of the +story was in an address delivered before the Women's Medical College, +and reprinted in the Popular Science Monthly of May, 1885, nearly +thirty years ago. It thus appears: + +"Lister himself, no tyro, but the great master, is still searching for +further improvements. But when, lately, he desired to make some +experiments on animals, still further to perfect our practice, so many +obstructions were thrown in his way in England that HE WAS DRIVEN TO +TOULOUSE to pursue his humane researches." + +"He was driven to Toulouse." The phrase is worth remembering. Fifteen +years later the author of this statement appeared before the Senate +Committee at Washington, D.C., to oppose a Bill regulating the +practice of animal experimentation in the District of Columbia. In +course of his address, delivered February 21, 1900, he again repeated +the story: + +"When Lord Lister, whose name is the most illustrious in the history +of surgery, wanted to carry out some further experiments in Great +Britain, where, as Dr. Leffingwell has expressed it, the `very +moderate restriction of the law applies'--experiments for the direct +benefit of humanity--HE WAS OBLIGED TO GO TO FRANCE TO CARRY ON HIS +EXPERIMENTS for the benefit of the human race BECAUSE HE COULD NOT DO +IT IN ENGLAND!" + +Can one imagine any argument against the legal regulation of +vivisection more weighty than this assertion, that the most +illustrious man in English medicine was "obliged to go to France" +because he could not make his researches on English soil? Could doubt +of the story exist when it was related by the President of the +American Medical Association before a committee of the United States +Senate? This story alone may have indused the rejection of the +proposed legislation. + +The legend again found expression nearly three years later, in a +letter written by the same person to Senator Gallinger, and +telegraphed to the newspaper press throughout the country. In the +Philadelphia Medical Journal of December 13, 1902, it appeared as +follows: + +"If the laws which you and your friends advocate were in force, the +conditions for scientific investigation in this country would be quite +as deplorable as those in England. For example, when Lord Lister, who +has revolutionized modern surgery, largely as a result of such +experiments, wished to discover possibly some still better way of +operating by further experiments, HE WAS OBLIGED TO GO TO TOULOUSE TO +CARRY THEM OUT, as the vexatious restrictions of the law in England +practically made it impossible for him to continue there these +eminently humane experiments." + +Nearly a quarter of a century after the first appearance of this +story, we meet it again. In an article entitled "Recent Surgical +Progress," appearing in Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, we are told +the same tale: + +"To complete his beneficent work, LORD LISTER WAS COMPELLED TO GO TO +FRANCE, BY REASON OF THE STRINGENCY OF THE ENGLISH ANTIVIVISECTION +LAWS." + +The law of 1876 has now multiplied into "laws" which obstruct and +hinder even the researches of a Lister. And yet two years before, in +his testimony before the Royal Commission, the President of the Royal +College of Surgeons in England--Sir Henry Morris--had stated: "I think +the present Act of 1875, under which vivisectional experiments are +done, was amply protective against cruelty to animals AND SUFFICIENTLY +FREE AND LIBERAL FOR THE DUE PROSECUTION OF PROPER SCIENTIFIC AND +PHYSIOLOGICAL INQUIRY."[1] But of the readers of Harper's Monthly +probably not one in ten thousand had ever seen this evidence in the +Vivisection Report. + +[1] Minutes of Evidence, Question 7,805. + +It will be seen that no two of these accounts are precisely the same. +They agree, however, in stating that one of the most distinguished of +English scientists was compelled to leave England in order to do his +work; he "was driven to Toulouse." + +It seemed to me worth while to investigate the truth of this story; +and accordingly I wrote to Lord Lister, asking him, among other +things, if it was true that he had been obliged to go to France to +carry out experiments looking to the improvement of surgical methods, +because the restrictions of the English law had made it impossible for +him to carry out his investigations in England? The reply to my +inquiry was clear and definite. The italics are mine. + + "12, Park Crescent, + "Portland Place, + "December 23, 1910. +"MY DEAR SIR, + +"It is not strictly true that I was compelled to go out of the country +to perform the experiments in question. + +"I COULD, NO DOUBT, HAVE OBTAINED A LICENCE TO DO THEM HERE. But they +had to be on large animals; and the Veterinary College, in which, I +dare say, I might have had opportunity given me for the +investigations, is a long way from my residence, and it would have +been inconvenient to have worked there. Thus, my going to Toulouse +was a matter of convenience rather than of necessity. + +"The circumstance was of course of no interest to anyone but myself, +AND I HAVE GIVEN NO ACCOUNT OF IT FOR PUBLICATION.... I have answered +your question frankly, but I must beg you to understand that it is not +intended for publication. + "Believe me, + "Sincerely yours, + "LISTER." + +From every man's correspondence Death at last removes the seal; and +Lister's true story surely may now confront the distorted fiction +which in America for many years has been given so wide a publicity. + +The facts are indeed different from the legend which for more than a +quarter of a century has been repeated as a convincing argument +against reform. Of the malign influence of such a tale upon public +opinion in preventing legislation in America, we can form no adequate +estimate. For any intentional deception we may, of course, absolve +the distinguished professional man who has made himself responsible as +transmitter of the myth; no man with any conception of honour would +state as facts what he knew to be false. But from the charge of +carelessness, of gross inaccuracy, is one as readily to be freed? For +a quarter of a century the statement has been in circulation--that +when Lister desired to make most important researches, "so many +obstructions were thrown in his way in England, that HE WAS DRIVEN TO +TOULOUSE to pursue his humane researches"; and now Lister's letter +shows us that he "could, no doubt, have obtained a licence to do them +here"--showing that he did not even ask permission to experiment. In +1900 the public was informed that Lister "was obliged to go to France +to carry on his experiments"; the readers of Harper's are told that +"Lord Lister was COMPELLED TO GO TO FRANCE by reason of the stringency +of the English antivivisection laws"; and now Lister writes that going +to France was a matter of convenience, and not of necessity; that at +the Veterinary College "I dare say I might have had the opportunity +given me for the investigation"--showing that the opportunity had +never been sought! Yet the influence of the untruth will continue for +many a year. + +Of Lister's extreme antipathy to the antivivisectionists and to th +erestriction of animal experimentation there can be no doubt. That he +misapprehended the effect of the law of 1876 we know; he imagined that +even the observation of the circulation of the blood in a frog's foot +under the microscope by an unauthorized investigator would render the +student liable to a criminal prosecution. We can be very sure that if +this were true, the Act of 1876 would never have escaped the +condemnation of the scientific men whose opinions have been quoted +from evidence given before the Royal Commission, men who found in this +Act no impediment to any reasonable investigation. But when the +reports of personal experience were brought to Lister's notice, he was +willing to correct their gross exaggerations; yet--to avoid +controversy, perhaps--he desired that the facts should not be +published, and during his lifetime, compliance was given to his wish. + +The phase of untruthfulness in the defence of unrestricted +experimentation deserves far more attention than can here be +accorded. One is loth to regard as possible any intent to deceive; +the inaccuracy and exaggeration are undoubtedly due chiefly to +ignorance on the part of men who ought to be well-informed, because +the world looks to them for statements of fact concerning the benefits +claimed to be due to experimentation. Take, for instance, an +assertion made in testimony given before the Royal Commission by Sir +Victor Horsley, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the representative +of the British Medical Association. Referring to pyaemia, or blood- +poisoning, he was not content to affirm the disappearance of these +formidable maladies from the hospital to which he was attached, but +went on to declare their disappearance altogeher. "Anybody," said Sir +Vitor Horsley, "who would now be asked to write an article on pyaemia +or blood-poisoning in a dictionary of surgery, COULD NOT DO IT; THE +DISEASES ARE GONE!"[1] + +[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 15,669. + +This statement is a most remarkable one. The witness was once widely +known as a ruthless experimenter upon living animals, and he was now +defending the practice by an enumeration of its gains. Apparently, +no member of the Commission questioned his evidence; the +representative of the British Medical Association solemnly affirmed +that as a result of vivisection certain diseases had so completely +disappeared that present observation or description was impossible, +and the Royal Commission accepted his word. The statement that these +septic diseases had disappeared crossed the Atlantic, and nearly six +years afterward, in the columns of a New York journal, it again +appeared.[2] Yet the statement was untrue. It is indeed difficult to +believe that any educated medical man in England or America could have +read it without recognition of its untruth. Let us glance at the +evidence. + +[2] New York Times, July 28, 1912. + +If it were true that the septic diseases which relate to blood- +poisoning had really been so completely abolished that description of +them were now impossible--as Sir Victor Horsley declared--it is +evident that as causes of any part of English mortality they would +cease to appear. The report of the Registrar-General of England and +Wales tells a very different story. Sir Victor Horsley gave this +testimony in November, 1907. During the five years preceding, and +ending December 31, 1907, NO LESS THAN 2,933 PERSONS DIED FROM BLOOD- +POISONING (PYAEMIA AND SEPTICAEMIA) IN ENGLAND AND WALES. During the +year 1907, the year that testimony was given, the tribute of 604 lives +was exacted by these diseases which had "GONE"! Even during the year +following (1908), the recorded deaths due to blood-poisoning in +England and Wales were 560; and yet the disease had been solemnly +declared to be non-existent by the leading defender of English +vivisection! + +Nor is this all. In proportion to the total population the death-rate +from blood-poisoning WAS HIGHER DURING THE YEAR THAT SIR VICTOR +HORSLEY GAVE THIS ASTOUNDING TESTIMONY THAN IT WAS EVEN FORTY YEARS +BEFORE. In 1868, in England and Wales, to a million persons living, +the death-rate from septic diseases, or blood-poisoning, was fifteen; +the year following it was sixteen. In 1870 it rose to eighteen, +falling, however, to sixteen for the next two years. Nearly forty +years go by, and we find a leading English vivisector assuring a Royal +Commission that blood-poisoning had so completely disappeared that a +medical writer could not describe it; and the Registrat-General +charging this extinct disease with a death-rate of nineteen in 1906 +and eighteen in 1907, A HIGHER RATE OF MORTALITY THAN A GENERATION +BEFORE![1] + +[1] For these statistics see reports of the Registrar-General of +England and Wales, 54th Report, Table 16, and 73rd Report, Table 22. + +These are officially stated facts. At the cost of half a crown Sir +Victor Horsley might have learned that the diseases he so glibly +declared had "gone" were still responsible for a part of English +mortality, and a greater proportion even than during thirty-five to +forty years before. It is this gross ignorance on the part of those +who would teach us, this willingness in the defence of all phases of +vivisection, to make assertions which are without foundation in fact, +that justly tends to create distrust of every such statement, +unsupported by proof. We are not questioning the value of asepsis, +which is only a learned phrase to express absolute surgical +cleanliness. The time may come when these septic forms of disease +will entirely disappear. That day, however, has not yet arrived. Why +declare that it is already here? Why proclaim that diseases had "GONE" +which still existed, or that an enemy had been utterly exterminated +which still was responsible for hundreds of deaths? + +Nor are English medical writers alone guilty of blunders and +exaggerations concerning the effect of experiments on animals. In the +number of Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, to which we have referred, +an American writer blunders quite as badly as his English confre`re. +He tells us that "the friends of experimental research have almost +completely abolished the dangers of maternity, reducing its death-rate +FROM TEN OR MORE MOTHERS OUT OF EVERY HUNDRED, to less than one in +every hundred." + +A more ignorant statement was never put forth by an intelligent +writer. Where are statistics to be found going to prove that among +any people, in any land, at a ny time, 10 PER CENT. of all mothers +giving birth to offspring perished from the accidents or diseases +incident to child-birth? No such statistics can be produce, for the +simple reason they do not exist. In the United States we have no +official statistics of mortality covering the entire country or +reported from year to year. England, however, has recorded the +mortality of its people for over half a century. What support does it +afford to the assertion that at any time one in every ten mothers, +bringing children into the world, perished either from accident or +disease? During a period of sixty-two years, from 1851 down to th +epresent time, there was not a single year in which mortality of +Englishwomen from septic diseases connected with child-birth EVER +REACHED EVEN ONE IN A HUNDRED. But this is the figure for all +England. Then take the forty-four counties into which England is +divided, and from the downs of Devon to the slums of Lancashire, one +cannot find a county in all England in which the mortality of mothers +from diseases pertaining to child-birth has reached even a quarter of +the ratio stated by this medical writer. "From all causes together NOT +FOUR DEATHS IN A THOUSAND BIRTHS and miscarriages happened in England +and Wales during the first year, seventy-five years ago, that official +statistics were gathered; it was a death-rate of five in one thousand +the following year."[1] We are not questioning the value of surgical +cleanliness; we dispute only the justice of exaggerated and misleading +statements concerning any fact capable of scientific demonstration. +There can be no doubt that less than half a century ago, in the +maternity wards of certain hospitals and in the experience of certain +men, there was a death-rate from such ailments far above the average +experience of the country; but it was solely due to the ignorance, the +criminal blindness and obstinacy of certain men in the medical +profession. But a little over seventy years ago, when Dr. Oliver +Wendell Holmes pointed out that this saddest place of mortality was +due to want of care on the part of medical men, it was two professors +in two of the largest medical schools of America who opposed him; it +was Professor Charles Meigs, of Jefferson Medical College in +Philadelphia, who laughed to scorn his warnings, and held up to the +ridicule of the medical profession the theories that are now accepted +as facts. With such men as teachers of medical science, what wonder +that for women about to become mothers certain hospitals of that day +were little better than slaughter-houses, to enter which was to leave +hope behind?[2] But the experience of such hospitals is not the basis +upon which Science rests conclusions when they may be ascertained by +reference to the statistics of a nation. The murder-rate of +Philadelphia is not to be determined by that of one of its slum +districts. If, a century ago, a slave-owner of Jamaica owning ten +negroes, whipped one of them so severely that he died, should we be +justified in declaring that in the West Indies the murder-rate of +slaves was 10 per cent., or "ten in a hundred"? Its absurdity is +manifest. When, therefore, a reputable writer for a magazine largely +read by wives and mothers puts forth the statement that by reason of +some experiments the death-rate of diseases incident to maternity has +been reduced "from ten or more mothers out of every hundred," leaving +it to be inferred that such rate of mortality was once general, what +are we to infer concerning his ideals of scientific accuracy? + +[1] "Medical Essays of Dr. O. W. Holmes," Boston, 1899, p. 156. +[2] "Polk told us that when he graduated in medicine, delivery in a +lying-in hospital was far more dangerous than an engagement in the +bloodiest battle, for during his internship at Bellevue, he saw FORTY- +FIVE WOMEN DIE OUT OF THE SIXTY WHO HAD BEEN DELIVERED DURING A SINGLE +MONTH."--Williams; Jour. Am. Med. Association, June 6, 1914. + +Equally mistaken is the implication conveyed by the passage quoted +that some vast reduction of mortality has been accomplished in regard +to this special form of disease. This belief is doubtless entertained +by a majority of medical practitioners, accustomed to accept +statements of leaders without investigation or questioning. But it is +not true. We need to remember, as Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes tells us, +"how kindly Nature deals with the parturient female, when she is not +immersed in the virulent atmosphere of an impure lying-in hospital." +To demonstrate the exact facts, I have tabulated all the deaths in +England and Wales from diseases incident to child-birth, as compared +with the number of children born, for sixty years from 1851 down to +1910. It will probably surprise many a medical practitioner to know +that so far from having vastly diminished, the death-rate from +diseases of this character in England and Wales WAS ACTUALLY LESS HALF +A CENTURY AGO THAN IT WAS DURING THE TEN YEARS ENDING 1910. But the +facts are beyond question; they not only rest upon the official +reports of the Registrar-General, but they show a uniformity year +after year which it is impossible to regard as due to chance. In +England and Wales, during twenty years (1851-1870) the total number of +births reported by the Registrar-General was 13,971,746. The total +deaths from puerperal fever during the same period were 21,935--a +mortality-rate per 100,000 births of 157. This was the period between +forty and sixty years ago. During the ten years between 1901 and +1910, the births in England and Wales numbered 9,208,209; and the +deaths from puerperal sepsis were 16,341, a mortality-rate per 100,000 +births of 175--GREATER THAN THAT OF HALF A CENTURY AGO! The mortality- +rate may now be going downward; it was in 1910 but 142 per 100,000 +births, but in 1860 the corresponding death-rate was 140, and in 1861 +it was 130--considerably less than at the present day.[1] + +[1] These figures have been compiled from the annual reports of the +Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and +Wales. Each Annual Report furnishes the number of births and the +number of deaths from puerperal sepsis. + +Nor is it true that recognition of the origin of this terrible disease +was due to experiments upon animals. It was Dr. Oliver Wendell +Holmes, in America, who indicated, in 1843, the distasteful truth that +the medical attendant was chiefly responsible for the deaths from this +disease; and the great lights of the profession in Philadelphia made +him and his theory the butt of their ridicule and scorn. It was +Semmelweis, a young assistant in the Lying-in Hospital of Vienna, who +in 1847 pointed out the same truth, drawn, not from any experiments, +but from rational observation in the hospital wards; and his discovery +was received with contempt, he was hated and despised in his lifetime, +and he died, as an American author has phrased it, "with no other +reward than the scorn of his contemporaries." It was not by laboratory +experiments upon living animals that the methods by which this +terrible disease is transmitted became known to Science; it was common +sense in the sick-chamber that discerned its clue. + +The decreased and decreasing mortality of tuberculosis is not +infrequently claimed as a triumph of vivisection; in the article in +Harper's Magazine to which reference has been made, it is intimated +that experimentation has reduced the mortality of tuberculosis "from +30 to 50 per cent.," by treatment springing from the discovery of +Koch. + +Do facts support this assertion? On the contrary, the decline in the +mortality due to this dread destroyer of the human race BEGAN MORE +THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY BEFORE KOCH ANNOUNCED THAT DISCOVERY OF A +GERM which was the cause of the disease. In his report for 1907, the +Registrar-General of England and Wales tells us that "throughout the +last forty years there has been a steady decline in the fatality of +tuberculous diseases"; and he illustrates the figures by a diagram, +showing, for both men and women, the steady fall in the death-rate +from this disease from a period long before its bacillus was +recognized. Here are the exact figures for England and Wales: + +ENGLAND AND WALES: AVERAGE ANNUAL DEATH-RATE FROM PHTHISIS PER MILLION +PERSONS LIVING, IN GROUPS OF YEARS. + + For five years, 1850-1854 .. .. .. 2,811 + " " 1855-1859[1].. .. .. 2,647 + " " 1861-1865 .. .. .. 2,528 + " " 1866-1870 .. .. .. 2,449 + " " 1871-1875 .. .. .. 2,219 + " " 1876-1880 .. .. .. 2,042 + + " " 1881-1885 .. .. .. 1,830 + " " 1886-1890 .. .. .. 1,635 + " " 1891-1895 .. .. .. 1,462 + " " 1896-1900 .. .. .. 1,322 + " " 1901-1905 .. .. .. 1,218 + " " 1906-1910 .. .. .. 1,106 +------------------------------------------------------------- +[1] For statistics relating to period, 1850-1859, see Registrar- +General's 34th Report, p. 249. For years, 1861-1880, see 48th Report, +Table 27. For later period, see 73rd Report, p. 21. + +This table is very significant. The death-rate of consumption in +England for the year 1853 was 2,984 per 1,000,000 population. From +that year, down to the five-year period, 1881-1885, there was a steady +decline in the mortality of this disease, amounting to a fraction less +than 39 per cent. On March 24, 1882, Koch announced his discovery. +The fall of the death-rate from 1881-1885 to 1906-1910, was almost +precisely the same--a fraction over 39 per cent. NOW WHAT WERE THE +CAUSES WHICH INDUCED THE CONSTANTLY DECREASING MORTALITY FROM +CONSUMPTION DURING THAT EARLIER PERIOD, WHEN THE NAME OF KOCH WAS +UNKNOWN? Is it conceivable that they suddenly became inoperative +thirty years ago? Is it not more than probable that the chief reason +why the "great white plague" has steadily and almost uniformly +decreased during sixty years, not only in England, but probably in all +civilized lands has been the increased recognition of the value of +sanitary laws and of personal hygiene? No one questions the importance +of the discovery of Koch; it has given Science the knowledge that a +definite enemy exists, whose insidious invasion she strives to +prevent, and whose ultimate conquest may one day be accomplished--more +by prevention than by cure. But when a medical writer ascribes the +decrease in mortality of this disease to the discovery of Koch in +1882, and makes no reference to the steady fall in the death-rate +which went on for a quarter of a century before that discovery was +known, what is to be said of his fidelity to scientific truth? Is this +the ideal of fairness which the laboratory of to-day inculcates and +defends? + +Why does it seem worth while to dwell upon these exaggerations and +untruths? Was it necessary to go through the mortality records of a +nation for more than half a century merely to prove the falsity of a +single laboratory claim? I think so. These are not ordinary blunders +or trivial mistakes. They are affirmations made in opposition to the +slightest step toward reform of great abuses, by honoured and +distinguished writers; by men who are regarded as absolutely reliable +in all statements of fact. Their assertions of the vast benefits +conferred upon the human race by experiments upon living animals are +made in the journals of the day, in popular magazines--in periodicals +which refuse opportunity of rejoinder, and which therefore lend their +influence to securing the permanency of untruth. There are problems +of science concerning which such affirmations would be of +comparatively little consequence; if they concerned, for example the +weight of an atom or the distance of a star, the controversy would +excite but a languid interest, and the correction of inaccuracy might +safely be left to time. But here, on the contrary, we touch some of +the most vital problems of life and death, problems that concern every +one; and in defence of practices, the cruelty of which has been +challenged as abhorrent to the conscience of mankind, we have +distorted and exaggerated claims of utility; we have assertions that +have no basis in fact; we have covert appeals to woman's fears in her +greatest emergency, and to that sentiment, the noblest almost that man +himself can entertain--his solicitude for the mother of his children +in her hour of peril. To the malign influence of untrue suggestion no +bounds can be placed; in the creation of a public sentiment, its +influence extends in ever-widening circles. It is against this +unfairness and exaggeration that those who take moderate ground in +this question of animal experimentation have the duty of protest and +complaint. We do not ascribe the unfairness to intentional +mendacity. Such motive may be discarded without hesitancy, so far as +concerns any reputable writer. But surely there has been a +carelessness regarding the truth which even the plea of ignorance +ought not wholly to condone. + +And the lesson? It is the reasonableness of doubt. Every statement +put forth by the Laboratory interests in defence of the present system +of unrestricted and secret vivisection should be regarded with +scepticism unless accompanied by absolute proofs. In an experience of +more than a third of a century, I have never read a defence of +vivisection without limitations, which did not contain some +exaggerated claim, some misstatement of fact. To doubt is not to +dishonour; it is the highest tribute we may pay to Science; for +"without doubt, there is no inquiry, and without inquiry, no +knowledge." + + + CHAPTER XVI + + RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION + +No phase of modern science so closely touches the welfare of humanity +as the studies which concern the prevention of disease. Up to a very +recent period, well within the lifetime of many now living, +practically the entire energy of the medical profession was given up +to the treatment of human ailments, with an almost complete disregard +of problems of prevention or studies of origin. To-day, in great +measure, all this has been changed, and the importance of preventing +disease has come well to the front. It is permissible to doubt +whether the "cure" of any of the principal infectious diseases is +likely to be so thoroughly accomplished as to eliminate it as a cause +of mortality, and we may regard with greater promise attempts to +discover the mysterious causes of our diseases, and the best methods +by which their spread may be prevented. It is certainly a great gain +that during the last hundred years mankind has learned that +deliverance must come through human activity, and has ceased to regard +typhoid or consumption as a dispensation of Providence. + +For the conquest of some of the principal maladies affecting the human +race at the present time I have long questioned whether the laboratory +for experimentation upon animals offers the opportunity for the surest +results. The average man has his attention fixed upon mysterious +researches which are being carried on in this or that "Institute"; +rumours of impending discoveries and almost certain cures are +published far and wide; and gradually one gets the impression that +notwithstanding abundant disappointments, it is only by yet more +vivisection that the mystery will be solved. Is this a valid +conclusion? In many cases, might not scientific research have a better +chance to discover the secret of origin were it directed into other +channels? I propose to suggest one method of scientific research with +which vivisection is in no way concerned--an investigation into the +cause of one of the most terrible and most threatening of human +maladies--cancer, or malignant disease. + +The subject is a vast one. Within the limits of a few pages it cannot +be treated with any approach to the completeness which its importance +demands. The utmost that can now be attempted is the suggestion of +certain lines of research independent of animal experimentation, +which, if carried out with completeness, might lead to results of +incalculable benefit to humankind. + +Outside the medical profession there are few who have the faintest +realization of the facts pertaining to malignant disease. One reason +for such ignorance is the lack of any organized system, in the United +States, for recording the annual mortality. Except among barbarous or +semi-civilized people, no such condition exists. When, during the +autumn of 1912, Dr. Bashford, the Director of the Imperial Cancer +Research Fund of England, was invited to lecture in New York, he +confessed that he had tried in vain to obtain American statistics +concerning cancer which might be compared to those of other nations; +they simply did not exist. There are a few states and a few cities +for which mortality records exist, but in some of the principle states +of America there is no official record showing even the total number +of deaths from murder, from accident, or disease. Once in ten years +the Federal Government resents us the mortality report of the census +year, but even here the information is not available until a +considerable period after it is collated. There is, however, one +nation whose official registers for many years have recorded the +mortality from each cause of disease, for either sex, and for each +ten-year period of life. These records have no equal elsewhere, and +are only approached by the mortality records of the Empire of Japan. +The figures concerning cancer upon which we may chiefly depend are +those which pertain to the English people. There can be no doubts but +that the mortality from cancer in America exhibits the same phenomena, +though the rate may be higher. + +The first thing to impress the student is the immensity of the tribute +of mortality exacted by this disease, from those in the maturity of +life, and in large measure at the period of greatest usefulness. +During thirty years, from 1881 to 1910 inclusive, there perished in +England and Wales from cancer no less than 703,239 lives. Figures +like these, for the average intelligence, are practically +incomprehensible; for this thirty-year tribute to malignant disease in +a signle country represents more human being than all estimated to +have perished on the battlefields of Europe for two hundred years. +And if we were able to add the mortality from this one disease on the +Continent of Europe, it might represent a total of several millions. + +Another significant circumstance is the uniformity of the tribute +exacted by cancer, year after year. We can see that best by taking +the actual number of deaths from this cause, in a single country, and +observing with what slow, implacable, and ever-increasing steps the +great destroyer advances. + + + DEATHS FROM CANCER IN ENGLAND AND WALES + +----------------------------------------------- +| Year. | Males | Females | +|--------------------------|--------|---------| +| 1905 .. .. .. | 12,470 | 17,761 | +| 1906 .. .. .. | 13,257 | 18,411 | +| 1907 .. .. .. | 13,199 | 18,546 | +| 1908 .. .. .. | 13,901 | 18,816 | +| 1909 .. .. .. | 14,263 | 19,790 | +| 1910 .. .. .. | 14,843 | 19,764 | +| 1911 .. .. .. | 15,589 | 20,313 | +| 1912 .. .. .. | 16,188 | 21,135 | +| | | | +----------------------------------------------- + +The terrible thing about these figures is their uniformity from year +to year. With as great a degree of certainty as the farmer foretells +the produce of his fields and the results of his seed-sowing, so the +statistician can calculate the tribute that cancer will exact from the +human race in future years. How many persons in England and Wales +will die from some from of cancer during the year 1917? Unless some +great catastrophe shall vastly lessen the total population, the number +of victims destined to perish from malignant disease during that one +year will hardly be less than 38,500, and in all probability will be +more. And we have no reason to doubt that in the United States the +mortality from cancer would be found equally uniform were it possible +to know the facts. + +Nor does uniformity pertain to numbers of either sex only. Each +period of life has to furnish its special toll. If we look at the +mortality among men or women for a period of years, we shall see this +phenomenon very clearly. In the following table we see the deaths of +men from cancer, in England, at each ten-year age-period. + + DEATHS FROM CANCER AT DIFFERENT AGE-PERIODS (ENGLAND): + AGE-PERIODS OF MALES + +-------------------------------------------------------------- +|YEAR|Under|25-35.|35-45.|45-55.|55-65.|65-75.| Above |Total.| +| | 25. | | | | | | 75. | | +|----|-----|------|------|------|------|------|-------|------| +|1906| 250 | 322 | 927 | 2,454| 4,087| 3,651| 1,566 |13,257| +|1907| 305 | 277 | 921 | 2,392| 4,041| 3,675| 1,588 |13,199| +|1908| 274 | 317 | 925 | 2,594| 4,147| 3,957| 1,687 |13,901| +|1909| 262 | 296 | 921 | 2,581| 4,319| 4,174| 1,710 |14,263| +|1910| 283 | 337 |1,001 | 2,778| 4,377| 4,315| 1,752 |14,843| +|1911| 309 | 317 | 978 | 2,901| 4,627| 4,602| 1,855 |15,589| +-------------------------------------------------------------- + +Precisely the same phenomenon is to be found in the cancer-mortality +of women. Each ten-year period of life exacts its own proportion, +with an increasing death-rate out of proportion to the increase of +population. + +Another fact, attainable only by the study of English statistics, is +the singular regularity with which malignant disease selects different +parts of the body year after year. If proclivity to this mysterious +ailment were a matter of chance, or dependent upon the irregular +action of certain forces, we should certainly fail to find such +uniformity, or such approach to uniformity, as exists. One year, for +instance, there would be, let us say, a preponderance of attacks upon +the skin; another year the digestive organs would be the principal +sufferers; a third year the joints and muscles would be chiefly +involved. The actual experience proves that we are subject here to +forces of incalculable stress, which nevertheless press steadily and +uniformly upon humanity, where the habits and environment are the +same. In the year 1901, for example, of the total number of fatal +cases among men, the seat of the disease was the stomach in a little +over 21 per cent. of the total number of cases. In 1910 the +proportion was also 21 per cent. During the ten years 1901-1910, of +the total mortality, the stomach was the organ involved in but a +fraction over 21 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL CASES. + +Is cancer increasing? This is a question of vast importance to the +human race. That in proportion to total population more die from the +disease to-day than twenty or thrity years ago, is a fact about which +there can be no doubt. Dr. Stevenson, in the Report of the Registrar- +General for the year 1910, tells us that in "all countries from which +returns have been received the mortality has shown a general tendency +to increase in recent years." Speaking on the "Menace of Cancer," the +statistician of the Prudential Insurance Company of America affirmed +that "the cancer death-rate in the United States is increasing at the +rate of 2.5 per cent. per annum, and a corresponding increase is +taking place practically throughout the civilized world." The cancer- +rate among men in the United States has increased, according to the +same authority, 29 per cent. during the last decade. The steady +increase of cancer year after year is strikingly shown by a curve +diagram, based upon the English mortality for several years. + +A significant illustration of the steady increase in the mortality +from cancer is shown by its fatality among women in England between +the ages of forty-five and sixty-five. In the year 1875, of all +deaths of women at this period of life, one in ten (in round numbers) +was due to some form of malignant disease. In 1890 the tribute +exacted by the disease had become one in eight. Ten years later--in +1900--of all women dying in England during this period of middle life, +the toll of cancer was one in seven; and in 1910 the corresponding +proportion was one in five! At this rate of increase it will not be +many years before a full third of all the deaths of women at this time +of life will be due to malignant disease. There can be little doubt +that the same phenomenon would be found to pertain to American +experience, were it possible to disentangle the facts from the +obscurity in which they are now permitted to lie. It is a curious +fact that in England until the year 1900--and, so far as we know, for +thousands of years--the death-rate from consumption among women was +considerably higher than that of malignant disease; that in 1903, for +the first time, the cancer-mortality of women exceeded that of +phthisis; and that in 1910 it had so far surpassed it that they are +not likely ever again to be equal, unless we shall discover the cause +of the more fatal plague. + +The theory has been put forth by certain writers that the increased +death-rate from cancer is due, not to any increased frequency of the +dissease, but rather to improved methods of detection. It is quite +certain that fifty years ago, for instance, surgeons were less able +and less willing to pronounce judgment regarding obscure cases of +internal tumours. But if the better diagnosis of to-day accounts for +some part of this increase since 1860, it does not seem probable that +it can explain the rising death-rate of the last ten or fifteen +years. The medical practitioner of 1900 was certainly as well +qualified to pronounce upon the character of the disease as the +surgeon or physician of to-day. Nevertheless, the cancer death-rate +of England in 1910 had increased 16 per cent. above that of ten years +before, and during the fifteen years 1895-1900 it had increased fully +28 per cent. Certainly in these last few years there has been no such +increased ability to detect the disease as would account for all +this. Yet another fact suggests doubt of this optimistic hypothesis. +If the increased cancer death-rate were due merely to the increased +ability of the physician or surgeon to recognize the ailment, we +should certainly find that the increase of cancer would be seen only +in those parts of the system, such as internal organs, where some +degree of doubt might perhaps be entertained; while, on the other +hand, there would be little or no increase discernible in the +mortality of cancers affecting parts of the body where its nature +could not be mistaken by any intelligent physician or surgeon. Now, +for a number of years, perhaps with this hypothesis in view, the +Registrar-General in England has tabulated all deaths from cancer of +either sex, not only by different age-periods, but also by the part of +the body affected by the fatal disease. A study of the facts thus +made known is extremely suggestive. It is true that a marked increase +in the death-rate has occurred in cancer affecting internal organs, as +we should naturally suppose; but it is also true that malignant +disease affecting parts of the body where little or no doubt of the +character of the ailment could be entertained by the physician, +exhibit in some instances as marked an increase in the death-rate as +in some other cases, where doubt of malignancy might be justifiable. +For example, cancer of the tongue among men showed a death-rate of 32 +per million population in 1897; it went up to 47 per million in 1910-- +an increase of nearly 50 per cent. Cancer of the female breast showed +a death-rate of about 142 per million population in 1897; it had +arisen to a rate of 190 per million only thirteen years later; and +here, assuredly, the nature of the disease in fatal cases cannot be +mistaken.[1] Cancer of the stomach in its final stages does not +present insuperable difficulties in way of diagnosis, but the +death-rate increased for men about 40 per cent. in fifteen years; and +although some of this increase may be due to more careful +discrimination between cases of malignant disease affecting the liver, +yet this explanation cannot account for the increase when both organs +are considered together. The subject is worthy of careful and +extended investigation, but even a cursory examination of the facts +now available indicate a real increase in the death-rate from cancer +in England, and probably in every other civilized country in the +world. + +[1] "During fourteen years ... the mortality from mammary cancer has +increased by about 29 per cent., NOTWITHSTANDING LIVES SAVED BY +IMPROVED METHODS OF OPERATION."--Registrar-General's Report for 1910, +p. 69. + +But all these phenomena are of secondary importance compared with the +great problem of medical science--the yet undiscovered cause of +malignant disease. During recent years the study of cancer has been +conducted with scientific enthusiasm in many laboratories. Vast sums +of money have been given, in the hope that these studies may one day +lead to the discovery of a cure. One whom I knew in his youth became +the heir of great wealth; lived to see one whom he loved perish from +the disease; was struck down himself, and dying, left a fortune for +the purpose of promoting research concerning cancer. And yet to-day +the problem, as attacked in the various laboratories of Europe and +America, is apparently as far from solution as it was forty years +ago. Sir Henry Butlin, ex-President of the Royal College of Surgeons, +England, is said to have operated on as many cases of cancer as any +surgeon of his day. Yet, speaking in October, 1911, he said: + +"I have been associated with the Imperial Cancer Research and in touch +with its staff from the foundation of the Research, and have been a +member of the publication committee of all its scientific reports. IT +HAS DONE NOTHING ON THE LINES IN WHICH OBSERVATION HAS BEEN SO +USEFUL. It has not unfolded the life-history of a single variety of +cancer, so that we can base our operations on the information. It has +not even discovered whether spontaneous cancer of a particular part of +the body in the rat or mouse runs a similar course to spontaneous +cancer of the same part of the body in the human subject. These +problems are not suited for experimental investigation; they are +determined by observation."[1] + +[1] Lancet, London, October 7, 1911. + +No "serum," no drug, no curative agency of any kind, has thus far been +discovered upon which the slightest dependence may be placed. The +only measure of relieve which medical science can now suggest is early +and complete extirpation. Of what proportion of cases even this +insures immunity we cannot tell. + +Without decrying what has been done in the laboratory, may it not be +that we have gone in that direction as far as there is any hope for +success, and that all effort should now be directed TO THE DISCOVERY +OF THE CAUSE OF MALIGNANT DISEASE IN HUMAN BEINGS? That great secret +still eludes us, but until we can penetrate that mystery, it is +difficult to perceive how we may hope to prevent the increasing +prevalence of the great destroyer . Yet there is one method of +investigation which (speaking from a study of cancer statistics for +more than twenty-five years) seems to me to offer, more than all +others, a reasonable hope of ultimate success. It is independent of +all sacrifice of animal life. It involves, however, an expenditure +far greater than is possible for any private investigator, and +probably only by the co-operation of the Government can it be +undertaken with any chance of success. Yet, if Society can once be +aroused to a recognition of the need for the completest possible +investigation concerning malignant disease, and particularly the +reasons for its differing prevalence among people of different +nationalities, habits, and general environment, that inquiry will take +place, even though it cost the price of a battleship. + +The subject is so vast and involved that it cannot be discussed with +any approach to completeness in a single essay. Suppose, however, +that we glance at the theory which regards cancer as due to a microbe +which in some mysterious ways gains admission into the human body, +lying for a time dormant, but liable under appropriate stimulation to +be awakened into malignant activity. We know at the outset that if +any such germ of disease exists, it has thus far escaped visual +recognition. No human eye can be said with certainty to have seen it, +even when aided by the most powerful microscope; but this may be due +to the fact that, like the germ of certain other diseases, it is so +minute that it lies beyond the range of human vision. There are, +however, certain facts pertaining to the disease which have +significance. We have already seen that in a given country there is a +kind of uniformity in the number of those dying from the disease from +year to year; but another phenomenon relates to the unequal pressure +in difference countries of the causes of the disease. + +1. THE DEATH-RATE FROM CANCER APPEARS GREATLY TO VARY ACCORDING TO +RACE AND ENVIRONMENT. + +CANCER DEATH-RATE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES PER 100,000 POPULATION + +--------------------------------------------------------------- +| Five-Year Periods. | Switzerland. | England. | Italy. | +|--------------------------|--------------|----------|--------| +| 1886-1890 .. .. | 114 | 63 | 43 | +| 1891-1895 .. .. | 122 | 71 | 44 | +| 1896-1900 .. .. | 127 | 80 | 51 | +| 1901-1905 .. .. | 128 | 87 | 55 | +--------------------------------------------------------------- + +Here is the record of a period of twenty years. These differences of +proclivity to cancer are exceedingly curious. Can the reader perceive +why they exist? + +The rate in England is quite 50 per cent. higher than that of Italy. +If we explain this by the hypothesis of greater skill in detecting the +disease, what are we to say of the cancer-rate in Switzerland, which +is 50 per cent. higher than that of England? + +But here is another curious fact. The United States census of 1900 +permits a contrast of the mortality of cancer according to the +birthplaces of mothers of those attacked. Here, for instance, is the +death-rate from cancer and tumour of persons of different nationality, +calculated in three sections of the country--the rural districts of +the registration area, the cities of the same section, and the cities +outside the registration area. + +DEATH-RATES IN THE UNITED STATES FROM CANCER AND TUMOUR PER 100,000 +WHITE POPULATION, ACCORDING TO THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE MOTHERS OF + PATIENTS + +--------------------------------------------------------------- +| | | | +| | Registration Area. | Other | +| COUNTRIES. |----------------------| Cities. | +| | Rural | Cities. | | +| | Districts. | | | +|--------------------------|------------|---------|-----------| +| Italy .. .. .. | 20 | 24 | 39 | +| Russia and Poland .. | 26 | 30 | 26 | +| England and Wales .. | 79 | 77 | 80 | +| Ireland .. .. | 90 | 82 | 86 | +--------------------------------------------------------------- + +How are these facts to be explained? What is there about the habits, +the environment, the dietetic peculiarities of the Italians in +America, which tends to confer upon them a greater immunity from +cancer than is possessed by those whose maternal ancestry goes to +England or Ireland? Assuredly this immunity is not due to chance. It +is governed by some law, even though that law be unrecognized to-day. +If the low cancer mortality of Italy made itself manifest only in that +country, we might suspect it indicated a lack of skilled diagnosis; +but here we find it just as prominent in three different section of +the United States. Not only that, but the difference is seen in +comparison of parts affected by cancer. For persons whose mothers +were born in Ireland the death-rate in cancer of the stomach per +million population was 184; the corresponding rate for Italians was +56. + +Does the poverty of the people have anything to do with proclivity to +cancer? In one way this is a probability. If we could compare the +general prosperity of men and women whose parents were born in the +United States with the entire population of which the parents were +born in other countries, it seems to me that we should find the second +class, taken as a whole, to be financially less prosperous than the +first. Now, in 1900, the census reveals that in the United States the +class to suffer chiefly from malignant diseasewas that which included +THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION, alike in cities, in rural districts, +within or without the registration area. This is certainly a fact of +tremendous import. In America the population is a blend of every +European nationality. Why, taken as a whole, should the native +American suffer from one mysterious disease less than some of those +who have come more recently to the United States? + +In another work I have ventured to suggest that if we are to discover +the cause of cancer, we must study the habits and customs of those +still living who have become the victims of some form of this +mysterious disease. A theory held by some is that cancer is due to +the consumption of meat. If one means that the flesh of perfectly +healthy animals is liable to cause cancer, the hypothesis is one for +which it seems to me that the evidence is far from being sufficient to +justify belief. But if, on the other hand, it is suggested that +malignant disease may be due to germs derived from animals which were +suffering from som form of cancer when they were killed for the food +of human beings, then much that is otherwise obscure becomes plain. +We should expect in such cases to find cancer more prevalent among the +poor than among the rich, and especially prevalent among those who, +from carelessness, or ignorance, or seeming necessity, consume the +cheaper kinds of meat. And since, both in their native land and in +America, the Italian population consumes less meat than peoples of +other nationalities, we should expect them to be less liable to be +infected by the germs of malignant disease. + +A few years ago a medical writer who has given much attention to this +disease published some of his investigations into the cancer +death-rate of Chicago. Taking the figures for a single year, he +discovered that the "cancer death-rate among the Irish and German +residents of Chicago is the highest in the world, being nearly 300 per +cent. higher than in their native countries."[1] Of each 10,000 +population of each nationality living at the age of forty years and +over, he found that the deaths from cancer among the Germans was 76, +among the Irish 70, among the Scandinavians 52, and among the natives +of Italy 24. It was found that, while the staple diet of Italians in +Chicago was macaroni and spaghetti, the people of other nationalities +among whom the cancer-rate was exceedingly high, "consume large +quantities of canned and preserved meats and sausages, OFTEN EATEN +UNCOOKED." He discovered that a large part of the fresh meat prepared +at the establishment of a certain slaughtering establishment in +Chicago was derived from animals which had been condemned on the ante- +mortem inspection, but the flesh of which was perimitted TO BE SOLD AS +PURE FOOD AFTER THE DISEASED PARTS HAD BEEN REMOVED. Sold thus at a +cheaper price, such meat was chiefly consumed by the poorer classes of +the foreign population. And while Dr. Adams does not adopt the +hypothesis of the cancer-germ, he does not think there can be "the +slightest question but that the increase in cancer among the foreign- +born over the prevalence of that disease in their native countries is +due to the increased consumption of animal foods, PARTICULARLY THOSE +DERIVED FROM DISEASED ANIMALS." + +[1] See article by Dr. G. Cooke Adams in Chicago Clinic of August, +1907, pp. 248-251. + +A statement like this is calculated to induce serious reflections. +The average reader finds it difficult to believe that, according to +the present interpretation of the law, the flesh of animals found to +be suffering from cancer at the time of their slaughter would be +permitted to pass into the world's food-supply. We are int the +presence of a great mystery. We do not know how the gret plague +originates. But no reflecting man or woman can be insensible to the +significance of possibilities when he learns that cancer affects +animals which are killed for food; that in the majority of cases the +disease affects some part of the digestive tract; that it chiefly +prevails among the very poorest classes of the population, excepting +only those like Italians, who use but little meat; and that, according +to the official regulations of the United States Government in force +to-day, THE FLESH DERIVED FROM CANCEROUS ANIMALS NEED NOT ALWAYS BE +DESTROYED AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. The cancerous tumour, the +affected parts, must indeed be cut away, and carefully condemned. The +disposition of the remainder of the meat is left to the decision of +the inspector! + +The regulation so far as it applies to meat of this kind, is as +follows: + +"ANY ORGAN OR PART of a carcass, which is badly bruised, or which is +affected by tumours, MALIGNANT or benign, ... shall be condemned; but +when the lesions are so extensive as to affect the whole carcass, the +whole carcass shall be condemned."[1] + +[1] Regulations governing Meat Inspection, U.S.A. Regulation No. 13, +section 23. See also Appendix VIII., p. 362. + +The meaning of this regulation would seem to be perfectly clear. +There is no demand by the Government that the entire carcass of an +animal affected by malignant disease shall be utterly destroyed for +food purposes, unless the disease has involved the entire body,--a +condition as rarely found among domesetic animals, as among human +beings. Otherwise than this, what is there in the official +regulations of the bureau governing meat inspection to prevent such +use of the flesh of diseased animals as the inspector may authorize? + +It seems to me that if science is ever to discover the cause of +malignant disease, there should be a careful study of all the +conditions under which the disease now manifests itself. The +mortality from cancer in the state of New York, in 1912, amounted to +8,234; in England, the number of those who perished from the disease +in 1911 was nearly 36,000. By what figure must we multiply this +mortality in order to ascertain the number of persons living who have +been affected, or who now are suffering from cancer? Nobody knows. +What has been the success of surgery in securing immunity from a +recurrence of the disease? So far as the entire country is concerned, +we are entirely ignorant. Is it true that among the class of people +in such cities as Chicago, where cancerous animals are used for food, +cancer is especially prevalent year after year? If true, it should be +fully known. Such facts must be ascertained, if ever we are to +penetrate the secret of the dissease. Even the number of victims of +each sex is not given in the mortality reports of the state of New +York at the present day. + +Let us suppose that the time comes, when with a realization of peril +pertaining to ignorance, public sentiment shall urge the attainment of +knowledge concerning cancer as it now affects the general population. +In what way is information of this character to be secured? Assuredly +not by any of the ordinary census methods, implying publicity. The +only practicable enumeration would be one conducted privately, by +members of the medical profession. Nor can it be done +parsimoniously. In the state of New York, there may be, to-day, +50,000 cases of malignant disease. To have every case, completely +reported, might cost the state half a million dollars. Perhaps even +the patient should be compensated. Certainly some method could be +adopted whereby the reports should be absolutely confidential, the +patient being known only by a number. But all this is of minor +consequence. When the necessity of the inquiry is everywhere +recognized, the details pertaining to accomplishment will be easily +arranged. + +Assuming the willingness of patients and friends to assist in making a +State-wide inquiry concerning the prevalence of malignant disease, let +us see in what directions the investigation will be conducted. + +FIRST. After securing the name, age, and place of birth of each +individual sufferer, and the particulars which would suggest +themselves to every physician or surgeon, inquiry should be made +concerning the parents; the names, nationality, religious faith, place +and date and cause of death. Especially should inquiry be made +whether there have been other cases of cancer in the family, and their +termination or present state. + +SECOND. What is the location of the suspected ailment? When were the +first symptoms manifested? To what cause, if any, were they ascribed? +Has any surgical operation been performed, and if so, what are the +details of time and place? Has recurrence followed operation? For what +period was there freedom from symptoms? + +Whatis the social position of the patient? Does he belong to that +class which is enabled always to select the best food, the most +sanitary dwellings, and all the conveniences of well-ordered and +comfortable existence; or, on the other hand, to the extremely poor +class, which disregards cleanliness, indulges to excess in the use of +stimulants, and consumes the poorest and cheapest kinds of meat? I +deem it of great importance that the completest possible information +be secured concerning the usual diet of every sufferer from this +disease. Is he a vegetarian? Are viands invariably well-cooked, or +eaten sometimes rare or raw? Is there a liking for the canned products +of the packing-house, or for sausage that comes from the same +source?[1] What is the water-supply? Within the knowledge of the +patient or friends, has there been any other case of malignant disease +in the same house? Is residence near any fresh-water lake or stream? + +[1] The relation between diseased meat and human ailments is treated +at length in my work on "American Meat," New York, 1909. + +These are suggestions only. They constitute merely an outline of the +information that is necessary, concerning the living sufferers, in +whom the disease has made its appearance. Doubtless the average +reader will discern no reason for all these inquiiries. Yet each one +has some pertinency to the possible discovery of the great secret. +Does inquiry concerning family history seem useless? It should have a +decided bearing on any theory of heredity. Does the occurrence of +near-by cases have no significance? We are not yet in a position to +state this as a fact. Does inquiry concerning religion seem +especially impertinent? What if some future investigation should prove +that cancer everywhere, is more prevalent among the Christians than +the Jews? Does the social condition of the sufferer seem to have no +relation to cause? What if we discover, that everywhere,--and not +among the foreign population of Chicago only,--cancer finds an undue +proportion of its victims among the poorest and most poverty-stricken +element of every nationality? Does suggestion of inquiry concerning +diet induce a smile? It should not, as long as meat derived from +cancerous animals is permitted by Government authority, to pass +inspection, and to be distributed throughout the world. And no +inquiry concerning cancer can be deemed complete which has not fully +investigated the extent to which this atrocious practice has been +carried on for the past quarter of a century. + +But this State-wide inquiry is only a part of the work. Every year, +for a period of at least ten years, the record must be revised, the +result of surgical operations recorded, the deaths enumerated, the new +cases added. The expense of each annual revision would be far less +than that of the original inquiry; but the inquiry will be costly, and +should be costly, if it is to be accurate and complete. Here, indeed, +would be the opportunity for the co-operation of organizations devoted +to "cancer research," and particularly of that new foundation, the +income of which for a single year is far more than the original +investigation would cost. + +And when the inquiry is completed; when all attainable information +concerning the occurrence of malignant disease shall have been secured +not for a single year, but for a period of successive years, not for +one community, but for an entire state, and for each of its +constitutuent parts, what then? Then I believe a knowledge of the +cause of cancer will soon be attained. When we know the cause, then +there will be hope for prevention, which is far better than cure. All +the various experiments upon mice, for example, whatever they may +teach concerning the disease in the lower animals, have not +enlightened us concerning the cause of the malady in mankind. The +greatest and most promising fields for scientific research, now almost +untrodden, awaits the explorers of the future. In a world where now +there is comparative unconcern, there may soon be fearful +apprehensions of the increasing prevalence of an almost irremediable +disease. Within the coming century, the investigation I have here +outlined, will sometime be made; and, as a result, the cause of cancer +may be as well known to medical science, as the causes of typhoid +fever or malaria,--mysteries that seemed insoluble less than a century +ago. And I venture with assurance to predict, that some time within +the next fifty years, the Governments of England and of the United +States, alarmed, it may be, by a continually increasing mortality from +cancer, will condemn under severest penalties, the sale for human food +of meat deriveed from animals affected by malignant disease,--no +matter how great may be the pecuniary loss to every slaughtering +establishment and packing-house in either land. The public awakening +to danger that must precede legislation cannot yet be discerned; and +before the national apprehension is aroused and apathy ceases, +probably more than a million lives will be sacrificed to cancer, in +England and America alone. + ------------------------------ +Note.--"The deaths ascribed to cancer or malignant disease in England +and Wales during 1912, numbered 37,323. The mortality of males was +913 per million living, as compared with 891 in 1911, and that of +females, 1,117, as compared with 1,098. IN THE CASE OF EACH SEX, +THESE RATES ARE THE HIGHEST ON RECORD."--From 75th Report of +Registrar-General, 1914, p. lxxxiii. + + + CHAPTER XVII + + THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION[1] + +[1] Address delivered at Washington, D.C., before the International +Humane Congress, December 10, 1913. + +Attempts to forecast the future development of Humanity in any +direction have always possessed for some minds a peculiar +fascination. Plato and Bacon had their visions of a State superior to +that in which they lived; Burton foresaw improvements in the +administration of justice, and the condition of the poorer classes, +which waited for two centuries for some measure of realization; even +Defoe had his list of "projects," some of which, laughed at in their +day, are the realities of our time. No great reform in any direction +was ever effected which had not been the unrealized vision of a +dreamer. + +And such dreams are the romance of history. For any one to have +imagined two centuries ago, that the African slave-trade and negro +slavery would some day be condemned by every civilized nation, not +because they were pecuniarily unprofitable, but because they +contravened the conscience of Society and its sense of righteousness, +requierd a faith in the ultimate triumph of justice over greed, that +not one man in ten thousand possessed. For Calvin or Torquemada to +have imagined the coming of a time when the burning of an unbeliever +would not be regarded as pleasing to the Deity, demanded a sublimer +vision than either of them possessed. Custom and universal acceptance +would sometimes seem to create impregnable barriers against change. +But with the slow lapse of years, the venerated custom is attacked by +doubt; the superstition is undermined, and the great evil gradually +passes from the sight. No great wrong is so securely entrenched, as +to be absolutely safe from the ultimate condemnation of mankind. + +What is to be the future of vivisection, as conducted in America to- +day? Is it to continue, without other limitations against cruelty than +those which are self-imposed, without legal restriction or restraint, +so long as civilization endures, ever widening its scope, ever +increasing the hecatombs of its victims, until uncounted milions shall +have been sacrificed? Is protest against excess to grow weaker, until +the ideal of humaneness in the laboratory shall become a scoff and a +byword? Is approval of any research in the name of Science to become +stronger until it shall cover the vivisection of human beings as well +as the exploitation of animals? Or are we to expect, as the result of +agitation, the legal suppression of all scientific research requiring +animal life, within the limits of the next half-century? It is easier +to ask questions than to answer them. Yet, as one who for over thirty +years, has taken some part in the agitation for reform, you may be +willing to permit a forecast of probabilities, vague, it may be, as +the vision of a sailor peering through the darkness that environs the +ship,--but the best he can do. + +No estimate of the future of vivisection in America can be of value +which does not recognize the power of the laboratory at the present +day. Half a century ago, the vivisection of animals was rarely +practised; to-day, in the older states, there are few institutions of +higher learning which do not possess ample facilities for animal +experimentation. Millionaires, many times over, have been induced to +devote some part of their great wealth to the foundation and support +of institutions for exsperimentation upon living things. Farms have +been established where animals destined to sacrifice, are born and +bred. It may safely be estimated that in America, to-day, there are +not less than five hundred times as many experiments every year, as +took place half a century ago. + +One must recognize, too, the change which has taken place in the +attitude of a majority of the medical profession towards this reform. +During the past thirty years, thousands of young men have entered the +profession, who have been carefully educated to regard all criticism +of animal experimentation as due to a sentimentalism worthy only of +contempt. I greatly doubt whether even one per cent. of the +physicians in America, under fifty years of age, have ever heard that +half a century ago, the feeling of the medical profession, in the +English-speaking world was almost unanimous in disapproval and +condemnation of methods and of experiments which now pass without +notice, and uncondemned. When men, educated to come into the closest +of relations with their fellow-beings, are thus prejudiced and +uninformed, should we wonder that their views are so widely accepted? +The wonder to me is rather that so large a minority are not to be +convinced that everything in a laboratory must be right. + +Another element of the forces that to-day are marshalled against +reform, is the Press. Political journals, which even twenty-five +years ago endeavoured to hold an attitude of impartiality, now present +editorials almost every week in ridicule of any legal regulation of +vivisection, or of any opposition to laboratory freedom. The intimate +knowledge of medical matters sometimes exhibited by the writers, would +seem to indicate a closer relation between the physiological +laboratory of to-day, and the editorial sanctum, than existed forty +years ago. There are journals, so closely related, apparently, to +laboratory interests, that they do not permit correction of editorial +misstatements or mistake to appear in their columns, even when such +blunders are pointed out. The old impartial attitude of the Press +seems--except here and there--to have completely disappeared. Any +forecast of the future must take into account this vast and ever- +increasing influence. + +Yet another impediment to the legal repression of any cruelty +pertaining to animal experimentation is one which we all deplore, even +though no remedy appears in sight. It is not the opposition of +enemies, but division among friends that constitutes, in my opinion, +the greatest present obstacle to any reform. It is as though against +some strong fortress, different armies were engaging in an attack, +each with its separate purpose, its own plan of campaign, its own +ultimate aim, and now and then crossing and recrossing in each other's +way, to the infinite delight of the enemy. Some of us make the demand +that ALL such inquiry on the part of Science shall be made a crime; +and some of us take the position of the English-speaking medical +profession of forty years ago, that ABUSES AND CRUELTY ALONE should be +the object of attack. If opposition from the first, had been solely +directed against ABUSES of vivisection, could any reform have been +achieved? It is not certain. When Mr. Rockefeller opened his purse on +the vivisection table, he added immeasurably to the strength of the +forces that resist reform. And yet it is difficult to over-estimate +the loss to any cause of such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, as +Professor William James and Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard +University, or of Dr. Theophilus Parvin of Jefferson Medical +College,--to refer only to the dead. Their criticisms of cruelty were +outspoken, but they could not join in universal condemnation of all +such inquiry into the phenomena of life. Might it not have been +better--even at the cost of a lessened demand--to have kept on the +side of reform that large element in the medical profession which +willingly condemned abuse, but declined to denounce the simplest +demonstration, or the most painless investigation? Of course such an +inquiry will receive different replies. It is ever the easier task to +make condemnation absolute. The thing has been done; the past is +beyond recall. But in looking at the future, we cannot but recognize +the changed attitude of a majority of the medical profession from that +of half a century ago. + +The strongest position of the modern physiological laboratory, is its +SECRECY. It occupies in the popular mind almost precisely the place +which was held for centuries by the Inquisition in Spain. There were +men who doubtless objected, then, to the secrecy of the dungeon. +"Trust us absolutely," cried the inquisitor. "Ours is the +responsibility of preventing errors that lead to eternal death. Can +you not leave it to us to decide what shall be done in the torture- +chamber, being assured that NO MORE PAIN WILL BE INFLICTED THAN IS +ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE END IN VIEW?" "Trust us absolutely," +demands the vivisector of to-day. "Can you dare to question the purity +of our motives, the unselfishness of our aims, the mild and humane +methods of our experimentation? Why should any one wish to disturb the +silence and secrecy in which we carry on our work? Cannot the public +leave it solely to us to determine what pain may be inflicted upon +animals, being certain that no more suffering will be caused than we +deem to be necessary for success?" + +The parallelism is complete. It is a call for implicit confidence. +And that confidence has been given by a too credulous public. Three +hundred years ago, when the victims were marched in long procession +from dungeon to burning-place, they were accompanied by an approving +mob, eager to inflict every indignity and to applaud every pang. The +men about the burning-place were not intentionally cruel. They had +simply given the control of their judgment to the inquisitor. Is it +so very different, to-day, in the matter of vivisection? Why should we +hesitate to recognize that at the present time, a large section of the +general public have made the same act of surrender, justifying +whatever the laboratory demands, and defending whatever it defends? + +It seems to me probable, therefore, that for many years to come, the +laboratory for vivisection, IF ONLY IT CAN MAINTAIN ITS SECRECY, will +continue as serenely indifferent to criticsm, as completely master of +the confidence of modern society, as supreme in power and position as +was the Spanish Inquisition of three centuries ago. New laboratories +will be founded upon ill-gotten wealth; new inquisitors, with salaries +greater than those of Washington or Lincoln will take the places of +those that retire; new theories, now unimagined, will demand their +tribute of victims to help prove or disprove some useless hypothesis; +even new methods of torment may be invented, and new excuses for their +necessity put forth. Nor is this all. If the laboratory of the +present day shall continue to maintain its hold upon the intelligence +of modern society; if it can keep unimpaired that confidence in its +benevolent purpose, that belief in accomplishment, that faith in +utility which now so largely obtains; and if, moreover, it can secure +for the charity hospital that absolute power and secrecy which it has +gained for itself in animal experimentation, then, within the lifetime +of men now living, human beings will take their place as "material" +for investigation of human ailments. Upon the living bodies of +Amerian soldiers, upon lunatics in asylums and babes in institutions +and patients in charity hospitals, experiments of this character have +already taken place. Is utility to Science to be considered the +standard by which human actions are to be judged? Then, even within +the present century, experimentation upon human beings may be openly +acknowledged as a defensible method of investigation. + +Now all this is not a cry of despair, a confession of defeat. It is +meant only to be rational recognition of existing conditions, and +especially of the forces that now prevent reform. Perhaps if the +armies were united, a different forecast could be made; but that union +is beyond hope. The enthusiasm that would expect to eliminate a great +evil on other terms, and within the space of time occupied by a single +generation does not seem to me to be justified by the records of +history. Of the ultimate triumph of the reform of vivisection, there +can be no more question than of the result of the agitation against +human slavery, against the torment of criminals, against the burning +of the heretic or the witch. In what way may we anticipate its +coming? + +We may be certain that a period will yet arrive, when among the more +intelligent classes of society, doubts concerning the practical +utility of all that is done in the name of Science will take the place +of present-day credulity. It is too soon to expect a general spirit +of inquiry to arise; the closed laboratory has not been so long in +existence but that a request for more time to demonstrate possibility +of accomplishment may seem not unreasonable. But some time in the +future, long after we have all passed away, the intellectual world may +be moved by the spirit of doubt and unrest; it will ask from the +laboratory a statement of account; it will demand that the books be +balanced; and that against the cost of agony and death, there be made +known whatever gains in way of discoveries of clearly demonstrated +value to humanity, can be proven to exist. + +Like the servant in the parable, the modern laboratory has been given +its ten talents. It enjoys a secrecy which is profound, all that +wealth can procure, and unrestricted opportunity for ever phase of +research. There is no limitation to the torments which it may +inflict, without impediment or fear of public criticism, if present +secrecy can be maintained. The conscience of modern society--so far +as vivisection is concerned,--would seem to have "journeyed into a far +country." But some day it may return to its own, and ask for an +accounting of its trust. + +And fifty years hence, if pressed for the proof of great achievement, +of grand discoveries, what evidence will then be produced by the +vivisection laboratory? How much of wealth will have been devoted to +fruitless explorations in desert regions? What vast fortunes will have +been paid out to professional explorers, whose work will have been in +vain? What proofs will the laboratory then be able to adduce of +"priceless discoveries" made within its walls, proofs resting not upon +the heated enthusiasm of the experimenter, but demonstrated by +statistical evidence of a decreased mortaility from the scourges of +disease? THAT is the test of utility, which may one day be applied not +merely to Mr. Rockefeller's creation, but to every laboratory in +England and America. Then, perhaps, it may not suffice to set forth +discoveries, as useless to mankind, as would be the demosntration of +gold and silver in the moon. Before the tribunal of an intelligent +public opinion,--not of our day, but of some distant epoch, the +justification of secret vivisection will assuredly be demanded. Will +it be given? Against the vast cost in money, cost in depravation of +the instinct of compassion, cost in the lessened sensitiveness of +young men and young women to the infliction of torment, cost in the +seeming necessity of defending and justifying cruelty, cost in the +temptation to exaggerate facts, cost in the countless hecatombs of +victims, non-existent to-day, yet doomed to perish in pain of which no +record and no use can be found,--against all this, what profit will be +adduced? Something? Undoubtedly. BUT SUFFICIENT TO BALANCE THE COST? +When that accounting is made, will the enlightened conscience of +humanity then grant condonation, because of great achievement, of all +that will have been done in the name of research, and of demonstration +of well-known facts? I cannot imagine it. + +What can we venture to forecast regarding the future of medical school +vivisections, made for the one purpose of fixing facts in memory? No +one qualified by any experience in teaching can doubt the value of +certain demonstrations. So far as they are performed upon animals +made absolutely unconscious to any senstation of pain, it is difficult +to suggest a condemnation that does not equally apply to the killing +of animals for food or raiment. But the medical school laboratory +seems to shrink from the public scrutiny. If there were no need for +secrecy, is it likely that every attempt to penetrate the seclusion of +the laboratory would be so strenuously opposed? OF WHAT IS THE +LABORATORY AFRAID? If the present methods of demonstration or teaching +of physiology are such as would meet general approval so far as their +painlessness is concerned, why fear to make them known? On the other +hand, if animals are subjected to prolonged and extreme torment for the +illustration of well-known and accepted facts; if students not only +witness, but are sometimes required to perform for themselves +experiments as agonizing and as useless as any that ever disgraced the +torture-chambers of Magendie, we can well understand why immunity from +criticism can only be secured by concealment and secrecy. Opposition +to publicity or to investigation by the Government is quite +conceivable, if there be something which must be hidden out of sight. + +In the long-run, the policy of concealment must fail, and the whole +truth be known. Then, indeed, we may hope for the beginning of +reform. That fifty or a hundred years hence, all utilization of +animals, whether for food or raiment or scientific ends will have +absolutely ceased in England and America I am not able to believe. +But I am very sure that before this century closes, the subjection of +animals to pain for the demonstration of well-known facts will have +come to an end; that agonizing experiments will have ceased; that +every laboratory wherein animals are ever used for experimental +purposes will be open to inspection "from cellar to garret," as +Professor Bigelow of Harvard Medical School said they should be; and +that except as a shield for crime, the secrecy which now enshrouds the +practice will for ever have disappeared. + +We are living to-day in a period of unrest and change, such as the +world has never known before. A new social consciousness has awakened +throughout the civilized world, a feeling that for those who are to +come after us, life should be happier and better than it is. Humanity +is advancing toward its ideals by leaps and bounds, where once it +slowly crept. Every social problem, from the prevention of cruelty, +the suppression of vice, the rescue of the submerged, to the abolition +of poverty itself, is to-day more in the thought of humanity than ever +before in the history of the world. We are but just beginning to +learn our duties to human beings of other races; may we not be assured +that the more sensitive conscience of the future will define with +authority, our duties to the humbler sharers of this mysterious gift +of life? Already, Science has told us, that far in the past, we had +the same origin; and surely, when some higher ideal than utility to +ourselves, shall dominate human conduct, there will be a new +conception of JUSTICE toward every sentient being. It may mean +extinction of species; but it will notmean their torment. You and I +cannot hope for life long enough to see the realization of that +dream. And yet, sometimes I have wondered whether it be so far +distant as I have feared. But a little while ago, who of us could +have imagined that in our day, the Government of the United States +would listen to the cries of little birds, starving on their nests in +the swamps of Florida, and prohibit the importation of the egret +plumes? How much of hopefulness for the final triumph of th +eprinciples of humaneness lies in the passage of such a law! + +I fancy that one day, all noxious animals, and especially those which +prery upon other creatures, will largely, if not entirely, disappear. +It is calculated that ever grown lion in South Africa kills for food, +every year, between 200 and 300 harmless animals, and each one of +which is as much entitled as the lion to the happiness of existence. +In great museums to-day, we see the remains of creatures, like the +sabre-toothed tiger, that lived probably, over a million years ago. +In a century or two, hence, the skeletons of the panther, the tiger, +the leopard and the lion, will be found in the same halls of science, +with those of other extinct species, that could exist only at the +expense of others' lives. + +Some day the question of vivisection will be merged in the larger +problem, the adjustment of man's relations to animals on the basis of +JUSTICE. We who are assembled here to-day, certainly are not +forgetful of other cruelties than those which pertain to animal +experimentation. In the awful torment endured for days by animals +caught in steel traps in order that their death may contribute to the +adornment of women and the luxury of men; in the killing of seals, +accompanied by the starvation of their young; in the great variety of +blood-sports; in the slaughter of animals, destined for human food, in +all these, as well as in the cruelties that have pertained to +physiological inquiries, we see exemplified man's present indifference +to the highest ethical ideals. We do not oppose one phase of cruelty; +WE OPPOSE THEM ALL. And we may be assured, that when the day dawns in +which humanity shall seek to govern conduct by the ideal of universal +justice, then in some more blessed age than ours, the evils of +vivisection not only, but all phases of cruelty and injustice will for +ever cease. + + + CHAPTER XVIII + + THE FINAL PHASE: EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN + +There is one phase of scientific research which cannot be passed in +silence. It is experimentation upon human beings. That "no +experiments on animals are absolutely satisfactory unless confirmed +upon man himself," a well-known vivisector has asserted; and no one +acquainted with the trend of events, could doubt the coming of a time +when opportunity for such "confirmation" would be given, and when a +more precious and a less costly "material" than domestic animals would +be used for investigations of this kind. Writing many years ago, a +distinguished jurist declared that "to whomsoever in the cause of +Science, the agony of a dying rabbit is of no consequence, it is +likely that the old or worthless man will soon be a thing which in the +cause of learning, may well be sacrificed." + +It is necessary at the outset, however, to draw a careful distinction +between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem to be +legitimate and right, and those other pases of inquiry which are +clearly immoral. It is, of course, to be expected that certain +experimenters upon human being will endeavour to confound both phases +of inquiry in the public estimation; and yet there is no difficulty in +drawing clear distinctions between them. Let us see what differences +may be perceived between the experimentation upon human beings which +is laudable and right, and the other phase of inquiry which Society +should condemn. + +I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being, +conscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely +for the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and, +if practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and +right. In the practice of medicine, there must always be a "first +time" when a new method of medical treatment is tested, a new +operation performed, a new remedy employed. Whether the procedure +pertain to medicine or surgery, so long as the amelioration of the +patient is the one purpose kept in view, IT IS LEGITIMATE TREATMENT. +The motive determines the morality of the act. + +II. Now human vivisection is something quite different. It has been +defined as "the practice of subjecting to experimentation human +beings--men, women, or children, usually inmates of public +institutions--by methods liable to involve pain, distress, injury to +health, or even danger to life, without any full, intelligent, +personal consent, FOR NO OBJECT RELATING TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, +BUT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SOME SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY." + +The distinction is a perfectly clear one. Under the term "human +vivisection" only those experiments are included which have some of +these characteristics: + +1. THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE PERSONAL +WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE EXPERIMENT IS +MADE. + +2. The experiment is liable to cause some degree of pain, discomfort, +distress, or injury to the health, or danger to the life of the person +upon whom it is performed. The defence often made that no real injury +resulted from the experiment, cannot palliate the offence against +personal rights. + +3. The experiment is performed without the intelligent, and full +consent of the individual experimented upon. Such legal consent of +course is impossible to obtain from children, from the feeble-minded, +or from lunatics in public institutions. + +It is the purpose of this chapter to demonstratte that such +experiments upon human beings have been performed. Naturally, it will +be impossible to quote the cases in full. Enough, however, will be +given to prove that the charge of human experimentation is not the +exaggeration of ignorance or sentimentality; that such methods of +research have been practised upon the sick, the friendless, the poor +in public institutions, without their knowledge or intelligent +consent; that they are in vogue even in our own time; and that +hospitals and institutions, founded in many cases, for charitable +purposes, have lent their influence and aid in furnishing either +victims or experimenters. + +Commenting upon certain human vivisections in Germany, the British +Medical Journal declared in its editorial columns: + +"Gross abuses in any profession should not be hushed up, but should +rather bemade public as freely as possible, so as to rouse public +opinion against them and thus render their repetition or spread +impossible. And therefore we have reason to thank the newspaper +Vorw"arts for dragging into light the experiments made by Dr. Strubell +on patients.... The whole medical profession must reprobate cruelties +such as these perpetrated in the name of Science."[1] + +[1] British Medical Journal, July 7, 1900, p. 60. + +It is this sentiment which justifies present publicity. The cases to +which attention will be directed are not many; but they suffice to +illustrate the practice, and to enable the reader to decide whether +such experiments should meet approval or condemnation. + + + I. The Case of Mary Rafferty + +An instance of human vivisection which ended by the death of the +victim, occurred some years ago in the Good Samaritan Hospital in +Cincinnati. It would be difficult to suggest a name for a hospital +more suggestive of kindly consideration for the sick and unfortunate: +and to this charitable institution, there came one day a poor Irish +servant girl by the name of Mary Rafferty. + +She was not strong, either mentally or physically. Some years before, +when a child, she had fallen into an open fire, and in some way had +severely burned her scalp. In the scar tissue an eroding ulcer-- +possibly of the nature of cancer,--had appeared; and it had progressed +so far that the covering of the brain substance had been laid bare. +No cure could be expected; but with care and attention she might +possibly have lived for several months. We are told that she made no +complain of headache or dizziness; that she seemed "cheerful in +manner," and that "she smiled easily and frequently,"--doubtless with +the confidence of a child who without apprehension of evil, feels it +is among friends. The accident, however, had made her good +"material"; she offered opportunity for experimentation of a kind +hitherto made only upon animals. "It is obvious," says the +vivisector, "that it is exceedingly desirable to ascertain how far the +results of experiments on the brain of animals may be employed to +elucidate the functions of the human brain."[1] + +[1] This case, under the significant title, "Experimental +Investigations into the Functions off the Human Brain," is related at +length in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 93 +(N.S., 67). + +At the outset the experiments seem to have been somewhat cautiously +made. Nobody knew exactly what would be the result. The experimenter +began by inserting into Mary Rafferty's brain, thus exposed by +disease, needle electrodes of various lengths, and connecting them +with a battery. As a result, her arm was thrown out, the fingers +extended, but in the brain substance no pain was felt. Presently, as +the experimenter grew bolder, other phenomena appeared. The +vivisector shall tell the story in his own words: + +"The needle was now withdrawn from the left lobe, and passed in the +same way into the (brain) substance of the right. ... When the needle +entered the brain substance, SHE COMPLAINED OF ACUTE PAIN IN THE +NECK. IN ORDER TO DEVELOP MORE DECIDED REACTIONS, the strength of the +current was increased by drawing out the wooden cylinder one inch. +When communication was made with the needles, HER COUNTENANCE +EXHIBITED GREAT DISTRESS, and she began to cry. Very soon, the left +hand was extended as if in the act of taking hold of some object in +front of her; the arm presently was agitated with clonic spasms; her +eyes became fixed with pupils widely dilated; lips were blue, and SHE +FROTHED AT THE MOUTH; HER BREATHING BECAME STERTOROUS; SHE LOST +CONSCIOUSNESS AND WAS VIOLENTLY CONVULSED. The convulsion lasted five +minutes, and was succeeded by coma. She returned to consciousness in +twenty minutes from the beginning of the attack." + +The experiment was a success. Upon the body of the poor servant girl, +the distinguished vivisector had produced the "violent epileptiform +convulsion" which Fritsch and Hitzig and Ferrier had induced in +animals, by the same method of experimentation. + +There are those who feel that further vivisecting should have then +ceased, and that Mary Rafferty should have been allowed to die in +peace. Such views, however, were not permitted by the experimenter to +interfere with his zeal for scientific research. Other "observations" +were made, and the needles were again passed into the brain, evoking +almost the same phenomena. The final experiments were thus described +by the vivisector:[1] + +"Two days subsequent to observation No. 4, Mary was brought into the +electrical room with the intention to subject the posterior lobes (of +the brain) to galvanic excitation. The proposed experiment was +abandoned. SHE WAS PALE AND DEPRESSED; HER LIPS WERE BLUE, AND SHE +HAD EVIDENT DIFFICULTY IN LOCOMOTION. She complained greatly of +numbness.... On further examination, there was found to be decided +PARESIS and rigidity of the muscles of the right side.... She became +very pale; her eyes closed; and she was about to pass into +unconsciousness, when we placed her in the recumbent posture, and +Dr. S. gave her, at my request, chloroform by inhalation. + +"The day after observation No. 5, MARY WAS DECIDEDLY WORSE. She +remained in bed, was stupid and incoherent. In the evening she had a +convulsive seizure.... AFTER THIS, SHE LAPSED INTO PROFOUND +UNCONSCIOUSNESS, AND WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLETELY PARALYZED ON THE RIGHT +SIDE.... The pupils were dilated and motionless." + +[1] Italics not in original. + +When did death come to her release? We do not know; the omission is +significant; it may have been within a few moments. The next sentence +in the report is headed by the ominous word, "AUTOPSY." The brain was +taken out, and the track of the needles traced therein. One needle +had penetrated an inch and a half. There was evidence of "INTENSE +VASCULAR CONGESTION." + +In cases like this, the investigation of a coroner apparently is not +required. The experimenter himself was the physician to the +hospital. He tells us of course that Mary's death was due to an +extension of the disease, for the relief of which she had been led to +the "Good Samaritan Hospital." Of the real cause of death, there was +apparently but little doubt among scientific men. An English +vivisector, Dr. David Ferrier, whose experiments upon monkeys had +perhaps first suggested their repitition on a living human brain, +questioned somewhath the propriety of the American experiments. In a +letter to the London Medical Record, he referred to "the depth of +penetration of the needles"; the "occurrence of epileptiform +convulsions FROM THE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF THE IRRITATION WHEN THE +CURRENTS WERE INTENSIFIED," and declared that the "EPILEPTIC +CONVULSIONS AND ULTIMATE PARALYSIS are clearly accounted for by the +inflammatory changes" thus induced. + +That the experiments had been to some extent injurious to his victim, +the vivisector himself, in a letter to the British Medical Journal, +very cautiously admitted.[1] He regretted, he said, that the new facts +which he had hoped would further the progress of Science were obtained +at the expense of SOME injury to the patient. She was, however, +"HOPELESSLY DISEASED,"--as if that fact tended to justify her +martyrdom! "THE PATIENT CONSENTED TO HAVE THE EXPERIMENTS MADE." Is +not this excuse the very height of hypocrisy? Twice, he had stated in +his report of the case, that the young woman was "RATHER FEEBLE- +MINDED"; he suggests that this poor, ignorant, feeble-minded servant- +girl was mentally capable of giving an intelligent consent to repeated +experiments upon her brain, the possible result of which even HE could +not foresee! + +[1] British Medical Journal, May 30, 1874, p. 727. + +Who made these experiments? It was Dr. Roberts Bartholow, at that time +the physician of the "Good Samaritan Hospital" in Cincinnati. His +biographer says that he gained no credit "for his candour in reporting +the whole affair,"--a hint, the significance of which for future +experimenters, it is not very difficult ot perceive. Yet his +treatment of Mary Rafferty was no bar to his professional +advancement. Not long after his victim was in her grave, one of the +oldest medical schools in the country,--Jefferson Medical College of +Philadelphia--offered him a professor's chair; and for several years +he was Dean of the medical faculty of that institution. + +It might seem impossible that any physician of the present day would +care to come forward in defence of this experiment. Yet forty years +after the deed was perpetrated, such justification was apparently +attempted in an American journal, and republished in a pamphlet issued +by the American Medical Association.[1] It would seem at the outset +that only by suppression of the worst facts relating to the case, +could any defence be essayed. WAS THERE ANY SUCH SUPPRESSION OF +MATERIAL FACTS? Let us see. + +[1] "The Charge of Human Vivisection," by Richard M. Pearce, M.D., +Journal of the American Medical Association, February 28, 1914. + +Did any injury to Mary Rafferty result from these experiments upon her +brain? Bartholow himself admits some injury; he says that to repeat +the experiments "would be in the highest degree criminal." The modern +apologist, however will have it otherwise. At the beginning of the +experiment, she smiled as if amused; and this, he tells us, "whows +that she did not object, that the pain was not severe, AND THAT NO +HARM WAS DONE HER." Is this a fair summary of the symptoms elicited +during these experiments upon the brain? Why did the apologist mention +only the "smile," and neglect altogether to mention the other symptoms +reported by Dr. Bartholow? Why does he pass in silence her complain of +"ACUTE PAIN IN THE NECK," the "GREAT DISTRESS" EXHIBITED, THE ARM +AGITATED WITH CLONIC SPASMS, THE FIXED EYES, THE WIDELY DILATED +PUPILS, THE BLUE LIPS, THE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH, THE STERTOROUS +BREATHING, THE VIOLENT CONVULSION lasting for five minutes and the +succeeding unconsciousness lasting for twenty minutes? Why does the +apologist leave unmentioned the symptoms following the subsequent +experiments,--the pallor and depression, the blue lips, the difficulty +in locomotion, the decided paresis and rigidity of muscles, the +profound unconsciousness, THE FINAL PARALYSIS? Do omissions like these +suggest an ardent desire to present the whole truth of the matter for +the information of the public? + +The defender of the experiments tells us: + +"It is not an uncommon procedure in neurologic surgery, to stimulate +after operation, in conscious patients, certain areas of the brain. +This procedure is a familiar one to all neurologists, and it is +THEREFORE DIFFICULT to understand why so much has been made of these +early observations in Cincinnati."[1] + +[1] Italics not in original. + +Aside from the astounding confession contained in this admission of +familiar procedure, it is difficult to understand what is meant by +this paragraph. Is it a suggestion that these experiments upon Mary +Rafferty were observations following a remedial surgical operation? +It is surely impossible that this can be the meaning; for in the +original account of the "Investigations into the function of the human +brain," there is not a line in support of such hypothesis. The reader +may make his own interpretation of a paragraph which seems exceedingly +obscure. + +No apology for these experiments could be complete, which did not +refer to the alleged "consent." It is thus presented: + +"If the patient under these circumstances consented to the +observations described, it would appear to be a matter between herself +and the physician making the observations." + +This is the view of the matter which the apologist invites us to +accept. On the one side, stands a poor, ignorant, feeble-minded Irish +servant girl, full of faith and implicit trust in the benevolence of +those about her; on the other a learned scientist, eager, as he says, +"to ascertain how far the results of experiments on the brains of +animals may be employed to elucidate the functions of the human +brain"; and her "consent" to procedures the purpose and dangers of +which she knows nothing,--to experiments involving her life, are +suggested as a justification of whatever was done, and as a matter +with which Society need have no concern! + +Upon such methods of vindication every intelligent reader may form his +own judgment. He will doubtless reach the conclusion that such vital +omission of essential facts,--no matter whether accidental or +intentional,--absolutely nullifies the value of the entire apology. +Let us hope that the next defender of these experiments, writing not +only for the instruction of the medical profession but also for the +general public, will proceed along somewhat different lines; that +every symptom which Bartholow mentions, he will mention also; that if +he speaks of the "CONSENT" of the victim, he will frankly tell us that +it was consent of one whom the experimenter himself called rather +"feeble-minded"; and that if he thinks other palliating circumstances +exist, he will at least graciously furnish us with references to the +evidence presented by the experimenter, upon which he grounds his +belief. + + II. Experiments with Poison. + +Of all experiments upon patients in hospitals, probably one of the +boldest was Dr. Sydney Ringer, physician to the University College +Hospital in London. His position in this institution gave him a +peculiarly favourable opportunity for the utilization of the human +"material" under his care. The experiments upon his patients were +frankly reported by himself, and were published in his well-known work +on Therapeutics.[1] For the most part these experiments were made with +poisonous drugs. Are we justified in classing them as human +vivisections? If in any case, the drug can be shown to have been +administered for the welfare of the patient, it was legitimate medical +treatment, to which criticism does not apply. Were the drugs so +administered? The experimenter shall describe his work in his own +language. + +[1] "Handbook of Therapeutics," by Sydney Ringer, M.D. Eighth +edition, William Wood and Co., New York. + + Poisoning with Salicine + +"In conjunction with Mr. Bury, I have made some investigations +concerning the action of salicine on the human body, USING HEALTHY +CHILDREN FOR OUR EXPERIMENTS, to whom we gave doses sufficient to +produce toxic (poisonous) symptoms. We tested the effects of salicine +in three sets of experiments ON THREE HEALTHY LADS. To the first two, +we gave large doses, and produced decided symptoms.... Under toxic +(poisonous) but not dangerous doses, the headache is often very +severe, so that the patient buries his head in the pillow. There may +be very marked muscular weakness and tremour...." + +Another "set of experiments" was made on a boy ten years old, who had +been brought to the hospital to be treated for belladonna poisoning. +"Our observations," said Dr. Rigner, "were not commnced TILL SOME DAYS +AFER HIS COMPLETE RECOVERY." Among effects of the experiment was a +severe headache,--"so severe that the lad shut his eyes and buried his +head in his arm...became dull and stupid, lying with his eyes +closed...." + +Other experiments were made upon a boy only nine years old, almost +well from an attack of pneumonia, the temperature having become normal +over a week before. Dr. Ringer's experiment went so far as to give +him apparently considerable apprehension. He speaks of the flushed +face, the trembling hand, and lips, the laboured breathing, the +spasmodic movements of limbs. + +"These symptoms were at their height at midday, and were so marked, +and the pulse and respirations so quick, that we must confess we felt +a little relief when the toxic (poisonous) symptoms which became FAR +MORE MARKED THAN WE EXPECTED, abated; not that at any time the boy was +dangerously ill; but as the symptoms progressed, after discontinuing +the medicine, WE DID NOT KNOW HOW LONG AND TO WHAT DEGREE THEY MIGHT +INCREASE." (!) + +What shall be said of experiments like these, made upon children who +had almost or quite recovered from ailments for which medical advice +was sought? + + Poisoning with Ethyl-Atropium. + +This drug has no recognized medical use. In order to make experiments +with it upon patients under his care, Dr. Ringer was obliged to have +it specially manufactured. He refers to "our experiments upon man," +and states that the poisonous substance + +"produces decided but transient paralysis, THE PATIENT BEING UNABLE TO +STAND OR WALK, and the head dropping rather toward the shoulder or +chest, and the upper eyelids drooping."[1] + +[1] Ringer's "Therapeutics," p. 534. + + Experiments with Tartar-Emetic, or Antimony. + +Of this poison, an American authority tells us that "the fraction of a +grain" may be followed by a fatal result. Dr. Ringer states, +nevertheless, that, + +"TO A STRONG YOUNG MAN, I gave tartar-emetic in the 1/2-grain doses +every ten minutes for nearly seven hours, INDUCING GREAT NAUSEA AND +VOMITING with profuse perspiration."[2] + +[2] Ibid., p. 273 + +Twenty-one grains of antimony administered to "a strong young man," +though a fatal result may be inducted by a fraction of a single grain! + + Poisoning with Alcohol. + +With this substance, Dr. Ringer tells us he made a great many +observations "every quarter of an hour for several hours ON PERSONS OF +ALL AGES.... After poisonous doses, the depression (of temperature) in +one instance reached nearly three degrees." + +Does this sinister confession mean that even infants were the objects +of his scientific zeal? It is certain that some children were +subjected to this experiment, for he says: + +"In a boy aged ten, who had never in his life before taken alcohol in +any form, I found through A LARGE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS, a constant +and decided reduction of temperature." + +Is there any parent who would be willing to have his ten-year-old boy +subjected to an experiment like this? + + Poisoning with Nitrate of Sodium. + +"To eighteen adults, fourteen men and four women, we ordered 10 grains +of pure nitrate of sodium in an ounce of water, and of these, +seventeen declared they were unable to take it.... One man, a burly +strong fellow, suffering from a little rheumatism only, said that +after taking the first dose, he felt giddy as if he `would go off +insensible.' His lips, face, and hands turned blue, and he had to lie +down an hour and a half before he dared moved. His heart fluttered, +and he suffered from throbbing pains in the head. He was urged to try +another dose, but declined on the ground THAT HE HAD A WIFE AND +FAMILY...."[1] + +[1] The London Lancet, November 3, 1883, p. 767 + +When this account of hospital experimentation first appeared in the +Lancet, another medical journal made the following comment: + +"In publishing, and indeed, in instituting these reckless experiments +on the effect of nitrate of sodium on the human subject, Professor +Ringer and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false move, which the +ever watchful opponenets of vivisection will not be slow to profit +by.... It is impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet +without distress. Of eighteen adults to whom Drs. Ringer and Murrill +administered the drug in 10-grain doses--all but one avowed they would +expect to drop down dead if they ever took another dose. One woman +fell to the ground, and lay with throbbing head and nausea for three +hours; another said it turned her lips quite black, and upset her so +that she was afraid that she would never get over it.... One girl +vomited for two hours and thought she was dying. All these +observations are recorded with an innocent naivete as though the idea +that anyone could possibly take exception to them were far from the +writers' minds. But whatever credit may be given to Drs. Ringer and +Murrill for scientific enthusiasm, it is impossible to acquit them of +grave indiscretion. THERE WILL BE A HOWL THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IF IT +COMES OUT that officers of a public charity are in the habit of trying +SUCH USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS on the patients committed to their +care...."[1] + +[1] Medical Times and Gazette, November 10, 1883. + +"CRUEL AND USELESS EXPERIMENTS ON PATIENTS"--that was the judgment of +a medical journal of the day. Any stronger condemnation now is hardly +necessary. + +What is the judgment of the reader upon investigations of this +character? Here we have a physician making use of the bodies of his +patients for the testing of poisonous drugs, apparently without the +slightest regard for the poor and ignorant fellow-beings who had +confidently placed themselves under his care. Can such +experimentation as this be termed anything but human vivisection? Once +we admit that patients in hospitals have no rights superior to +scientific demands, and there is hardly a limit to which such +experimentation may not be carried on the poor, the ignorant, the +feeble-minded and the defenceless. + + III. Experiments involving the Eye + +Recent experiments with tuberculin, made upon the eyes of children and +other patients in public institutions, seem in many cases to have been +carried to an extent not easily justified by ordinary ethical ideals. +It is impossible to quote all the cases of this phase of human +experimentation; but enough can be given to afford any reader the +opportunity of judging the morality of the practice. + +The experiments in question had one or more of the following +characteristics, distinguishing them from ordinary medical treatment: + +1. They were made indiscriminately upon large numbers of children or +adults, who were under treatment for various ailments. +2. They appear to have been purely experimental in character, and +without purpose of individual benefit. +3. They seem to have involved in some cases considerable discomfort or +pain and the risk of irreparable injury to the sight. +4. Dying children apparently were not exempt from experimentation. + +A recent medical writer, defding the experiments, points out that the +tuberculin test could not convey the infection. The test, he says, + +"depends on the principle that if a fluid in which tubercle bacilli +have grown, and which therefore contains the chemical products of +their growth is injected into an animal or person suffering from +tuberculosis, a transient increase of temperature occurs, and +constitutes the chief sign of a positive reaction.... Later it was +found that if the diluted tuberculin was placed on the surface of the +eye, there followed in tuberculous persons, a reddening or congestion +of the eye, which might go on to the stage of mild conjunctivitis."[1] + +[1] Journal of the American Medical Association, February 28, 1914. + +Is this a fair summary of the dangers of the eye-test? Let us see what +the experimenters tell us. + +In the Archives of Internal Medicine for December 15, 1908, two +experimenters describe their work. When a drop of turberculin +solution is instilled into the eye of certain cases, there occurs, +they say, an infetion which varies in intensity in different +individuals, "usually attended by lachrimation and moderate fibrinous +or fibro-purulent exudation WHICH MAY GO ON TO PROFUSE SUPPURATION." +This "profuse suppuration" is something rather more severe than the +symptoms described by the apologist just quoted. + +The experimenters say: + +"Practically, all our patients were under eight years of age, and all +but twenty-sex of them were inmates of St. Vincent's Home, an +institution with a population of about four hundred, COMPOSED OF +FOUNDLINGS, ORPHANS, AND DESTITUTE CHILDREN. The cases in the Home +were tested in routine by wards, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CONDITIONS FROM +WHICH THEY WERE SUFFERING, and in the great majority of instances +without any knowledge of their physical condition prior to, or at the +time that the tests were applied. We purposely deferred the physical +examination of these children until after the tests had been applied." + +Would any medical practitioner, called to the house of a wealthy man +to examine his ailing child, purposely defer its physical examination +until after this eye-test had been applied? + +Many of the children were suffering from various ailments at the time +this test was made. Some had rickets, some typhoid fever, some +whooping-cough, pleurisy, pneumonia or heart disease. Some of them +were already near their end; in one case we are told that the "tests +were applied within eight days of death"; upon another emaciated +infant, the test was "applied three days before death." Infancy earned +no immunity from experimentation, for the eye-test was said to have +been applied "to seventeen infants, ranging in age from four weeks to +five months." In this group of cases, one infant was tested within the +last twenty-four hours of its pitiful and painful existence. + +What were the possible consequences of these tests upon the sight of +the orphans and foundlings of St. Vincent's Home? The experimenters +frankly confess that at the outset they did not know. + +"Before beginning application of the conjunctival test, WE HAD NO +KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SERIOUS RESULTS FROM ITS USE.... It has the great +disadvantage of producing a decidedly uncomfortable lesion, and it is +not infrequently followed by serious inflammations of the eye, which +not only produce great physical discomfort and require weeks of active +tratment, BUT WHICH MAY PERMANENTLY AFFECT THE VISION, AND EVEN LEAD +TO ITS COMPLETE DESTRUCTION.... W ehave had a number of verbal reports +of eye complications, some of them relating to very serious +conditions; and we are sure they are much commoner than the references +we have communicated would indicate.... In fact we are strongly of the +opinion that any diagnostic procedure which will so frequently result +in serious lesions of the eye has no justification in medicine...." + +The conclusions concernng the occasionally disastrous consequences of +this eye-test were shortly confirmed by other experimenters. During +the following year, two Massachusetts physicians reported a study made +in "the out-patient clinic of the Carney Hospital and the +Massachusetts Chartiable Eye and Ear Infirmary," and they add: "We are +most indebted to the staff of the latter institution for allowing us +to make use of their material.... We have discarded the conjunctival +test, AS BEING OCCASIONALLY PRODUCTIVE OF DISASTROUS RESULTS." + +In May, 1909, two Baltimore physicians reported their trials with two +forms of the tuberculin tests, "the result of over a year of +experience with patients coming to the Phipps Dispensary of the Johns +Hopkins Hospital." A year later they make an additional report. + +"In May, 1909, we reported the results of the conjunctival and +cutaneous test in 500 patients. The present report deals with 1,000 +additional patients to whom these tests were administered, and who +formed THE UNSELECTED MATERIAL OF AN AMBULANT CLINIC, the Phipps +Dispensary of the Johns Hopkins Hospital." + +They, too, suggest the necessity for caution in making this +experiment. If a drop of the tuberculin, first in one eye and then in +the other, produced no reaction, + +"we refrained from further instillations, fearing the possible +intensity of a reaction consequent upon a second instillation of +tuberculin into an eye. Our fear is based on evidence, gathered +accidentally, that a second instillation may give a positive and even +a severe reaction in a case in which a similar test gave a negative +result. + +In January, 1909, one of the professors connected with the College of +Physicians and Surgeons, New York, published a "Report upon one +thousand Tuberculin tests in young children." He says: + +"The observations included in the following report were all made at +the Babies' Hospital upon ward patients. Very few of the children +were over three years of age, the majority being under two years.... +In the early part of the year, unless some positive contra-indication +existed, some test, more frequently the eye-test, was used as a +routine measure in order to determine whether and under what +circumstances reactions were obtained in HEALTHY CHILDREN, or in those +at least PRESUMABLY NON-TUBERCULAR."[1] + +[1] Archives of Pediatrics, January, 1909. + +This is perfectly plain. Healthy children, or children presumably +without any symptoms of tuberculosis, were experimented upon in order +to see whether a positive reaction could be obtained. Of 555 cases of +infants subjected to this test, who were presumably not tubercular, +only two gave a positive reaction, although there were seven cases in +which the reaction was doubtful. + +We are told by this writer that "care was taken not to use tuberculin +in an eye which was the seat of any form of disease, tuberculous or +otherwise," and to this precaution, he ascribes his freedom "from +unpleasant results." He insists that "on account of the kind of +observation necessary, and the possible dangers connected with the +eye-test, it is not wise to employ it indiscriminately, as among the +out-patients of a hospital." Undoubtedly this is true; and he repeats +the advice: the ophthalmic test "CANNOT WELL BE USED IN AMBULATORY +PATIENTS." Yet we have just seen that the test WAS thus used in the +large number of cases "who formed the unselected material of an +ambulant clinic" from another well-known hospital dispensary. + +The final judgment of the experimenter does not appear to be entirely +favourable to the test involving the eye, though he insists that with +proper precautions it is safe. Taken apart from the physical signs +and general symptoms, the tests may mislead. "Some failures and some +unexplained reactions occurred with all the tests." Even though safe, +yet + +"an intense or prolonged reaction sometimes occurs which is not +pleasant to see; besides, in pathological conditions of the eye, +DISASTROUS RESULTS MAY FOLLOW. THE EYE IS TOO DELICATE AND IMPORTANT +AN ORGAN TO BE USED AS A TEST WHEN ANY OTHER WILL ANSWER QUITE AS +WELL." + +With this sensible conclusion it is quite impossible to disagree. + +Another question is of importance. For these experiments upon the +eye, WERE DYING CHILDREN EVER USED AS MATERIAL? + +Apparently, there can be no doubt of the fact. The experimenter +distinctly states that "DYING CHILDREN, or those who were extremely +sick did not as a rule, react to any of the tests." The assertion is +repeated: "In no case were positive reactions obtained in DYING +CHILDREN." + +In one of the tables, there is also a reference to dying children. + +We are told that "the hands of the children were confined during the +first twelve hours, to prevent any rubbing of the eye." + +Can it be that dying children were thus treated? We are not told to +the contrary. Yet it would seem that impending death might well have +conferred immunity, not merely from such restraint but from the entire +experiment. The thought of a dying child with fettered hands, is not +a picture upon which the imagination would willingly dwell. + +Upon these experiments involving the eye, what judgment is a plain man +entitled to make? + +In the first place, he should draw a clear distinction between the +experiments made upon tuberculous patients, and those made upon +healthy children. Among the large number of experiments, it is +possible that some were made upon carefully selected cases for the +personal benefit of the individuals concerned. Regarding these, +opinions may differ as to expediency; but they belong to the rightful +province of medical tratment,--wise or otherwise. But if these tests +were applied without discrimination, without previous inquiry into +their condition; if they were made only upon the eyes of the orphans +and foundlings, and the poor in hospital and dispensary, and not upon +the children of the wealthier classes; if in large numbers, men, +women and children were made "the unselected material" for tests +wherein their individual welfare was not sought, in experiments which +not only "produced great physical discomfort" but were liable also to +"permanently affect the vision, and even lead to its entire +destruction," it would seem impossible to regard them with admiration +or approval. Would any of us care to have his own dying child, +separated from its mother, and with hands confined, made the +"material" for any such experiment? Should we care to have anyone dear +to us, subjected to the risks which seem to have been so freely +imposed upon the unfortunate, the ignorant, the poor? That is the test +by which ultimately these experiments will be judged. + + IV. The Rockefeller Institute, and Experimentation on Human Beings + +In public esteem, the Rockefeller Institute undoubtedly occupies an +exceptionally hight position. It would seem to be generally believed, +that by reason of experiments made within its walls upon the lower +animals, discoveries of the utmost value to the human race are bing +added to the resources of medical science. Possibly, a careful +analysis of its work might disprove this belief, but that is aside +from present inquiry. A more important question confronts us,--the +extent to which under the authority of this Institution, human beings +as well as animals have been used as "material" from researches +altogether unconnected with their personal benefit. If such +experiments have in truth been made under the authority of the +Rockefeller Institute, it would seem to be of the utmost importance +that the exact truth be made known. It is not always easy to state +medical facts in popular language, but the attempt shall be made. + --------------- +When Columbus returned from his discovery of a new world, it is now +generally believed that he brought to Europe the germ of one of the +most terrible diseases which have ever afflicted the human race. The +extent of its malignancy has only been known within the past century. +The unborn infant may be touched by it with the possibility of great +suffering, and the probability of an early death. There is not an +organ of the human body which may not become the seat of its ravages. +The majority of other infectious diseases leave their victim after a +time; this makes its home within the body and may manifest its +malignity after almost a lifetime of quiescence. In its contribution +to the sum total of suffering which disease has occasioned the human +race, it is probably that with one exception, syphilis stnds above +every other human ailment. + +On March 3, 1905, a young German biologist by the name of Schaudinn +discovered under the microscope what is now generally believed to be +the germ of this terrible disease. It is a minute, spiral-shaped +organism, with six or eight curves, and capable of movement in space. +Its place in the scheme of existence is not wholly certain, but the +probability seems that it is a protozoan, belonging to the lowest form +of animal life. Its very simplicity makes it appalling; we do not +understand how anything so innocent in appearance, can occasion such +terrible ravages. In the course of the evolution of life how came it +into being? We can only surmise. But once having gained a foothold in +the body of a human being, the minute organism begins to multiply: and +penetrating to any part of the body, it induces the ravages of a +destroyer espite all the opposing defences which Nature may raise +against it. The discoverer first called it the "Spirochaete +pallidum," but later invented a new name--"Treponema pallidum"--by +which it is at present generally known. It is almost ceratin that in +this minute organism, invisible to the naked eye, we have the +causative agent of one of the great destroyers of the human race. + +A Japanese physician, connected with various phases of research work +in the Rockefeller Institute (Dr. Hideyo Noguchi), believed it would +be possible to device a method for detecting the existence of these +germs of syphilis in certain latent and obscure cases, where the +disease was merely suspected. He had no though of inventing a cure +for the disease; it was a method of detection only. By ingenious +procedures which it is unnecessary here to describe, Dr. Noguchi +succeeded in cultivating these germs OUTSIDE THE HUMAN BODY; and after +grinding them in a sterile mortar, and subjecting them to heat with +other manipulations, he found himself finally in possession of an +extract or emulsion to which he gave the name of "luetin." It contains +the germs of syphilis; but they are intended to be DEAD GERMS. The +experimenter himself says: + +"I have proposed the name LUETIN for an emulsion or extract of pure +culture of Treponema pallidum, which is designed to be employed for +obtaining in suitable cases, a specific cutaneous reaction that may +become a valuable diagnostic sign in certain stages or forms of +syphilitic infection." + +Now, if a drop of this luetin be introduced beneath the skin of a +child who has inherited the disease, or of a person who has suffered +from its obscurer symptoms, there may be produced a "reaction." This +may take the form of "a large, indurated, reddish papule" which in a +pew days become of a dark, bluish-red colour; or the inflammation may +be of a severer type, resulting in a "pustule." A positive result is +more frequently obtained when the disease is of long standing, or +comparatively inactive. But may not this "reaction" occur in every +case, whether or not the individual has ever been affected by the +diseas? Anyone can see that if this "reaction" manifests itself in ALL +cases, the luetin test has no value whatever. And it was in the +prosecution of this phase of research that certain experiments upon +human beings were made, which have been criticized. Dr. Noguchi and +other physicians injected this luetin emulsion containing the dead +germs of syphilis, not only into persons presumed once to have been +affected by the loathsome disease, but also into the bodies of 146 +other persons, INCLUDING CHILDREN, ENTIRELY FREE FROM THE DISEASE. It +would seem that he was advised by an American physician to make his +experiments on human beings rather than upon animals. He tells us: + +"...In 1910-11, I commenced my experimental work on rabbits.... While +I was still working with the animals, PROFESSOR WELCH SUGGESTED THAT I +MADE THE TEST ON HUMAN SUBJECTS. Through his encouragement, I +commenced the work at once at different dispensaries and hospitals, +with the co-operation of the physicians in charge." + +Whatever criticism may attach to these experiments, it ought not to +fall upon the Japanese investigator, encouraged and supported as he +was, by both Christian and Jewish physicians. In appreciation of the +assistance afforded him at various charitable institutions, +Dr. Noguchi says: + +"Through the courtesy and collaboration of-- + + Dr. Martin Cohen .. Harlem Hospital, Randall's Island Asylum, and + New York Ophthalmic and Aural Institute; + Dr. Henderson .. State Hospital, Ward's Island, N.Y.; + Dr. Lapowski .. Good Samaritan Dispensary; + Dr. McDonald .. King's County Hospital; + Dr. Orleman-Robinson North-Western Clinic, New York Polyclinic; + Dr. Pollitzer .. German Hospital; + Dr. Rosenoff .. King's Park State Hospital; + Dr. Satenstein .. City Hospital, Blackwell's Island, N.Y.; + Dr. Schmitter .. Capt., U.S. Army, Fort Slocum; + Dr. Schradieck .. King's County Hospital; + Dr. Charles Schwartz California; + Dr. Smith .. .. Long Island State Hospital; + Dr. Strong .. .. Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital; + Dr. Swinburn .. Good Samaritan Dispensary; + Dr. Windfield .. King's County Hospital; + Dr. Wiseman .. King's Park State Hospital; + + And the Hospital of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, +I was enabled to apply the skin reaction to a number of human cases... +The total number of cases was 400."[1] + +[1] Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol.xvi. In the original, the +names of the hospitals are somewhat obscured by being placed in +brackets, and the paragraph made continuous; they are here printed in +capitals, to afford the reader a better opportunity of giving these +charitable institutions whatever credit is due them. + +Four hundred patients in hospitals and dispensaries including the +hospital attached to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, +were used as "material" for determining the value of a test for latent +syphilis. Of these, 146 were healthy individuals, used as "controls." + +Dr. Noguchi states that these "controls" + +"include 146 normal individuals, chiefly children between the ages of +two and eighteen years; and 100 individuals suffering from various +diseasess of a non-syphilitic nature.... In none was a positive luetin +reaction obtained." + +Other experimenters upon human beings have made reports of their +investigations in the same direction. A physician of St. Louis in a +medical journal, tells us of forty-four cases in which the Noguchi +luetin was applied, and he expresses his obligation to eight +physicians of that city (naming them), "for the privilege of using +THEIR CASES FOR THE WORK."[1] Whether these "CASES" were the private +patients of the accomodating physicians, we are not informed. This +experimenter had not completed his investigations and announced his +intention of "trying it out thoroughly" in a certain St. Louis +hospital, which he names. + +[1] New York Medical Record, May 25, 1912. + +The same experiments appear to have been made in other institutions. +In the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital for August, 1912, there +appears an account of this luetin test, made upon patients suffering +from such ailments as rheumatic fever, typhoid fever and consumption. +We see that the practice has extended to some of the leading hospitals +of the United States. + +The defence of all hospital experimentation upon children and adults, +other than procedures for their own benefit, is usually grounded upon +(1) the absence of any severe injury, and (2) the value of the results +obtained. The defenders of the Noguchi experiments insist that the +disease was not transmitted; that there was no severe pain or +permanent injury; and that the inoclation with dead germs of syphilis +could not have caused an infection with the dread disease. This is +probably true; although the excuse of painlessness cannot be fairly +put forward regarding the tuberculin experiments upon the eye. But +should we overlook the fact that these tests, at first were purely +experimental in character? No absolute assurance of results could have +been declared in advance; if certainty existed beforehand, what would +be the use of experimenting upon so many human beings? Are experiments +upon man only reprehensible when injury follows? Do we apply this rule +to the engineer of a passenger-train, who again and again runs by a +danger-signal, and yet escapes a tragedy? + +The utility of experimentation is urged. Only by experiments upon +human beings, it is said, could the value of either the tuberculin +test or the Noguchi emulsion be definitely determined. But surely +every thinking man must realize that utility cannot exculpate, or +justify the use of any method which is otherwise wrong in itself. A +murder is not regarded as pardonable, because thereby the interests of +religion are advanced. Dr. Noguchi for instance, admits that although +it is almost certain that the germs which Schaudinn discovered and +which he has isolated and grown outside the human body, are the cause +of specific disease, yet scientific certainty can only be acquired by +producing the ailment from the artificially cultivated germs. He +says: + +"While there are few, to-day, who would deny that the Treponema +pallidum is the causitive agent of syphilis, YET THE FINAL PROOF CAN +ONLY BE BROUGHT FORTH THROUGH THE REPRODUCTION OF SYPHILITIC LESIONS +BY MEANS OF PURE CULTURES OF THE MICRO-ORGANISM."[1] + +[1] "Studies of the Rockefeller Institute," vol. xiv., p. 100. + +A scientific experiment upon a human being of greater interest than +this it is hardly possible to imagine. With germs invisible to the +naked eye, grown in a flask, will some future experimenter be able to +produce in a human being all the terrible symptoms of this worst +scourge of the human race? That the experiment will be tried, there +can be no doubt; experiments involving the inoculation of the same +horrible disease, have been made both in America and in Europe. But +does anyone think that the utility of this suggested experiment of +Dr. Noguchi would justify its being made upon an unsuspicious patient +in a charity hospital? Would it be likely to meet general approbation, +even in our day, if it were performed upon an infant in a Babies' +Hospital? And yet why should it be criticized, if utility to science +is a sufficient excuse? + +It is a significant fact, that every writer who attempts to defend or +to excuse the experiments here described and others of the same type, +always evades the principal reason for their condemnation. The +condemnation of what may be called "human vivisection" rests chiefly +upon its incurable injustice. + +ALL SUCH EXPERIMENTS VIOLATE ONE OF THE MOST SACRED OF HUMAN RIGHTS. +Every man, not a criminal, has the inherent right to the inviolability +of his own body, except for his own personal benefit. Apply this to +the experiments herein described. + +THEY IMPLY A SUPPRESION OF THE TRUTH. Is it probably that any mother, +bringing to a hospital her ailing child, would leave it there without +apprehension if she were distinctly informed that when it had partly +recovered, it would be used for experimentation relating to a test for +syphilis? + +THEY IMPLY A PHASE OF DECEPTION, so far as a formal "consent" is ever +obtained without a full and complete statemnet of possible dangers. +Can we imagine Mary Rafferty to have consented to Bartholow's +experiments upon her brain, if, in full possession of her intellectual +faculties, she had known--as he knew,--what risks they involved? It is +the performance of experiments upon dying children, upon infants for +no urpose of individual benefit, upon men and women all unconscious of +the character of the investigation; the imposition upon the ignorant +and confiding of unknown risks; the utilization for experimentation +under cover of treatment for their ailments, of the poor, the feeble- +minded, the unfortunate, without their full, intelligent and adequate +consent, that makes the practice abhorrent to every conception of +morality, and every ideal of honour. + +How such experiments are coming to be regarded, we may see in a recent +article from the pen of Dr. Francis H. Rowley, president of the +Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: + +"The use of children in hospitals, or anywhere else, as material for +experimentation is not to be tolerated for a moment, in our judgment, +by any right-minded man or woman. Whatever is conscientiously done +for the benefit of the child itself, to save it from disease or to +lessen its suffering, though it may cause it temporarily more or less +pain, is nothing against which objection should be made. But to use +the child, even when no permanent harm may result to it, as a subject +upon which to try out certain theories, or to test the efficacy of +certain drugs, so long as this is not absolutely for the good of the +individual child treated rather than for children in general, is +abhorrent to the most of us. To cause a helpless baby one hour's +distress, to say nothing of suffering, for the sake even of other +children, when that baby has been brought to the hospital by its +parents or guardians solely for what may be done for its benefit, we +hold to be a breach of trust on the part of hospital authorities and +physicians that hasn't the slightest defence either in morals or in +law. + +"We write these words not because we believe that any physician is so +far fallen below the lowest levels of our common humanity as to inject +into a defenceless child the active germs of a loathsome or possibly +fatal disease, but because our moral sense is outraged at any +treatment of the child such as we should refuse to permit were the +child our own. We believe he universal assertial of parents would be +that, if having taken their child to a hospital for tratment, they +learned that it had beenused for experimentation, though no lasting +harm could come to it from the experiment, someone would pay the +penalty for the unwarranted deed, if money or influence or, these +failing, muscle, could reach far enough to find the offender." + +Does such condemnation of experimentation upon the hospital patient or +children tend to block scientific advance? Not at all. A recent +writer tells us that "once it is evident that man himself must be the +experimental animal, the scientist volunteer is always ready." If this +be so, why should not the human "material" be acquired always in a way +to which the charge of unjust procedure would never be applicable? If +assurance could have been given that the luetin test implied no risk +of any kind, might not the Rockefeller Institute have secured any +number of volunteers by the offer of a gratuity of twenty or thirty +dollars as a compensation for any discomfort that might be endured? Of +the thousands of medical students in the State of New York, are there +not hundreds who would have offered with eagerness to submit to a test +devoid of peril, in the interests of scientific research? And even if +an experiment implied danger, might there not be sufficient +compensation for all risks? Every year firemen lose their lives in the +flames, and policemen are murdered. The compensation they receive +induces them to incur risks that might not otherwise be assumed. A +great theologian is said to have affirmed that a man, perishing from +starvation, had the moral right to take a loaf of bread that did not +belong to him, if only thus he could preserve his life. Is Science +ever in such straits of necessity that in a single instance it is +obliged to take from any man his supreme right of inviolability, and +to make its experiments within the wards of the hospital, upon the +eyes of the dying, upon the bodies of the ignorant and the poor? + +There is yet another method by which perhaps we may test the morality +of the practice. A great philosopher of another century seeking to +find some criterion of man's duty toward his fellow-men, based +obligation upon a universal law. "Act," said Kant, "as if the motive +of thy conduct were to become by thy will a universal law." Suppose we +apply this maxim of Kant to the use of human beings for research +purposes. An experimenter in a hospital makes dying children his +material. Is he willing that the maxim of his act should be +universal, and apply to experiments upon his own child, when it lies +at the point of death? He plunges needle-electrodes into the brain of +a simple-minded and perhaps friendless servant-girl. Can we imagine +him willing that the motive of his deed should govern and justify +experiments of the same kind made upon his mother or his wife? +Following Ringer, he tests the actions of poisons upon patients in +some hospital under his control. Would he be willing that the law be +universal, and that the action of such drugs should first be tested +upon himself? He suggests the use of healthy children as "controls" in +tests with the dead germs of a horrible disease. Is there anyone +connected with the Rockefeller Institute, for example, who would be +willing that such act should establish a universal precedent, and that +his own children should be taken, and without his knowledge, made the +"material" for such research? + +Admitting that some experiments upon human being may be ethically +permissible, and that other phases of such investigations are morally +wrong, how are we to distinguish between them? May it not be possible +to indicate principles which would be generally accepted, according to +which the line may be drawn? Let us make the attempt. + +I. Justifiable Experimentation upon Man + +1. All experiments made by intelligent and conscientious physicians or +surgeons upon their patients for some definite purpose pertaining to +the personal benefit of the patient himself, and when practicable, in +case of risk, with his or her consent. +(This rule is intended to include every possible experiment made by a +medical practitioner for the benefit of the patient, with a distinct +ameliorative purpose in view.) + +2. All experiments made with an intelligent purpose by a scientific +man or medical practitioner upon himself. + +3. All experiments made with their consent upon physicians, surgeons, +pathologists, medical students or other scientific men, who, aware of +the nature of the investigation and of possible results, voluntarily +offer themselves as "material." + +4. All experiments made upon men or women of ordinary intelligence +who, having been fully informed of the nature of the investigation and +of whatever distressing or dangerous consequences are obviously liable +to result, acknowledge the receipt of satisfactory compensation for +all risks, and give in writing their full and free consent. + +5. All psychological experiments or tests which involve neither fear, +fright, nor mental distress of any kind. + +II. Unjustifiable Experimentation upon Human Beings. + +Experiments upon human beings which would seem to be immoral, because +obviously a violation of human rights, are as follows: + +1. ALL EXPERIMENTS, TESTS OR OBSERVATIONS, LIABLE TO INVOLVE ANY +DEGREE OF PAIN, DISCOMFORT, OR DISTRESS, MADE UPON DYING CHILDREN, OR +CHILDREN APPARENTLY NEAR DEATH, FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THEIR +PRESENT PERSONAL RELIEF. + +2. The use of new-born babes as material for research; the use as +material for research of any other defenceless children, in +orphanages, asylums, or in their own homes, for any purpose whatever +other than the direct personal benefit of the child upon whom the +experiment is made. Especially objectionable would seem to be +experiments of this character made in connection with the study of +syphilis, whether or not any obvious injury is the result. + +3. All experiments liable to cause discomfort or distress, made +without purpose of definite individual benefit upon the insane, the +feeble-minded, the aged and infirm or upon other unfortunate human +beings, who, for any reason, are incapable of giving an intelligent +consent or of adequately comprehending what is done to them. + +4. All experiments of any kin, upon other adults, whether patients or +inmates of public institutions or otherwise, if made without direct +ameliorative purpose and the intelligent personal consent of the +person who is the MATERIAL for the research. + +5. The experimental exploitation without their free consent, of men, +temporarily under command or control of an authority which they have +been led to suppose they are not at liberty legally to disobey. + +Let us repeat. THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO EXPERIMENTS UPON HUMAN +BEINGS, WHEN THERE IS NO INVASION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. The medical +student, who, out of zeal for Science, offers his body for any +experimental test; the patient in the hosptial, who with adeuqate +compensation for what he is asked to undergo, grants consent to some +investigation which may help others, though not himself; the poor man +who is satisfactorily compensated for all risks, and therefore willing +to aid research,--such varieties of human experimentation do not +necessarily offend the moral sense. It is the incurable injustice of +experimentation upon infancy that can offer no protest but a cry; of +experimentation upon the dying child, of experimentation upon the +poor, the ignorant, the feeble-minded, the defenceless,--it is +experimentation like this which surely deserves the condemnation of +mankind. + +What is the remedy for human vivisection? It lies in such legislation +as shall protect those who, because of infancy, or by reason of +ignorance cannot effectively protect themselves. By penalties so +heavy that they cannot be safely ignored, the State must forbid the +iniquitous exploitation of man by man. No such law need interfere in +the slightest degree with the rights of the true physician to aid his +fellow-beings; nor can we doubt that the medical profession will +finally favour a reform that will indicate the broad line of +demarcation separating the unquestioned privilege from the +unjustifiable abuse. + + + CHAPTER XIX + + CONCLUSION + +In the preceding pages, the attempt has been made to throw light here +and there, upon a great and perplexing problem. It has been seen that +concerning the past history of experimentation upon living beings, +much ignorance still exists; that too implicit and unquestioning trust +in the statements of those favourable to unlimited experimentation +has, unfortunately, not always conduced to the attainment of truth; +that misstatements tinged with inaccuracy have too frequently found +acceptance; and that growing out of the unrestricted use of animals in +scientific inquiry, the extension of the method, by the use of human +material, in certain hospitals has become an accepted procedure. + +It is, indeed, an ethical problem, that confronts society, to-day. It +would be no less a problem, if every claim of utility made in behalf +of human and animal experimentation were proven beyond the possibility +of a doubt. Even then, the ethical question would persist. The +ultimate decision regarding it remains the personal duty of every man. + + +Attention has been called, in the preceding pages, to many statements, +which a close examination would seem to prove to be misleading and +inaccurate. But every discerning reader should recognize that +inaccuracy or untruth does not imply the moral obliquity that pertains +to intentional falsehood. An experimenter, for example, makes an +assertion regarding the absolute painlessness of his vivisections. +Such statement may be demonstrated, let us say, to be exceedingly +doubtful, if not quite untrue. That is as far as legitimate criticism +can easily go. It is quite impossible to demonstrate a conscious +intent to deceive. To interpret motives, to impute falsehood is to go +beyond facts into regions where facts are not to be found, except in +exceedingly exceptional cases. One of thet Royal Commissioners +expressed this position very clearly. "While I feel bound," wrote +Dr. George Wilson, "to accept the assurances of all the expert +witnesses who appeared before us, as assurances of their honest +conviction that vivisectional or cutting experiments can be, and are +carried out without the infliction of pain from the moment the first +wound is made, ... I can only accept them AS OPINIONS, to which the +greatest weight should be attached, AND NOT AS STATEMENTS OF ABSOLUTE +FACT so far as specific instances are concerned." This is exactly the +attitude for any critic of vivisection to take. A distinguished +physician, testifying before the Commissioners, declared that it was +entirely possible to keep a dog in a state of anaesthesia for a week, +if necessary. Experimentation in this direction, in all probability +would prove the assertion to be untrue, but although such +demonstration would be proof of inaccuracy and carelessness, it could +not justify, in any way, the charge of dishonourable motives. In no +instance, therefore, in the illustrations of inaccuracy given in the +preceding pages, is there any imputation of perverse and intentional +inveracity. + + +I have made sufficiently clear, I hope, my disagreement with the views +of the extreme antivivisection party concerning all phases of +biological experimentation. The weakest point in the antivivisection +position has always seemed to me the condemnation of every kind of +experimentation on animals, however painless. Yet how is it possible +to expect public agreement with this position in every case? A few +weeks ago, it was announced in the public press, that in one of the +departments of Columbia University in New York, a series of +experiments were being made to determine, if possible, the comparative +food value of two articles in general use. If, for instance, a +certain number of mice were fed from day to day upon pure butter, and +an equal number upon the artificial product known as "oleo-margarine," +would there be any perceptible difference in growth and general +condition, and, if so, in favour of which group? This is an experiment +upon animals; but it is one against which it would be difficult to +bring forward any objection which the general public would very +eagerly endorse. Distinctions must be made, between that which is +cruel and that which is humane. "AGAINST PERFECTLY PAINLESS +EXPERIMENT," said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, "carried out for +purely experimental and great objects by men who themselves regret the +necessity or expediency, and who only act under a strict sense of +duty, no reasonable mind can raise an objection." + +On the other hand, let me reiterate acknowledgment of the vast +indebtedness which the cause of humaneness owes to the opponents of +all vivisection. Always and everywhere, the extremist helps in the +progress of reform. But for a few hated and despised abolitionists, +negro slavery might still be a recognized American institution; it was +not Henry Clay or Daniel Webster who did most to hasten its downfall. +That antivivisectionists have made mistakes, perhaps their most ardent +advocate would be willing to concede. On the other hand, how great +has been their service! But for extremists such as Frances Power Cobb +of England and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps-Ward of America and a host of +others whose hearts were aflame with indignation at cruelty and at the +seeming duplicity which denied its existence, the whole question would +have sunk into the abeyance in which in France or Germany, it to-day +exists. They kept it alive. And what have not the antivivisectionists +suffered by detraction, by ridicule, by misrepresentation and personal +abuse! The most eloquent woman to whom I have ever listened, English +only by adoption, faced without flinching some of the most skilled +vivisectors and controversialists of Great Britain, who endeavoured in +vain to weaken the force of her testimony; and the examination of Miss +Lind-ap-Hageby by certain of the vivisecting members of the Royal +Commission seems to me a more brilliant instance of the presentation +of ideals under adverse circumstances than is afforded by any similar +examination of man or woman in modern times. Personal disagreement +with universal condemnation of all vital experimentation has been +sufficiently stated; but one view of the antivivisectionists applies +equally to the prohibition of painful experiments. "I believe," said +Miss Lind, "that the abolution of vivisection will be accompanied by +great changes and great developments in the whole science of medicine; +that new methods of healing will come in, and higher methods, as we +know that the coarser medication and the coarser drugging are going +out of fashion."[1] The same view was expressed by Dr. Kenealy, +another witness, regarding the prohibition of all animal +experimentation. "I think it would give the finest possible impulse to +medical science; that we are surrounded by all these problems of +disease and degeneration and suffering in human kind; and that if we +were to devote our attention to man, and to all the valuable human +material surrounding us, instead of wasting valuable time and talent +on dogs and guinea-pigs, we should make rapid and immense advance in +the relief of human suffering."[2] Somewhat the same sentiment has +been expressed by others not opposed to animal experimentation. "It +may be admitted," said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, whose scientific +zeal, no one can question, "that whether painful experimentation be +useful or useless, it has had one indifferent effect; it has diverted +the minds of men too strongly from methods of research that not only +lie open to the curious mind, but which lie temptingly open." And +speaking of medical treatment for disease, he says: "Treatment at this +time is a perfect Babel.... Two men scarcely ever write the same +prescription for the same disease or the same symptom. I have watched +the art of prescribing for fifty years, and I am quite sure that +divergence of treatment is at this moment far greater than it ever was +in the course of that long period. The multiplication of remedies, +begotten of experiment, is the chief reason of so much disagreement... +... The modern student has before him a new duty. The experiment of +experiment that lies before him therapeutically, is to learn what +diseases will recover by mere attention to external conditions without +any medicines, and what will not."[3] + +[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Q. 7,627 +[2] Ibid., Q. 6,776 +[3] "Biological Experimentation," by Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, +F.R.S. Pp. 73, 109. + +The unpleasant accompaniment of all criticism is misunderstanding. A +protest, a remonstrance of any kind can gain a hearing only after it +has been repeated again and again, and even then it is quite as liable +as otherwise to be wholly misconstrued. It has been with very great +regret that for many years, I have found myself in disagreement with +so large a number of medical writers, who have left behind them the +conservatism of earlier opinions in the English-speaking world, to +follow the newer lights of Continental freedom and irresponsibility. +The regret is the more poignant, because, speaking from the vantage of +seventy years, I believe that the highest realization of human hopes +for the welfare of our race, must come through medical science. It +is, however, to preventive medicine that the world must learn to look, +not to the conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums. There are +ailments, which every year in England and America are responsible for +thousands of preventable deaths. That fifty years hence, these +scourges of humanity will be curable by the administration of any +remedy, to be hereafter discovered by experimentation on animals,--in +the Rockefeller Institute, for instance,--I have not the slightest +faith. It is not through the torment of living creatures, not through +the limitless sacrifice of laboratory victims, not through the +utilization of babes as "material" for research, that medical science +will yet achieve for humanity its greatest boon,--the prevention of +disease. I venture with confidence, to make that forecast of the +future, leaving recognition of its truth to those who shall come after +us, when all now living shall have passed away. + + + + APPENDIXES + + + SECOND EDITION + + -------- + + + APPENDIX I + + "ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND MEDICAL + PROGRESS"--A REVIEW + +By a curious coincidence, two books relating to vivisection were +published in America at almost the same time. One, under the above +title, was a collection of essays and contributions to various +periodicals from the pen of Dr. William W. Keen, which have appeared +during the past thirty years. The other was the first edition of the +present work. + +The volume to which the reader's attention is called is chiefly an +exposition of the author's views on the scientific value of biological +experimentation. With some of his conclusions, there will be little +or no dispute among members of the medical profession. But in +defending the moethods of physiological experiment, has he been +scrupulously accurate and uniformly fair? Is there to be discerned any +tendency to exaggeration, to over-statement or to suppression of vital +facts? Eager as he is to charge inaccuracy upon others, has he been +always accurate himself? Has any authority cited been "garbled," so +that quotation conveys an impression inconsistent with the general +tenor of a writer's views? What cruelties of past experimentation has +this author emphatically condemned? What experimenters upon human kind +has he held up to the reprobation of the public? In the entire volume, +can one find a single instance wherein a cruel experiment has been +censured, or a cruel experimenter been condemned by name? Except in a +volume, it would be impossible to indicate all points to which +attention should be given; it must suffice here, to direct attention +only to a few. + + I. + +A personal criticism of the writer by Dr. Keen makes necessary a +record of the facts. Referring to a certain experiment of a German +vivisector, Goltz, Dr. Keen says: + +"In 1901 Professor Bowditch called Dr. Leffingwell's attention to the +fact that no such operation was ever done. In Dr. Leffingwell's +collected essays, entitled "The Vivisection Question," on p. 169 of +the second revised edition (1907), there is, in a footnote a +correction admitting that no such operation was ever done(!), but on +p. 67 of the same edition, A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION still +remains uncorrected, six years after Bowditch's letter had been +received and the misstatement acknowledged."[1] + +[1] Keen's "Animal Experimentation," p. 271. + +Truth and untruth are sadly intermingled in this paragraph. Let us +attempt to disentangle them. + +On March 7, 1901, while the collection of essays, known as "The +Vivisection Question" was in the printer's hands and on the eve of +publication, a note was received from Professor Bowditch of Harvard +Medical School, courteously asking the authority for one particular +procedure in the long account of the Goltz experiment--the ablation of +the breast. In reply to Professor Bowditch, the name of Dr. Edward +Berdoe of London was given as the authority upon which the author of +"The Vivisection Question" had confidently relied. A letter was at +once sent to Dr. Berdoe--a well-known English physician--telling him +that one procedure mentioned in the description of the Goltz +experiment had been questioned, and asking him for an immediate and +careful study of the case. Dr. Berdoe's investigation made it evident +that a mistake had been made by the translator upon whose accuracy he +had relied; and in the next edition of "The Vivisection Question" at +p. 169--(the only page to which Dr. Bowditch had invited attention)-- +an acknowledgment was inserted. That it had even the briefest +reference elsewhere, was not recalled by the author of the book, for +he had not seen it for years. + +Nor was this all. To the London Zoophilist and to the Journal of +Zoophily in this country, a communication was at once sent. In the +latter periodical, the following letter appeared in its issue for +July, 1901: + + To the Editor of the Journal of Zoophily + +MADAM,--A German vivisector, Dr. Goltz of Strasburg, reporting certain +experiments he had made upon a dog, declared that it was "marvellous +and astonishing" to find maternal instinct manifested after various +severe mutilations. One of these operations was reported to have been +excision of the breasts, so that it could no longer nurse its young, +and to this phase of the experiment I have referred in some of my +writings. + +Recently, Dr. Bowditch of Harvard University has called my attention +to this particular mutlation, questioning its occurrence; and on +referring the matter ot Dr. Berdoe of London, who was my authority, he +finds, after a most painstaking and careful examination at the College +of Surgeons, that a mistake in comprehending a phrase was actually +made by the translator, upon whose accuracy and acquaintance with the +German language dependence seemed secure. + +All the details of this Goltz experiment are too horrible to quote; +this is not a case where a single experiment has been magnified into a +great cruelty; the truth itself is bad enough.[1] It is a fact, +however, that one particular mutilation ascribed to Goltz--the +ablation of the breasts--did not in this instance occur. + +It has always seemed to me of the utmost importance that in all +criticism of vivisection our facts should be absolutely reliable, and +that whenever inaccuracies occur, they should be corrected. All that +we want is the truth, without concealment of abuse on the one hand, or +misstatement on the other. In this case, I am especially glad to make +correction. For many years I have been acquainted with the writings +of Dr. Berdoe, and I have never found therein the slightest +overstatement or exaggeration of any kind. In the twenty-one years I +have written in advocacy of some measure of reform in regard to +vivisection, this, too, IS THE FIRST INSTANCE IN WHICH AN INACCURACY +OF ANY STATEMENT OF MINE REGARDING ANY EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN POINTED +OUT. + ALBERT LEFFINGWELL. + + BROOKLYN, + May 31, 1901. + +[1] No advocate of unrestricted experimentation, so far as known, has +ever dared to print the full details of this Goltz experiment. + +In the only essay to which Professor Bowditch has called attention, +the statement had been corrected; the fact that an allusion of five or +six words in an earlier essay gave an erroneous suggestion, was quite +overlooked. But Dr. Keen will have it that there was a "REVISED" +edition, and that in this "A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION" was +given. + +There are here two misstatements. There is not the slightest reason +for calling it a "revised" edition. Was there a "description given"? +Let us quote the entire passage, written nearly a quarter of a century +ago, in order to see what Dr. Keen ventured to call a "description of +this same operation." + +"We are almost at the beginning of the twentieth century. +Civilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve, +new dangers to confront, new hopes to realize. It is useless to deny +the increasing ascendancy of that spirit, which in regard to the +problems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but +continues its search for solution; it is equally useless to shut our +eyes to the influence of this spirit upon those beliefs which for many +ages have anchored human conduct to ethical ideals. Regret would be +futile; and here, perhaps is no occasion for regret. To the new +spirit, which perhaps is to dominate the future, this longing for +truth, not for what she gives us in the profit that the ledgers +reckon, but for what she is herself--this high ambition to solve the +mysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries +that shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely +more glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final +record History is so soon to end. + +"But all real progress in civilization depends upon man's ethical +ideals.... What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to +assume in coming years? What are the ideals held up before American +students in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to +fire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and +similar success? Is it Richet, `bending over palpitating entrails, +surrounded by groaning creatures,' not, as he tells us, with any +thought of benefit to mankind, but simply `to seek out a new fact, to +verify a disputed point?' Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, `con +multo amore e patience moltissima,'--with much patience and pleasure-- +the agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Sequard, ending a +long life devoted to the torment of living things with the investion +of a nostrum that earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of +Strasburg, noting with wonder that mother love and yearning solicitude +could be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off, +and whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for +cataract and plunging the needle to the bottom of the patient's eye, +that by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of +irritating the retina? ... Surely, in these names, and such as these, +there can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that +unselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the +amelioration of the world." + +In this passage, there is an allusion of JUST SIX WORDS to one phase +of experimentation which was subsequently found to be inaccurate, and +corrected, as Dr. Keen has shown. But was it in accord with truth to +refer to this passing reference as "A DESCRIPTION of the same +operation"? No reader of Dr. Keen's pages would be likely to +investigate the statement. Was it fair to permit his readers to +understand that a DESCRIPTION EXISTED, WHERE THERE WAS NONE? + +There is yet another point to be noted. Referring to the experiments +of Goltz, the impression seems to be given that not only was ablation +of the breast mistakenly ascribed to the Strasburg vivisector, but +that such a vivisection was imaginary: "NO SUCH OPERATION WAS EVER +DONE." This is also untrue. Experiments of the kind have been done by +other vivisectors, and they are recorded in their own reports. For +example, de Sinety of Paris tells us in his "Manuel Pratique de +Gynecologie" (Paris, 1879, p. 778), that upon female guinea-pigs, he +had practised "l'ablation de ces glands pendant la lactation."[1] +Another French vivisector, Dr. Paul Bert, states that he had not only +performed "l'ablation des mamelles chez une femelle de cochon d'Inde," +but that he had succeeded in performing the operation on a female +goat. The poor creature recovered from the vivisection, and later, +gave birth to a kid, which was placed with the mother. What would +happen to a new-born animal placed at the side of a mother whose +breasts had been cut off? + +"Le petit, animal, voulant teter, et trouvant pas de mamelles, a donne +de violent coups de te^te dans le re'gion mammaire...."[2] + +[1] In a reference to de Sinety's vivisections at page 171, in the +present volume, there is a slight mistake. Although de Sinety, as +shown above, had practised the ablation of the mammary glands during +lactation, it would seem that mutilation rather than complete ablation +preceded his experiments on the innervation of the mammary nerve. The +sentence should read "cut into the breasts," and not "removed the +breasts." He tells us that he made a considerable number of +experiments of the kind upon female guinea-pigs. In one of them, for +example, he laid bare the nerve and isolated it with a thread,--"le +nerf mammaire d'un co^te est mis a` nu, et isole," and that when the +electric current was used, extreme pain,--"un douleur tre`s vivre" was +excited, notwithstanding which the excitation was continued for ten +minutes. (Gazette Me'd. de Paris, for 1879, p. 593). +[2] Comptes Rendus de la Soc. de Biologie, Paris, 1883, p. 778. + +There is no need of completing the description. It was an experiment +absolutely useless and without justification. We may confess that we +read of such useless cruelties of experiment only with infinite +disgust. + +No matter how careful a writer may be, it is very rare that he +escapes, from unfriendly readers, the imputation of inaccuracy. +Against writers of history--men like Froude, Macaulay, or Carlyle--the +same charge has been made. But a critic whose microscopic eye +discerns inaccuracy in others should be very careful to make no +similar errors himself. The mistake upon which he has dwelt, was due +to reliance upon the translation of another man. It may be of +interest to point out that in his own writings Dr. Keen has made a +precisely similar mistake; and that although it was pointed out and +its untruth confessed many years ago, yet the false imputation appears +again in the pages of his book, without correction or intimation of +its utter untruth, on the page where it firs tis given to the reader +of to-day. + +In a pamphlet published during the closing years of the last century +by the American Humane Association, there appeared a strong +condemnation of experiments made by a Dr. Sanarelli, apparently upon +hospital patients, temporarily under his care. In an Italian +periodical, the young scientist described his researches with +remarkable frankness. He tells of the various symptoms of yellow +fever, which by his serum he had caused his victims to suffer--the +congestions, the haemorrhage, the delirium, the fatty degeneration, +the collapse; and all these, he adds, "I have seen unrolled before my +eyes, THANKS TO THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF THE YELLOW-FEVER POISON MADE +IN MY LABORATORY." + +So terrible a confession of human vivisection, it was eemed best by +some English translator to suppress; and in various medical journals, +both in England and America, the sentence here italicized did not +appear. Finding it quoted only by the pamphlet that condemned human +vivisection, Dr. Keen, without consulting the original, made the +dishonouring imputation that perhaps it had been "DELIBERATELY ADDED" +by some one of his opponents, and this, too, notwithstanding he had +referred to the original authority where the words were to be +found. "Unfortunately," he explained at a later period, "I am not an +Italian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original +article"; he had placed dependence for his statement upon a +"friend."[1] Who could have been this "friend" who pretended that he +had read the article of Sanarelli in the original, and deceived him +into making a charge of forgery, for the truth of which there was not +a particle of foundation? But the thing of which his readers have a +right to complain is not that his "friend" deceived him, for that may +happen to anyone. It is this: that the imputation of forgery, the +untruth of which was admitted long ago, still remains in the essay +where it first appeared, and without there being the slightest +disclaimer of the false insinuation. Let the reader turn to p. 125 of +the work under review. There is the suggestion that Sanarelli's +allusion to the poisons fabricated in his laboratory may have been +"DELIBERATELY ADDED"--an imputation of forgery. WHERE ON THIS PAGE, +IN THE TEXT OR BY FOOTNOTE, HAS THE AUTHOR WITHDRAWN THAT INSINUATION? +IT CANNOT BE FOUND. + +[1] "Animal Experimentation," pp. 143-144. + + II. + +One of the most serious offences against literacy accuracy which this +writer has apparently committed appears in the garbling of the +opinions of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University, on the subject +of vivisection. The case is of especial interest not only because the +facts are so clear, but because they bring into relief certain methods +of controversy, which by some seem to be regarded as entirely +justifiable. + +A sketch of the life of Dr. Bigelow, with extended quotations from his +writings, will be found in the ninth chapter of the work now in the +reader's hands. The opinions there expressed regarding vivisection +are by no means extreme. No past writer on this subject has left +behind him more abundant evidence of his position in this +controversy. It was not animal experimentation that he condemned, but +the cruelty that sometimes accompanies it, and to which, if +vivisection be unregulated by law, it is so often liable. + +How may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his +grave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that +although for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow +really knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had +chanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions +indicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes. It might be +asserted, indeed, that "in his later life," the great advocate of +reform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new +attitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a +painless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the +paragraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse. + +Is not this exactly what the author of "Animal Experimentation" has +done in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests? +He tells his readers that "the opponents of research" quote the +Harvard professor's earliest utterances "based on the suffering he saw +at Alfort," but that they carefully omit this expression of his later +opinions: + +"The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to +be criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which no one +objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment +which does not cause pain--either because the experiment itself is +painless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or +because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering--has done great +damage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of +vivisection at a great disadvantage.... A painless experiment on an +animal is unobjectionable." + +This is all true enough. But can anyone call this paragraph a fair +statement of Dr. Bigelow's "later views" on animal experimentation? It +is merely a wise caution. Compare this brief quotation with the ninth +chaper of the book in the reader's hands. Will anyone, after reading +that chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A +FAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS? + +The reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow, +something appears to have been omitted before the final sentence. On +turning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated +from the foregoing quotation. + +"IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN +CHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION."[1] + +[1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372. + +Precisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author +of "Animal Experimentation," the reader will discover another most +significant passage which was suppressed by the author of "Animal +Experimentation": + +"The extreme vivisector claims the liberty to inflict at his +discretion, PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN upon any number of dogs, +horses, rabbits, guinea-pigs and other animals. The interest or +honest enthusiasm he may happen to feel in some subject of physiology, +however important, justifies in his mind THE EXHIBITION OF THIS +EXCESSIVE PAIN TO CLASSES, AND ITS REPETITION BY MEDICAL STUDENTS, +PRACTICALLY AT THEIR OPTION. THIS IS AN ABUSE. Inasmuch as the +reform of any abuse needs remedial measures, such measures have been +inaugurated by permanently organized societies, which, even though +they may not have been always and wholly right and temperate in their +action, HAVE ERRED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION." + +What was the reason for these suppressions? Why this garbling of +Bigelow's "later views"? Do we find it impossible to comprehend why +his comparison of physiological experiments with the painless +procedures of chemistry should have been cut from the contecxt, or why +the references to "PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN" and the +"exhibition of excessive pain to classes" should have been omitted? +How could a writer, sincerely desirous of presenting his readers with +a fair expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions, have cut out every +reference to the abuses of vivisection? How could he have omitted to +quote such passages as the following, which appear in essays written +during the last year of his life: + +"In short, although vivisection, like slavery, may embrace within its +practice what is unobjectionable, what is useful, what is humane, and +even what is commendable, it may also cover, like slavery, what is +nothing less than hideous. I use this word in no sensational sense, +and appeal to those who are familiar with some of the work, in +laboratories and out of them, to endorse it as appropriate in this +connection." (368)[1] + +"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain it +inflicts." (368) + +"No society, however extreme in its views or action, can legitimately +object to painless experimentation, provided it is really painless. +BUT ANAESTHESIA SHOULD BE REAL, AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR FORMAL." +(374) + +"Vivisection will always be the better for vigilant supervision." +(368) + +"There is little in the literature of what is called the horrors of +vivisection, which is not well grounded on truth. For a description +of the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature." (363) + +The necessity for brevity of quotation, no one can dispute. But the +ethics of controversy are clear. One or two detached sentences should +never be given as a fair representation of an opponent's views, if the +general tenor of his writings would convey a contrary impression. +Thus to suppress and eliminate, what is it but to garble? In any young +writer, would not such offences against veracity invite the severest +condemnation? + +[1] Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Anaesthesia. Figures following quotations +indicate the pages. Italics not in original. + + III. + +Another illustration of the unreliability of the volume under review +may be found in its references to the Report of the Royal Commission +on Vivisection. We are told, in the first place--and the untrue +statement is thrice repeated with slightly different phraseology--that +"on the Commission, the antivivisectionists were represented, and +joined in this unanimous report."[2] It would be difficult to make an +affirmation more notoriously untrue. In 1906, when the Commission was +first named, it was a matter of common knowledge that NO +ANTIVIVISECTIONIST WAS REPRESENTED THEREON. This shoudl be evident to +anyong, one reading the following paragraph of the Commission's +report: + +"After full consideration, we are led to the conclusion that +experiments upon animals, ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY LAW FAITHFULLY +ADMINISTERED, ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY +LEGISLATION."[1] + +[2] Keen, "Animal Experimentation," p. 294. For repetitions of the +erroneous statement, see pp. xviii and 241. +[1] Report of Commission, p. 57, par. 97. + +How could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any +antivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation? Possibly the +words here italicized explain why this paragraph was not quoted by the +author of "Animal Experimentation." It referred to the conditions of +permissible experimentation which, as yet, do not exist in any +American state. + +Of this important report, but a single brief paragraph of two +sentences appears to have attracted the attention of Dr. Keen. It +impresses him so strongly that he parades it no less than three times +in various parts of his book: + +"We desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations +of operations inflicted on animals which are freely circulated by +post, advertisement, or otherwise, are IN MANY CASES calculated to +mislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in +question were not under an anaesthetic. To represent that animals +subjected to experiments IN THIS COUNTRY are WANTONLY TORTURED would, +in our opinion, be absolutely false." (Italics not in original.) + +"This clear statement," adds the author of "Animal Experimentation" to +one of his three quotations, "should end this calumny" (p. 241.) To +what "CALUMNY" can he allude? The Commissioners are referring only to +experimentation in England, where unauthorized painful experimentation +is contrary to law--certainly not to America, where no Government +supervision of any kind is to be found. Even in England, the words +"IN MANY CASES" limit the application of condemnation. Would the +author have its readers believe that painful or unjustifiable +experiments are never performed? ON THE VERY PAGE OF THE REPORT TO +WHICH HE REFERS US, in a paragraph immediately following that just +quoted, there is reference to a London physiologist of distinction, +who had testified that "he had performed PAINFUL experiments upon +animals both in Germany and in this country." The Commission +unanimously condemned his position as "untenable, and in our opinion, +ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE." Would the author of "Animal +Experimentation" regard this protest against certain experiments made +by the men named in that paragraph, as a "calumny"? + +The unfairness of giving out to the world merely two sentences as +representative of the conclusions of an important Commission will +become evident to anyone who reads other of the unanimous conclusions +of this report. Take the following: "WE STRONGLY HOLD THAT LIMITS +SHOULD BE PLACED TO ANIMAL SUFFERING in the search for physiological +or pathological knowledge, though some have contended that such +considerations should be wholly subordinated to the claims of +scientific research, or the pursuit of some material good for man."[1] +Does this conclusion bear out the contention that animal suffering in +the laboratory is a MYTH? Or take the recommendations of the +Commission concerning CURARE, a drug which is used in every +laboratory, but which, curiously enough, finds no mention in the index +of Dr. Keen's book. The Report says: "Some of us are of the opinion +that the use of CURARE should be altogether prohibited; but we are all +agreed that if its use is to be permitted at all, an Inspector or some +person nominated by the Secretary of State should be present from the +commencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the +animal is, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EXPERIMENT AND UNTIL ITS DEATH, IN A +STATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."[2] Why was this recommendation made, +if the use of CURARE is never associated with painful experimentation? +Or read yet further: "We are of the opinion that ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS +AGAINST PAIN MIGHT BE PROVIDED, without interfering with legitimate +research." These recommendations are incorporated in the final report +of the Commissioners, not one of whom was an Antivivisectionist. Why +were they not quoted by Dr. Keen. + +[1] Report, p. 57, par. 96. +[2] Ibid., p. 61, par. 114. + +The Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, together with the +evidence produced before it, constitutes the most important document +relating to the subject which has appeared in a quarter of a century. +It is greatly to be regretted that the author of "Animal +Experimentation" should have given his readers no idea whatsoever of +this report, except a warning of two sentences, that could have been +meant for England alone. By omission of all its other conclusions, +especially those relating to painful experiments, has the author been +fair to his readers? Do such significant omissions illustrate an +impartial reliability that commands our admiration? Does it denote an +accuracy that should inspire our trust? + + IV. + +What judgment does the author pass upon scientific experimentation +upon human beings? In his volume on animal vivisection, he has +reprinted various articles on the subject written by himself during a +controversy which raged quite fiercely at the beginning of the present +century; of course in his book we find nothing of the points made +against his arguments by his various opponents of that day. The +subject is an important one, and some day will have a volume devoted +to its discussion. + +In the eighteenth chapter of the present work, a careful distinction +is drawn between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem +to be entirely proper, and those other phases which ought to be +condemned: + +"It is of course to be expected, that certain experimenters upon human +beings will endeavour to confound both phases of inquiry in the public +estimation; yet there is no difficulty in drawing clear distinctions +between them. + I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being, +conscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely +for the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and, +if practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and +right.... So long as the amelioration of the patient is the one +purpose kept in view, it is legitimate treatment. + II. Human vivisection is something different. It has been defined +as the practice of submitting to experimentation human beings, usually +inmates of public institutions, by methods liable to involve pain, +distress, injury to health or even danger to life, without any full, +intelligent personal consent, for no object relating to their +individual benefit, but for the prosecution of some scientific +inquiry.... THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE +PERSONAL WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE +EXPERIMENT IS MADE."[1] + +[1] Pp. 289-290. + +All distinctions of this kind the author of "Animal Experimentation" +apparently sweeps aside. A writer suggested that upon natives of +India who, when bitten by poisonous serpents, almost invariably die, +there would be no objection to trying "every variety of antidote that +can be discovered." This humane suggestion the author of "Animal +Experimentation" holds up as "FLAT-FOOTED ADVOCACY OF HUMAN +VIVISECTION!" The absurdity of such pronouncement must be evident to +everyone of common sense. We should think very little of any surgeon +confronted with the case of a native suffering from a snake-bit, who, +finding ordinary remedies of no avail, refused to try "EVERY VARIETY +OF ANTIDOTE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED." This is not the "human +vivisection" to which objection is made; for such experimentation is +for the personal benefit of the man himself. + +Take, for illustration, the experiments made by the author of "Animal +Experimentation" and other investigators some years since, upon +soldiers in an Army hospital. The author of the pamphlet which first +brought these experiments on soldiers before the public, states +distinctly that "just so far as the experiments were made upon +suffering men IN THE HOPE OF GIVING RELIEF FROM PAIN, and at the same +time contributing to medical knowledge, THERE CAN BE NOTHING TO +CRITICIZE IN ANY WAY."[2] Surely the experimenters should ask no +clearer exculpation from all blame, so far as relates to permissible +experimentation on man. The critic, however, suggested that in some +cases, the enthusiastic experimenters went beyond this, and quotes +from the original article the following descriptions of their work: + +"We finally entered upon A DELIBERATE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTS with the +intention of ascertaining in what respect ... the two drugs in +question were antagonistic.... The experiments which we shall now +relate were most of them made upon soldiers, who were suffering from +painful neuralgic diseases, or from some cause of entailing pain. In +some cases, however, CONVALESCENT MEN WERE THE SUBJECTS OF OUR +OBSERVATIONS, but in no instance were they allowed to know what agents +we used.... SOME WERE MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH, suspected of +malingering. The patient was kept recumbent some time before and +during the observation." + +[2] Taber, "Illustrations of Human Vivisection," Chicago, 1906, +pp. 13-14. + +It is unnecessary to give the full description of these experiments. +We are informed of "series of experiments," of "two other sets of +experiments," of the "effect on the eye" or "the effect of the two +drugs upon the cerebral functions"; the material was abundant. The +reviewer of this experimentation says: + +"How these experiments will be palliated and excused it is easy to +foretell. We shall undoubtedly be told that all this happened some +years ago; that the American soldiers, thus used as material suffered +no permanent injury from the experiments to which they were subjected; +that the investigators were purely disinterested; that the scientific +questions involved were of great interest and that results might +possibly have been obtained which would have proved of great service +to medical science. But even if we grant all this, and accord to +these gentlemen the purest of personal motives, can we say that in +such defence they touch the chief point at issue in this matter of +human vivisection? Here were a number of human beings who, for a brief +period, on account of misfortune, were temporarily in their power. +WHAT MORAL RIGHT had these medical gentlemen thus to experiment upon +the eye, the pulse, the brain of a single soldier of the Republic? +... Even granting the utility, who confers upon anyone the moral right +to test poisons on his fellow-men? + +In his recent work, the author of "Animal Experimentation" refers to +these investigations of earlier years, and insists that most of the +patients thus operated on "were sorely in need of relief." What, he +asks, would his critics have had them do? "Sit idly by, and let these +poor fellows suffer torments, because if we tried various drugs we +were `experimenting' on human beings?" Is not this a little +disingenuous, in view of the very careful distinctions made by his +critic concerning the experiments performed for the relief of +suffering men? Assuredly, there was no objection to these; it was +regarding the "deliberate course of experiments," the "series of +experiments" made upon "MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH" that criticism was +suggested. Were all these experiments upon soldiers in the Army +hospital made for the relief of their pains? If so, they undoubtedly +deserve our warmest approval. Were any of a purely scientific +character, having no regard to the necessities of the individual upon +whom they were made? If so, we may leave the question of condemnation +or approval to the reader's judgment. + + V. + +What is the attitude of the author toward cruelty in animal +experimentation, or to the secrecy of the laboratory? So far as one +can see, there is no admission anywhere that vivisection ever +transcends the limits of what is entirely permissible. Except as +regards human beings, the word "cruelty" is not found in the index of +his work. At one place he tells his readers that "whenever an +operation would be painful, an anaesthetic is ALWAYS given";[1] on +another page, we read that in modern researches, "ether or other +anaesthetics are ALMOST always given."[2] two statements that are +slightly incompatible. We are informed that certain American +societies have passed resolutions favorable to the "UNRESTRICTED +performance" of vivisections by proper persons;[3] but the writer +neglects to inform his readers that unrestricted and unregulated +experimentation of the kind is not only contrary to the law in +England, but that it is condemned there by the leaders of the medical +profession. We find it apparently implied--but without positive +statement--that there is little or no secrecy in animal +experimentation, and that anyone may find admittance to a laboratory +at any time.[4] So far as England is concerned, this is untrue; and we +do not believe that in America a stranger would be welcomed at any +physiological laboratory when experimentation by students was going +on, although of course there are times when there would be no trouble +in obtaining admittance. It would apparently seem that in the opinion +of Dr. Keen, animal experimentation is always practised without +cruelty or abuse. + +[1] "Animal Experimentation," p. 232. +[2] Ibid., p. 245. +[3] Ibid., p. xviii. +[4] Ibid., pp. viii-ix. + +A considerable part of the volume under review is devoted to the +history of medical progress. Were it not for the unfortunate tendency +everywhere to magnify or exaggerate, this part of the book would have +had distinct value. Of the advances made by modern surgery, for +example, there can be no doubt; it is probable also, that without to +some researches upon living animals, the results would not have been +attained. This by no means justifies everything that has been done. +The members of the Royal Commission--all of them favourable to +vivisection--state the case with scientific restrain. After giving +the question full consideration they decide: + +"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time to have been +proved by experiments upon living animals and alleged to have been +beneficial in preventing or curing disease, HAVE, ON FURTHER +INVESTIGATION AND EXPERIENCE, BEEN FOUND TO BE FALLACIOUS OR USELESS. + +"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge HAS BEEN +ACQUIRED in regard to physiological processes and the causation of +disease, and that useful methods for the prevention, cure and +treatment of certain diseases have resulted from experimental +investigations upon living animals. + +"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that without +experiments made upon animals, mankind would, at the present time, +have been in possession of such knowledge."[1] + +[1] Final Report of Royal Commision, p. 47. + +It is open, of course, to an antivivisectionist to deny the right of +science to profit by the exploitation of animals, but this is not the +position of a large number who seek only to prevent the cruelty which +has often accompanied it. + +The greatest defect of the volume, aside from the points to which +allusion has been made, is the exaggerated advocacy that characterizes +the work throughout. One can hardly find a dozen pages in which a +careful reader would not discover some inaccuracy or over-statement. +If the author had only been content to demonstrate utility within the +limits that scientific accuracy prescribes; if everywhere he had been +ready to concede--what thirty years ago he so frankly admitted--that +vivisection was a "MANY-SIDED QUESTION;"[1] if he had admitted +anywhere that in the past excesses have taken place, and that the +practice has sometimes been carried to unjustifiable extremes which +should be condemned; if he had contented himself with pointing out the +mistakes of the critics of animal experimentation, without impugning +their character, or sneering at their efforts to lessen the infliction +of pain; if everywhere he had made fair distinctions between the anti- +vivisectionists who oppose and condemn all exploitation of animal +life, and restrictionists like Dr. Bigelow, Dr. Wilson, Dr. William +James, and a host of others who share their views; if, in short, the +constant aim of the author had seemed to be, not to secure a polemical +success, but reliability as an authority that time would confirm--it +is certain that his book would have attained some degree of deserved +and lasting repute. For such a result, no reasonable expectation can +now be entertained. The unreliability of the volume as an authority +will become more and more evident as time goes on, and in the judgment +of the world it will gradually find its rightful place. + +[1] See first page of "Animal Experimentation." + +In bringing to a close this inadequate review of the book something +yet remains to be said. It should be unnecessary to repeat that in +pointing out literary defects and mistakes, we do not touch the honour +of the writer in any way. How can one measure the weight of a life- +long prejudice, or determine its influence upon conduct or opinion? +"Tout comprende est tout pardonner." Within a few weeks, the author of +"Animal Experimentation," if living, will enter upon his eightieth +year. The errors of judgment, the inaccuracies of statement, the +tendency to exaggerate utility--these and all other literary defects +of the volume before us must be recognized and deplored, but they +should be ascribed only to causes which do not affect the honour of +the man. We may be confident that after he has passed away, the world +will quickly forget the too zealous defender of unrestricted +vivisection, and remember, finally, only the wise teacher, the skilled +surgeon, the trusted friend. + + + APPENDIX II + +In the acquirement of knowledge concerning vivisection, and for the +prevention of abuses, it is essential that in every institution where +experiments are performed a register of all animals received be +carefully and accurately kept. Each one should have a serial number, +under which all particulars should be entered. The book used for this +purpose should have printed in the first column of each double page +the required details concerning which a record is to be kept; the +blanks should be written in ink by someone responsible for its +accuracy. Some such form as the following outline might perhaps be +used for such register: + +REGISTER OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION IN THE + CARNEGIE LABORATORY DURING THE YEAR 1920. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +| Serial number .. .. .. | 801 | 802 | 803 | +| Date .. .. .. .. | Feb. 1, 1920 | Feb. 1, 1920|Feb 2, 1920| +|-----------------------------|--------------|-------------|-----------| +| Species .. .. .. .. | Dog | Dog | --- | +| Variety .. .. .. .. | Mongrel | Spaniel | --- | +| Apparent age .. .. .. | Two years | Very old | --- | +| Sex .. .. .. .. .. | Male | Female | --- | +| Colour .. .. .. .. | Yellow | White | --- | +| Condition .. .. .. | Good | Poor | --- | +| From whom received .. .. | Bradson | Burns | --- | +| Address .. .. .. .. | 45, Canal St.| 22, Mill St.| --- | +| Amount paid him .. .. | 75 cents | 50 cents | --- | +| How acquired by him .. | Found | Founds | --- | +| Kept by us for redemption | 15 days | 15 days | --- | +| Delivered to .. .. .. | Dr. Sharp | Dr. Ball | --- | +| Redeemed or died .. .. | --- | --- | --- | +| | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +From such a register as the foregoing, it would not be difficult to +compile a report at the end of each quarter-year, somewhat after the +following form: + +REPORT OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION AT THE + CARNEGIE INSTITUTE, DURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920. + +------------------------------------------------------------------- +| | | | | Other | | +| | Dogs.| Cats.|Monkeys.|Mammals.| Total.| +|-------------------------|------|------|--------|--------|-------| +| | | | | | | +| On hand, January 1 .. | 20 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 40 | +| Acquired .. .. | 91 | 142 | 11 | 132 | 376 | +| |------|------|--------|--------|-------| +| Total .. .. | 111 | 146 | 13 | 146 | 416 | +| |======|======|========|========|=======| +| | | | | | | +| | | | | | | +| Redeemed by owners .. | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | +| Died before use .. | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | +| Used for experiment .. | 84 | 76 | 10 | 98 | 268 | +| On hand at date .. | 14 | 70 | 2 | 48 | 134 | +| | | | | | | +| |------|------|--------|--------|-------| +| | | | | | | +| Total | 111 | 146 | 13 | 146 | 416 | +| | | | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------- + + (Signed) A. B., + REGISTRAR OF LABORATORY. + +STATE OF NEW YORK. + CITY OF NEW YORK. SS. + +On this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally +came A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the +foregoing report signed by him is a full, true, and complete statement +of all the animals of the species named therein, which were either on +hand on the first day of the quarter, or which have been received at +the Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute for experimental purposes, +and the disposition thereof, for the quarter-year ending March 31, +1920. + + ................... + NOTARY PUBLIC. + + +It is necessary not only to know what animals are received at any +laboratory; we must be able to follow them to the end. Each +individual instructor, professor or assistant-professor, or other +person who performs experiments of any kind should be required to +state what he has done. The following is an outline of a report which +might be made to the Director in charge of the laboratory. + + -------------------- + +A REPORT OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTATION, EITHER BY +MYSELF OR UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION IN ........... LABORATORY, +DURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920. + +----------------------------------------------------------------------- +| | | | Mon- |Guinea-| Other | | +| | Dogs.| Cats.| keys.| Pigs. |Animals.| Total.| +|-----------------------|------|------|------|-------|--------|-------| +| | | | | | | | +| I. Number of animals | | | | | | | +| used solely for | | | | | | | +| original research | | | | | | | +| II. Number of animals | | | | | | | +| used for demonstra- | | | | | | | +| tion before students, | | | | | | | +|of physiological facts | | | | | | | +|III. Number of animals | | | | | | | +| experimented upon by | | | | | | | +| students .. .. | | | | | | | +| |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------| +| Total .. .. | | | | | | | +| |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------| +|IV.Number of above ani-| | | | | | | +| mals, in experimen-| | | | | | | +| tation upon which | | | | | | | +| CURARE was used | | | | | | | +| | | | | | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + + (Signed) ........................ + ASSISTANT IN PHYSIOLOGY. + +STATE OF NEW YORK. + CITY OF NEW YORK. SS. + +On this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally +came A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the +foregoing report was signed by him, and that it is a true, full and +complete statement of all mammalian animals used by him or under his +personal supervision for experimental purposes in the ........... +Laboratory during the quarter ending March 31, 1920. + + ...................... + NOTARY PUBLIC. + +Suggested form of report, to be made quarterly by the responsible head +of each Institution wherein animal experimentation is authorized. + + -------------------- + +A REPORT OF THE DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL +PURPOSES IN ALL LABORATORIES OF CARNEGIE INSTITUTE DURING QUARTER +ENDING MARCH 31, 1920. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +| | | | Mon-| Other | | +| Animals. | Dogs.| Cats.|keys.|Animals.| Total.| +|---------------------------------|------|------|-----|--------|-------| +| I. Number used for original | | | | | | +| research only, by: | | | | | | +| Dr. X. .. .. .. | | | | | | +| Dr. Y. .. .. .. | | | | | | +| II. Number used for demonstra- | | | | | | +| tions before students, by: | | | | | | +| Dr. A. .. .. .. | | | | | | +| Dr. B. .. .. .. | | | | | | +|III. Number used by students for | | | | | | +| observation of physiolog- | | | | | | +| ical phenomena, etc. .. | | | | | | +| |------|------|-----|--------|-------| +| Total .. .. .. | | | | | | +| |------|------|-----|--------|-------| +| Number of above animals to | | | | | | +| which curare was given, in | | | | | | +| course of experimentation .. | | | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + (Signed) ..................... + DIRECTOR OF LABORATORY. + +STATE OF NEW YORK. + CITY OF NEW YORK. SS. + +On this 1st day of April, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally +came C. D., known to me, who, being duly sworn, declared that the +foregoing report signed by him, is a full, true and complete statement +of the disposition of all animals experimented upon in the +laboratories of the Carnegie Institute, during the quarter-year ending +March 31, 1920, to the best of his knowledge and belief. + + ..................... + NOTARY PUBLIC. + + + APPENDIX III + +It is exceedingly probably that no young physician or medical student +could testify to cruelties witnessed in any physiological laboratory, +if they involved his instructors or fellow-students, without injuring +and perhaps ruining altogether his professional career. Only in later +years, when success and independence have been attained, can he +venture to speak freely of what he has seen. Some men have thus +spoken. The testimony of two is here given: + +Rev. Frederic Rowland Marvin, M.D., Albany, N.Y.: + +"Though now a Minister of the Gospel, I was educated to the profession +of medicine, and was graduated from the College of Physicians and +Surgeons (Medical Department of Columbia College) New York, in 1870. +In the class-room I SAW VIVISECTIONS SO UNQUALIFIEDLY CRUEL THAT EVEN +NOW THEY REMAIN IN MY MEMORY AS A NIGHTMARE." + (From letter to The American Humane Association.) + +"All medical students in America know that similar outrages are +perpetrated in our medical colleges every winter. I have witnessed +vivisections SO CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY THAT I AM ASHAMED TO REMEMBER +THAT THEY WERE UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MY ALMA MATER." + (From sermon preached at Portland, Oregon.) + +Dr. Henry M. Field, Professor Emerituss of Therapeutics, Dartmouth +Medical School, Dartmouth College, writes: + +"I well remember my experience as a student of medicine at the College +of Physicians and Surgeons, New York.... I well remember the poor +dogs, brought out from their dungeon, perhaps famished and tortured +with thirst, should the experiment require such condition; their +appealing eyes and trembling limbs, I shall never forget.... Indeed, +SOME FORM OF TORTURE AND ATROCITY WAS EXPECTED AT EVERY LECTURE, AND +SURE TO BE APPLAUDED.... The student who found entertainment in the +unnecessary torture of animals, learned something besides physiology; +his humane nature was perverted...." + (From letter to the Vivisection Reform Society, + dated April 28, 1905.) + + + APPENDIX IV + + A LETTER OF DR. JOHN BASCOM, + LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. + + To the Editor of the "Springfield Republican." + +SIR,--In the complexity of our many social problems, it does not quite +do to extemporize an opinion. In a recent issue the Republican came +very near falling into this fault. Taking as its text a striking +example of locating a clot of blood in the brain, and referring the +knowledge by which this was done to vivisection, it spoke lightly of +the limitation which many have sought to put upon this practise. It +is noot the assertion of the opponents of vivisection, that itis +always useless, but that it has been carried much beyond the demands +of any desirable and humane purpose. Even the example given is not so +striking if we remember that it has long been known that each half of +the body is governed not by the adjacent, but by the opposite, lobe of +the brain. + +Considering the uncertainty, and the costly nature, of the knowledge +gained by vivisection, and the great abuse the practice has suffered, +its opponents demand that animals should not be subjected to this +suffering except in view of some definite and important question to be +answered; that the pain involved in such an investigation should be +reduced to its lowest possible terms; that experiments once +satisfactorily made should not be indefinitely repeated; and that +vivisection should not be left in the hands of every tyro acquiring +the rudiments of knowledge. These claims are almost as much a demand +of accuracy in knowledge as of humanity in temper. The pain involved +in vivisection often creates such an abnormal state as to weaken or +invalidate the conclusions drawn in connection with it. The careless +student may easily confirm, as he thinks by observation, opinions not +well grounded. + +Vivisection has been objected to not theoretically or sentimentally +simply, but on account of the monstrous abuses that have been +associated with it. In Europe men of distinguishing ability have +seemed to revel in this form of inquiry and to have prosecuted it +without the slightest reference to the cruel and revolting features +associated with it. They have made of it a school of Nero in which +brutality became a passion of the mind. + +One of the most deadly sins of men has been cruelty, cruelty to +animals, to children, to women, to men. The basest of these forms is +in some respects cruelty to animals, since animals are so thoroughly +committed into our hands. It is not easy to devise a more hardening +process than careless vivisection; and the claim that it is done in +the name of knowledge is, unless it is profoundly and deeply true, an +aggravation of the offence. Inhumanity is the worst possible temper +for the medical profession to entertain, and the worst possible +suspicion to attach to them. If the physicians cannot approach all +suffering with an intense desire to relieve it, he is not true to his +calling. It is with more or less fear that the defenceless human +subject is committed to them lest they should make of him an +experiment. + + JOHN BASCOM. + + Williamstown, + December 15, 1902. + + + APPENDIX V + +Among American physicians, probably the most distinguished medical +writer of to-day is Dr. George M. Gould, author of several medical +works, and formerly editor of various medical journals. His +opposition to antivivisection ideals has always been pronounced; but +it has not prevented recognition of the abuses of the unlimited +practice of animal experimentation. Some extracts from an address +delivered by Dr. Gould before the American Academy of Medicine are +here presented. The reader should understand that they are extracts +only, and that they represent but one aspect of the speaker's views. +Perhaps they are the more valuable in that they are the utterances of +the most pronounced American critic of antivivisection of the present +time. + + THE LIMITATIONS AND ERRORS OF THE VIVISECTIONISTS + +The first that strikes one is an exaggeration of the importance and +extent of the vivisection method. As valuable an aid as it is, it is +not the only, and perhaps it is not the chief, method of ascertaining +medical truth. It has without doubt often been used when other +methods would have been productive of more certain results. This has +arisen from what a large and broad culture of the human mind perceives +to flow from a recent and rather silly hypertrophy of the scientific +method, and a limitation of that method to altogether too material or +physical aspects of the problem.... + +Almost every point over which the controversy has raged most fiercely +has been in relation to one or all of the three or four questions: + +1. What is a vivisection experiment? +2. By whom should it be performed? +3. For what purpose should it be performed? +4. By what methods should it be carried out? + +In reference to all of these questions, scientific men should unite +and establish a common set of principles or answers. In my judgment +their failure to do so at all, and besides this, their frequent +exaggeration of logical limits and just calims, has been one of the +unfortunate causes of useless and wasteful wrangling..... + +(2) I believe scientific men have made a grave mistake in opposing the +limitations of vivisection (not mortisection) experimentation to those +fitted by education and position to properly choose and properly +execute such experimentations. No harm can come, and I believe much +good would come, from our perfect readiness to accede to, nay, to +advocate, the antivivisectionist desire to limit all experimentations +to chartered institutions or to such private investigators as might be +selected by a properly chosen authority.... At present the greatest +harm is done true science by men who conduct experiments without +preliminary knowledge to choose, without judgement to carry out, +withoutout true scientific training or method, and only in the +interest of vanity. It takes a deal of true science and patience to +neutralize with good and to wash out of the memory the sickening, +goading sense of shame that follows the knowledge that in the name of +science a man could, from a height of 25 feet, drops 125 dogs upon the +nates (the spine forming a perpendicular line to this point) and for +from forty-one to one hundred days observe the results until slow +death ended the animals' misery. While we have such things to answer +for, our withers are surely not unwrung, and in the interests of +science, if not from other motives, we have a right to decide who +shall be privileged to do them. + +I have adduced this single American experiment, but purposely refrain +from even mentioning the horrors of European laboratories. This is +not because I would avoid putting blame where it belongs, but because +such things are peculiarly prone to arouse violent language and +passion, clouding the intellect and making almost impossible a +desirable judicial attitude of mind. The Teutonic race is to be +congratulated that it is guilty of at least but few examples of the +atrocities that have stained the history of Latin vivisection, and +before which, as before the records of Roman conquest and slavery, or +of the "Holy Inquisition," one shudders at the possibilities of mental +action in beings that bore the human form and feature.... + +To jeer at and deride "sentimentality" while pretending to be working +for the good of humanity is hypocritic and flagrant self- +contradiction. This attitude of mind on the part of a few men does +more to arouse the indignation of opponents than any cruelty itself. +Scientific men should root out of their ranks such poor +representatives. They are enemies in the scientific household. +Dr. Klein, a physiologist, before the Royal Commission, testified that +he had no regard at all for the sufferings of the animals he used, and +never used anaesthetics, except for didactic purposes, unless +necessary for his own convenience, and that he had no time for +thinking what the animal would feel or suffer. It may be denied, but +I am certain a few American experimenters feel the same way, and act +in accordance with their feelings. But they are not by any means the +majority, and they must not only be silenced, but their useless and +unscientific work should be stopped. They are a disgrace both to +science humanity.... + +And this brings me to what I can but conceive as a grave and profound +mistake on the part of the experimentalists--their secrecy. A truly +scientific man is necessarily a humane man, and there will be nothing +to conceal from the public gaze of anything that goes on in his +laboratory. + +It is a mistake to think our work cannot bear the criticism of such +enlightened public sentiment as exists here and now; if there is +necessary secrecy, there is wrong. People generally are not such poor +judges as all that.... I would go even further. Every laboratory +should publish an annual statement setting forth plainly the number +and kind of experiments, the objects aimed at, and most definitely the +methods of conducting them. At present the public somewhat +ludicrously but sincerely enough grossly exaggerates the amount and +the character of this work, and by our foolish secrecy we feed the +flame of their passionate error. As organized, systematic, and +absolute frankness, besides self-benefit, would at once, as it were, +take the wind out of our opponents' saiils. Do not let us have +"reform forced upon us from without" in this contention, but by going +more than half-way to meet them, by the sincerest publicity, show that +as wel as scientists and lovers of men we are also lovers of animals. +Faith, hope, and love--these three. To faith in knowledge, to hope of +lessening human evil, we add love--love of men, and of the beautiful +living mechanisms of animal bodies placed in our care. + +As it appears to me, this most unfortunate controversy, filled with +bitterness, misrepresentation, and exaggeration, is utterly +unnecessary. Both of the sharp-divided, hate-filled parties are at +heat, if they but knew it, agreed upon essentials and furiously +warring over non-essentials and errors. I frankly confess that one +side is about as much at fault as the other, and that the whole +wretched business is a sad commentary upon the poverty of common +charity and good sense.... + + + APPENDIX VI + + THE REGULATION OF EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN BEINGS + +A Bill for the regulation of the practice of experimentation upon +human beings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere has been drawn, +and will shortly be introduced in the Senate of the United States. An +outline of the proposed Bill is here given, but in some respects it +may be enlarged or modified before its final introduction. It is +believed that a law may be framed which shall prohibit only those acts +which are contrary to justice, and which should be forbidden by common +consent. + --------------------------- +A Bill for the Regulation of Scientific Experimentation upon +Human Beings in the District of Columbia and in the Territories and +Dependencies of the United States. + +Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United +States of America in Congress assembled: + +SECTION 1. That hereafter no person shall make upon any human being +any scientific, medical or surgical experiment or operation, EXCEPT +FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON EXPERIMENTED UPON, unless the +intelligent, personal consent of such latter person shall previously +have been obtained. Every such consent, to be valid, must be in +writing and must be preceded by a full and correct written statement +setting forth to the person whose consent is sought whatever painful, +injurious or dangerous consequences are obviously liable to result +from the proposed experimentation, and such statement shall be signed +both by the experimenter and the person to be experimented upon. + +SECTION 2. That experiments or operation of this nature shall be +undertaken only by one of the responsible head-physicians or surgeons +of some hospital or public instiution or by his special written +authorization; provided only that nothing herein contained shall apply +to scientific investigations incapable of causing injury, made by +direction of authorities in charge of any institution of learning, +upon students, with their consent, for the purpose of testing +acuteness of mental action, or for the purpose of investigating other +mental or physical phenomena. + +SECTION 3. That no scientific, medical or surgical experiment of any +kind, liable to cause pain or distress or injury to health or danger +to life, shall be permissible under any circumstances upon any +new-born babe, or upon any infirm or aged or feeble-minded person, or +upon anyone whose mental faculties are impaired, either temporarily or +permanently, or upon any woman during pregnancy or within a year after +her confinement, or upon any child under fifteen years of age, unless +it be undertaken for the sole benefit of the person to be experimented +upon; and the consent of any such person to any such experiment or +operation shall not constitute such legal consent as is required by +this act, but shall be null and void. + +SECTION 4. That the responsible head of any hospital or public +institution, in which any experiment or operation of any kinds +mentioned in Section 1 of this Act shall have been made, shall on or +before the first day of February in each year make a written report, +attested by oath, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia of +all such experiments and operations that shall have been made in such +hospital or public institution during the calendar year next +preceding, which report shall contain copies of the statements and of +the consents required by said Section 1, together with detailed +accounts of such experiments and operations and the results thereof; +and such reports shall be printed annually. + +SECTION 5. That any person who authorizes, performs or assists in +performing an experiment or operation in violation of any provision of +this Act shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one +thousand dollars ($1,000) and shall thereafter be incapable of legally +engaging in the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia or in +any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and of +holding any official position of any kind under the Government of the +United States + +SECTION 6. That all sections of this Act shall be applicable to the +District of Columbia and to all other territory under the jurisdiction +or military control of the United States. + + + APPENDIX VII + + SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS + +A few years ago, Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, M.D., a Fellow of the +Royal Society and a distinguished sanitarian, was asked to express his +opinion regarding experiments upon animals. He was a member of the +medical profession; for some years he had been a lecturer on +physiology in a medical school; he had been a practical experimenter, +and his discoveries of new agents and methods for the prouction of +anaesthesia had given him a high place in the scientific world. His +reply to a series of questions was embodied in a volume entitled: +"Biological Experimentation; its Function and Limits." Certain +extracts from this work,--in some cases slightly abbreviated,--are +here given. They are of special value, as the views of an eminent +physician, a scientific discoverer, and a practical physiologist. + --------------------- +If in creation there was no pain, if no pain could be extorted except +by a physiologist, a physiologist inflicting pain, even for the cure +of disease would be an accepted criminal by the general voice of +mankind. But Nature is a laboratory of pain on the most gigantic +scale; she stands at nothing in the way of infliction, spares nothing +that is sentient. She inflicts pain for her own purposes, and she +keeps it going.... If man inflicted such painful diseases as Nature +inflicts, he would be a monster. Man rebels against these +inflictions. Shall he add to pain by his rebellion? + --------------------- +In Science, there is no one method that can be considered +indispensable. Attributes are indispensable; observation, industry, +accuracy are indispensable; methods are not. Methods may be +convenient, they may be useful, they may be expedient, but nothing +more. Celsus tells us that Erasistratus and the school he founded +laid open the bodies of criminals in order to study by direct +observation, the action of the intestinal organs during existence. +The act at that date of civilization probably shocked no one; it was +no doubt in accord with the spirit of the time. In a day not very +remote from our own, a criminal sentenced to death for some trivial +crime, was given over to William Cheselden, surgeon to George the +First, for experiment. The criminal was deaf and the experiment +intended was that of making a puncture through the drum of the ear, in +order to discover if an opening through the drum would enable the deaf +to hear. At the last moment, Cheselden, a man of fine feeling, and +brilliant as an operating surgeon, declined the experiment, on which +the criminal, whose life had been conditionally spared, was set free. +For his generosity of mind, for shrinking from an experiment on +another human being, Cheselden lost caste at Court, and was considered +pitiable by those who lived on courtly favours. + +The argument is taking now the same direction against experiments by +man conducted on the lower animals for the purposes of discovery; and +when from the history of the past we gather what has been achieved by +such experiments, there is but one answer--namely: that such +experiments, although they may achieve what was expected of them, were +not indispensable. They may have expedited discovery; they may have +led to discovery; but they were not indispensable. + --------------------- +In the discovery of anaesthesia, general and local, painful experiment +on animals has played no indispensable part whatever. + +The lower animals have been permitted to share, more than equally with +man, in the blessing of anaesthetic discovery, for by it, many of them +have been saved the agonies of painful death, but they have (not) been +subjected to painful experiment in the course of discovery.... The +instauration of general anaesthesia came from experiments made on man +alone. There is no suspicion of any experiment on a lower animal in +connection with it.... On the contrary, there is a most notable fact +in relation to experiments under chloroform made on lower animals, +which suggests that if they had ever been relied on,--chloroform would +never have been introduced into practice. Flourens, the eminent +French physiologist, tried the effect of chloroform on inferior +animals, and in consequence of its powerful and fatal influence on +them, put it aside as an anaesthetic. + --------------------- +There are methods of producing local insensibility to pain which have +been tried, and which deserve notice. + +In 1862, I made an attempt to carry out local anaesthesia by +exhaustion of blood from a part. I noticed that when three round +cupping-glasses were applied to the body very close to each other, the +clear triangular space left free within the rim of the mouths of the +glasses was rendered white, brawny-like and insensible, when the +suction of the glasses was complete. This was obviously due to the +local abstraction of blood from the part; and I thought, consequently, +that if I could exhaust the blood from the extremity of a limb, the +exhausted part might be operated upon without pain.... I tried the +process on myself, and finding it succeed, the operation of removing +the nail of the greta toe, was tried on a patient, quite painlessly, +the patient looking on and feeling nothing. But the proceeding was +too long and cumbersome to admit of introduction into practice +generally, though it indicated an important principle which may in +some future day be utilized. In this research, no experiment on a +lower animal was resorted to; I was myself the victim in all +preliminary experiments. + --------------------- +The most numerous and extensive efforts for local anaesthesia have +been those in which extreme cold has been employed to produce the +benumbing effect. The earliest applications of cold originated +between two and three hundred years ago in the fencing schools of +Naples. A Neapolitan professor of training placed crushed ice in a +flash of thin glass, and then applied the chilled glass to the skin, +and held it there until the skin was frozen, in order that the +cautery could be employed, or other small operations performed without +the infliction of pain. The proceeding must have been most +successful, and why it became lost is one of the mysteries of +scientific research. It did remain lost until our own time.... I +invented for the same purpose the ether spray process, in which a +benumbing cold was produced by projecting a volatile liquid like ether +or amylene, or a stream of compressed gas ... on the part to be +anaesthetized. These methods have been so widely adopted that I need +not enter into any description of them. I have merely to say that +they were made without any aid of experiments of a painful kind on the +lower animals.... The earliest experiment with ether spray was made +on my own arm. + --------------------- +It is fortunate for me that I have been an eye-witness of the progress +made in this department from its practical instauration. I recall the +days when operations were performed without the aid either of general +or local methods for abolishing pain. I have myself introduced new +methods of anaesthesia, generally and locally; I have brought to trial +a large number of new anaesthetics. By the invention of the lethal +chamber I have had the delightful privilege of removing the taste and +pain of death from probably a million of those friends of man, the +faithful dogs. I write this not boastfully but truthfully.... Painful +experiments have played no indispensible part in the discovery of +anaesthesia. + --------------------- +It is a curious fact that every method of research which is most +enduring, most intellectual and most free from moral evil is farthest +away from any and every thing that shocks the conscience or raises a +doubt as to necessity, in sensitive minds. If mathematics had to be +cultivated through experiments on living animals, it would never have +succeeded in unfolding the magnificent mysteries of the universe. The +same applies to the work of the science of chemistry, of botany, and +of physics generally. In my opinion, every man who studies natural +things by experiments on living subjects of any species, feels the +truth of what I am saying. I know in my own case, that my mind during +such experiments has always been in a different state according to the +line of experiment. When the experiment has been conducted on dead or +inanimate matter, the return obtained from the labour demanded has +always been not only satisfacdtory, but pleasant to the mind. On the +contrary, when the experiment has been conducted on living or animate +matter, the labour, whether affirmative or negative in its results has +never, at any point of it been pleasant. The results may, and often +have excited curiousity; they may have been important, and they may +have opened the way to new inquiry, but they have never been free of +anxiety nor of a sense that whatever came from them, THERE WAS +SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT RIGHT. I do not believe I am more sentimental +than any of my colleagues; yet I never proceeded to any experiment on +a living animal, though to the best of my ability doing everything +possible to save all pain, without feeling--what I think is the proper +expression,--COMPUNCTION. + --------------------- +In the hands of the teacher, it (vivisection) may be rankly abused; of +scientific pursuits, it is the one most liable to error; it suggests +no end to itself, but seems to grow by what it feeds on, becoming by +repetition and contest more and more extended and multiplied; it is of +all pursuits the most disliked by the educated community; it brings +its best and most self-sacrificing professors into scorn; and for all +such reasons, even if it be occasionally useful, is calculated to lead +to what would be esignated intellectual and moral evil. At the same +time, let it be understood that I do not include in the criticisms +experiments which being devoid of pain, may cause the death even for +the service of man. Above all, I could not for a moment object to +experiment by a truly competent man for the purpose of inquiry into +some great theory that has been leisurely formed, and can be proved or +disproved by no other means, as for example, whether an important +surgical operation can or cannot be performed for the saving of human +suffering or human life. + --------------------- +There are some simple and painless experiments which may be +demonstrated to any set of pupils, although living animals are the +subjects of them. The demonstration of the circulation through the +web of the frog; the demonstration of the different natural +temperatures of the bodies of animals, including man; the influence of +various anaesthetic vapours; the collection of the breath of various +animals for the purpose of analysis,--these are all free from +objection.... In a word, all experiments which are painless and +harmless, are, as I assume the most humane would admit, free from any +charge of error. But when we come to consider the application of +experiment of a severe kind as a means of education of pupils who are +making a study of physiological problems, there is a reason for +hesitation. In my student days, such an experiment was never dreamed +of. The professor of physiology would relate the facts derived from +experiment, on which some important theories were founded; he would, +for instance, explain what experiments were made by Harvey in order to +describe the circulation of the blood, but he would not attempt to +repeat those experiments in the lecture-room. He would describe, in +his remarks on the functions of the nervous system, the researches of +Sir Charles Bell, ... but he would never think of repeating Bell's +experiment of division of the nerves in the column, alleging forcibly +Bell's own objection to its repetition. It was the same on every +point. He would relate the theory; relate the pros and cons; relate +possibly his own independent inquiries, or what he had seen +experimentally performed by other independent investigators; but with +that explanation, he would be content. + --------------------- +When I was teaching physiology as I did teach it in a medical school +for many years, I abstained for a long period from the direct +experimental method. I found no difficulty, and my classes worked +satisfactorily. The students had the credit of becoming good +physiologists, and I am sure there was nothing shirked. In the latter +part of my time, I followed occasionally the plan of making a few +experiments in the way of demonstration; and although these were +rendered painless, the innovation was not the success that was +expected.... Intellectually, I do not think my classes were assisted, +in the main, by the experimental demonstration. I am sure it limited +my sphere of usefulness, by leading me, in the limited time at my +command, to omit some parts of physiology of a simpler, less +controversial, and more useful kind. I am bound to say that, morally, +I do not recall the effect as producing all that could be wished.... I +gave up experiments in my classes, not from any sentiment, but BECAUSE +I GOT ON BETTER WITHOUT THEM. I did not omit the facts derived from +experiment, I did not omit the report of my own experimental +endeavours; but I omitted repeating, for the mere sake of +demonstrating, what seemed to have been proved.... Were I again to +deliver a course of physiological lectures to qualified hearers, I +should make the experimental demonstrations on living animals as few +and far between as was compatible with duty. They would be +exceptional of exceptional, and painless from beginning to end. + --------------------- +I recommend, as the best method of obtaining the great aims of +medicine,--sanitation and the prevention of disease,--first, to make +medicine the grand master and teacher of universal cleanliness, and to +make everyone of the community a disciple and follower of the same +law. The minister of medical art should be prepared to devote his +life to this simple duty. He needs no higher calling, no nobler +vocation, and a world that knew its own interests should sustain him +in the task. At present, the rage is for experimentation, although it +seems least wanted, for which rage THE SELFISH AND IGNORANT WORLD IS +MOST TO BE BLAMED. The world now, as in the days of Naaman the leper, +wants to be healed and protected by elaborate processes, when th +esimplest and surest remedy is in its own hands. + +From a long experience as a teacher of physiology and of public +health, I am convinced that a school or university of preventive +medicine would fill an important want. It would tend to make every +man and woman a sanitarian, and would help to bring the principles of +health into every home. It would be of direct and practical utility; +it would instil an exalted comprehension of natural laws, of the +advantages of following those laws, and of the danger and folly of +setting them at ignorant defiance.... The end would be the +accomplishment of the great aim, the development of the health of the +people; the art of preventive medicine without inflicting pain on any +living thing. + + + APPENDIX VIII + +Since the preceding pages were in type, the United States Department +of Agriculture has adopted new regulations governing the inspection of +meat. The rules ordered to be applicable to meat derived from animals +affected by cancer or malignant disease, are as follows (italics not +in original): + +Regulation II. Disposal of Diseased Carcasses, etc. + +SECTION 7.--ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART OF A CARCASS AFFECTED WITH +CARCINOMA OR SARCOMA shall be condemned. In case the carcinoma or +sarcoma involves any internal organ TO A MARKED EXTENT, or affects the +muscles, skeleton, or body lymph glands even primarily, the carcass +shall be condemned. In case of metastasis to any other organ or part +of a carcass, or if metastasis has not occurred, but there are present +secondary changes in the muscles ... the carcass shall be condemned. + +SECTION 9.--All slight, well-limited abrasions on the tongue and inner +surface of the lips and mouth, when without lymph-gland involvement, +SHALL BE CAREFULLY EXCISED, leaving only sound, normal tissue WHICH +MAY BE PASSED. + +ANY ORGAN OR PART of a carcass which ... is affected by a TUMOUR, an +abscess, or a suppurating sore shall be condemned; and when the +lesions are of such character or extent as to affect the whole +carcass, the whole carcass shall be condemned. + + +It will be seen that the criticism suggested (pp. 269-270) concerning +the regulations in force for many years past is not annulled or +obviated by the new rules. That which formerly was vague is now more +clearly and distinctly set forth. The new regulation most carefully +condemns for food purposes "ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART" of a carcass +affected with carcinoma or sarcoma (cancer), and such condemnation +applies to the carcass, if the malignant disease has involved other +parts "to a marked extent." The fact that an animal is suffering from +cancer does not of itself compel its rejection for human food. The +entire rule would seem to have been drawn so as to permit meat +affected by cancer to pass inspection as "sound, healthful, wholesome, +and fit for human food," provided the inspector in charge can declare +that in his judgment the malignant disease had not affected the meat +"to a marked extent." + +In view of the mystery that still surrounds the causation of cancer, +this regulation of the Department of Agriculture should be entirely +changed. Its basis is regard for financial considerations rather than +the public welfare. No part or portion of any animal found to be +affected by malignant disease should ever be permitted to be sold for +human food. The regulation should read: + +Section 7.--Any animal or carcass of any animal found upon inspection +to be affected, however slightly, with malignant disease (carcinoma or +sarcoma) shall be wholly condemned as unfit for human food. + + + APPENDIX IX + +England and Wales: Deaths of Females from Cancer at Different +Age-Periods, and the Ratio to Population, during Twelve Years of this +Century. + +-------------------------------------------------------------- +|Year.|Under 35.|35-44.|45-64.|65 and|Total.|Rate per Million| +| | | | | over.| | Population | +|-----|---------|------|------|------|------|----------------| +| 1901| 695 | 1,811| 8,263| 5,827|16,596| 985 | +| 1902| 701 | 1,872| 8,229| 5,972|16,774| 986 | +| 1903| 702 | 1,896| 8,490| 6,202|17,290| 1,006 | +| 1904| 703 | 1,934| 8,511| 6,448|17,596| 1,010 | +| 1905| 719 | 1,904| 8,683| 6,445|17,751| 1,011 | +| 1906| 740 | 1,921| 8,945| 6,805|18,411| 1,038 | +| 1907| 731 | 1,956| 8,841| 7,018|18,546| 1,035 | +| 1908| 658 | 1,943| 9,026| 7,189|18,816| 1,036 | +| 1909| 701 | 1,952| 9,466| 7,671|19,790| 1,082 | +| 1910| 780 | 2,030| 9,376| 7,578|19,764| 1,070 | +| 1911| 730 | 2,080| 9,485| 8,018|20,313| 1,088 | +| 1912| 695 | 2,009| 9,926| 8,505|21,135| 1,117 | +-------------------------------------------------------------- + +The foregoing table strikingly illustrates the increasing prevalence +of cancer in England during the present century. Among women it will +be seen that the rate of mortality has increased from 985 to 1,117 per +million living within almost a single decade. The slow and yet +regular recurrence year after year of a slightly increased mortality +from cancer at each period of life after the thirty-fifth year is +peculiarly ominous. The connection between increase of cancer and the +permitted utilization for food purposes of animals suffering from +cancerous ailments is a problem that awaits solution. + + + APPENDIX X + +In the spring of 1915, the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in +Animal Experimentation decided to ascertain whether certain of the +principal facts connected with vivisection would be freely given if +courteously asked. Accordingly, to the directors of laboratories in +over a hundred institutions of higher learning in America, the +following letter was sent by Mr. F. P. Bellamy, the counsel for the +Society: + + Brooklyn, N.Y. + +DEAR SIR,--One of the criticisms urged against the practice of animal +experimentation in America at the present time is the laack of any +reliable information concerning its extent. Believing that the remedy +of this defect lies within the power of the laboratories, I venture to +ask whether you would be willing to fill out the accompanying blank +form, returning it to me as soon as practicable? If so, I should be +glad if you would state whether the figures are based upon a register +giving exact numbers or whether they are simply the best estimate you +are able to give. If impossible to supply the details asked, can you +not give the total number of each species of animals? + +I may add that this Society is not opposed to vivisection when the +practice is properly safeguarded against any cruelty. + +I enclose an addressed and stamped envelope for your reply; and +thanking you for whatever information you can afford, I am, + + Yours faithfully, + FREDERICK P. BELLAMY. + +A few details concerning the result of this experimental inquiry may +be of interest. + +The Department of Physiology of the University of Minnesota reported +that the material used for the demonstration of physiological and +pathological phenomena before students consisted of 88 dogs, 74 cats, +and 420 other animals, making a total of 582 for the year 1914. + +The Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Medico-Chirurgical +College of Philadelphia reported using "about" 124 rabbits and guinea- +pigs, chiefly for research purposes. No report, however, was received +from the Department of Physiology. + +The North-Western University Medical School of Chicago sent a +courteous reply, stating that it would be hardly possible to make any +report "as to the number of animals used in experimental work in our +laboratories." Research work was carried on "in at least four +laboratories of the Medical School, and in the work dogs, rabbits, and +guinea-pigs particularly are used.... As the work of research varies +materially from time to time in the several laboratories, we have no +way of making even an approximate estimate which would be of value" of +the number of animals used. Probably this is the case with most other +large laboratories in this country. + +The Eclectic Medical University reported the use of but six small +animals in its research work. The director says: + +"Our laboratories lead the world in cancer research, yet we have never +used an animal for this purpose. We are the second laboratory in the +world in research of pellagra, and have used only four animals.... We +have achieved the above results because we believe in clinical and not +in experimental research." + +From some thirteen institutions, chiefly belonging to the South or +West, vague or imperfect reports were received. Some of them +disclaimed the use of living animals in teacher, or the use of animals +higher in the scale than turtles or frogs. + +Two institutions refused to give any information whatever. An +official connected with Rush Medical College of Chicago wrote: + +"The statement that your society is not opposed to vivisection may +deceive the uninitiated. Either vivisection is a good thing and hence +should not be interfered with, or it is a nefarious business and +should be stopped.... You and your society are either honestly +misinformed, suffer from delusions, or are lying bigots. In my +opinion, mainly the latter. You are my enemy, and the enemy of every +man of intelligence interested in the well fare (sic) of mankind and +animals. I will give no information to wilfull (sic) falsifiers, the +insane, or those too lazy or stupid to inform themselves of facts." + +Some further study of a primary spelling-book might be recommended to +this representative of an institution of learning. + +The institutions making no reply of any kind numbered eighty-eight, or +about 83 per cent. of those addressed. + +The inquiry resulted in confirming previous impressions. It was not +believed that information concerning the number of animals used would +be generally given. The experiment of courteous inquiry, however, was +deemed worthy of a trial. The result would seem to demonstrate that +even the simplest facts concerning the practice of animal +experimentation in the United States cannot be obtained except through +inquiry instituted by the authority of the State. + + + AN ETHICAL PROBLEM + OR + SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION + UPON MAN AND ANIMALS + --------------- + PRESS NOTICES + +"Dr. Leffingwell has probably done more than any other one man for the +education of the public to a right attitude on the vivisection +question."--Dallas News. + +"The author has studied this question for forty years. He shows by +the material gathered in this volume and the interesting conclusions +reached, the careful consideration of long years of study."--Detroit +News Tribune. + +"The author's moderation in discussing this burning question will +appeal to a much wider circle of scientific readers than a policy that +demands complete annihilation of all animal experimentation."--The +Open Door, New York. + +"The volume deals with vivisection, and the author holds that it is to +preventive medicine that the world must learn to look, not to the +conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums.... He enters deeply +into the question, and shows the result of long and careful research +work."--Norwich Bulletin + +"In an elaborate discussion of the vexed question of vivisection, +Dr. Leffingwell tries to take a mediating position. He is strong in +showing that there has been a vast amount of needless and useless +suffering to animals caused by vivisection.... Some of his quotations +are amazing in showing the indifference and even cold-blooded cruelty +of some surgeons."--New York Watchman. + +"One of the most thorough books on vivisection yet published is by +Dr. Albert Leffingwell, entitled `An Ethical Problem.' It is not the +book of an extremist or a crank. Dr. Leffingwell admits the necessity +of vivisection in certain circumstances and for certain purposes. His +endeavour is not so much to get rid of vivisection as to prove that +the problem connected with it is an ethical one; that the practice +should be regulated and guided by public authority. His book is +thorough, ingenious, and, for the most part, very temperate in +expression."--The New York Evening Mail. + +"Readers of Dr. Leffingwell's earlier books will expect to find this +one written in the same quiet tone, with the same care and accuracy, +and they will not be disappointed. The book begins with a history of +vivisection in which the reader's chief suprise will be in finding +that medical opinion a generation ago was much more humane than now. +The humane protests of the last generation seem incredible to-day, +when the profession almost to a man stands for the secvret and +unlimited exploitation of animals."--S. N. Cleghorn, in Journal of +Zoophily. + +"This book is devoted to a study and discussion of medical +experimentation upon both man and animals. The writer is forced in +his literary style, and has long commanded special attention on this +particular subject. In a skilful and scholarly manner he treats of +the historical development of the agitation in favour of restricted +and regulated experimentation. The book should be read by every +person interested in the discussion, whether in favour of restriction +or not.... All who desire to be placed in touch with the latest word +in regard to this important humanitarian question should secure a copy +of Dr. Leffingwell's scholarly book."--National Humane Review. + +"Dr. Leffingwell analyzes the results of vivisection in America in a +masterly way. Many methods of experimentation he finds not only +extremely cruel, but valueless. For instance, the raising of the +blood-pressure of a dog by scorching its paws, one after the other, so +that the blood-pressure might be maintained for twenty minutes. `Of +what possible value was such an experiment?' he asks. `Does anyone +believe than in a human being, blood-pressure will ever be maintained +by slowly scorching the hands and feet of the patient?' ... The matter +is clearly presented, and is interesting to the layman as well as to +the student of physiology."--Hartford Post. + +"The ethical problem of which Dr. Leffingwell writes in his +interesting and instructive book, is that which arises from the +prevailing practice of experimentation for scientific purposes upon +animals and human beings.... The book discusses what vivisection is, +and what have been the mistakes and abuses done in its name, as well +as the present unhappy conditions which surround the practice. The +author demonstrates that much of all this vivisection work is not only +unnecessary, but absolutely valueless to science. The book is to be +commended to all who would know something of what vivisection is, what +it does, and what is being done and should still be done to prevent +its present useless cruelty."--The Christian Register. + +"Perhaps no other man in America has so good a right to speak on +vivisection, from the standpoint of an expert, as Dr. Leffingwell. To +our mind, he has here gathered in a forceful way the last sane word to +be said on this sensitive question. In these nineteen chapters he has +discussed almost every phase of the problem. Dr. Leffingwell has +occupied a difficult position, standing as he does midway between the +contending parties.... He discovers the law of cruelty, and applies it +mercilessly. He also discovers the law of sacrifice, and would apply +it humanely. In short, this book may well be taken as an +encyclopaedia on vivisection, looked at from the standpoint of the +moralist and the physician. There are illminating appendices giving +technical information, and the chapters are characterized by vigorous +England, and a lively sense of a physician's obligations." +--Chicago Unity + +"If nothing else in the book were to be remembered, it would be +valuable that all earnest people should consider the careful analysis +of the various positions which have been taken in regard to this +position, and the critical definition with which Dr. Leffingwell has +striven to replace the varied and unsatisfactory definitions which +have been given for the term `vivisection.' ... The stand taken by +Dr. Leffingwell represents the best-founded position of those +interested in protecting animals from needless pain. He contends that +vivisection should be restricted rather than abolished. There should +be no effort made to prevent those experiments which involve no +suffering for animals, and all animal experimentation should be +brought under the direct supervision and control of the State. `The +practice, whether in public or private, should be restricted by law to +certain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard +against license and abuse.' That this is not an aim impossible of +attainment has been attested by so famous a scientist as Herbert +Spencer, and by a large number of prominent American and English +physicians and scientists."--Boston Transcript. + +"It is greatly to be regretted that the general public is not more +intelligent on the subject of vivisection. It is charged that to-day, +in American physiological laboratories and in medical schools as well, +helpless animals are subjected to torture.... The testimony to this +seems irrefutable; and one is more disposed to give it credence when +he knows of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in other +countries, and learns that the practice of vivisection is unregulated +here.... + +"It is fortunate that there is available such a book as that just +issued by Dr. Albert Leffingwell, a veteran advocate of legal +regulation, not prohibition, of vivisection. Persons who would be +conversant with a question that ought to receive much more general +consideration than it does should read `An Ethical Problem.' + +"One of the most shocking facts with respect to unlimited +vivisection--and that is the kind we have in this country--is that +man's two most intelligent dumb friends, the dog and the horse, have +been subjected to countless hours of inexpressible agony, and often +not for the sake of investigation, but simply that students might +become proficient in operating on living flesh, or witness the cruel +demonstration of physiological facts already well establish.... The +material presented in the book quoted makes the reader feel that in +some respects scientific men have retrograded till they stand about on +a level with the Iroquois Indian of two centuries ago." +--Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. + +"The volume is exceedingly precise and well written, fortifying itself +with abundant particulars. It touches the hideous cruelties and +devilish atrocities which are done upon various animals, and behind +well-closed doors. One reads it with intense pain and a disgust which +combines nausea with indignation toward the ruthless experimenters +who, disclaiming the hindering use of anaesthetics, exhibit all the +phenomena of nervous torment. Monsters of research would sneer aside +all critics of such infernal `physiological' laboratories.... + +"The book is a protest against the careful and subterranean silence +and concealment which seem to conspire to resist all legal +inspection. To evade or baulk investigation while causing pain in +order to exploit it, to jeer at the humane shudder of the layman, to +utilize feeble-minded paupers and friendless young children, to +sophisticate a too credulous public with an austere formula as to the +sacred secrecy of the laboratory--all this is an attempted HYPNOSIS of +critics who really want to be fair, but who as citizens insists upon +the right to know what is doing. + +"The title of the book--`An Ethical Problem'--is indeed justified by +its array of evidence and argument. Particularly is it shown that on +this question America is still in the dark ages. Reform demands a +frank exactitude as to the practices which, if Dr. Leffingwell is +substantially accurate, are a disgrace to humanity. State control +cannot always be avoided by ridiculing the `sentimentality' of those +who insist upon strict regulation. Painless vivisection for +investigation may have its legitimate place; but to illustrate what is +already well ascertained by exhibiting animals in agony is both +superfluous and debasing, repellant to every mind not seared by a +morbid curiousity."--Hamilton College Record + +"`An Ethical Problem,' by Albert Leffingwell, M.D., is by far the most +judicial and unimpassioned contribution to the study of the question +that it has been our privilege to read. Dr. Leffingwell has long been +known both in this country and Europe, as a writer upon this theme. +No one, so far as we know, has brought to it at once so calm and +balanced a judgment as he, or a more exact knowledge of the whole +field in which biological investigation plays so large a part. This +latest publication from his pen is the result of years of study, of +unremitting toil in the great libraries of this country and abroad +where every facility was at hand to obtain data and to verify facts. +It is a book written without bitterness ... which seeks to carry +conviction, not by the force of unverified quotations, or the +repetitions of utterances often made in the heat of controversy, but +by arguments based upon demonstrable fact, and supported by +authorities to which you are referred, chapter and verse.... + +"The time must come when physiologists as a body--as Professor James +declares they should have done long ere this--will meet public opinion +half-way, `and admitting that the situation is a genuinely ethical one +... give up the preposterous claim that every scientist has an +unlimited right to vivisect, for the amount or mode of which no man, +not even a colleague, can call him to account.' When that time comes, +and we believe it is not far distant, some legal regulation of animal +experimentation will be had. For this end, the book we have reviewed +has been written; and when at last such regulation is attained, none +will have a larger share in the gratitude of all who will rejoice in +it, than the author whose notable book we have been considering." +--Dr. F. H. Rowley, in Our Dumb Animals. + --------------------- +"Dr. Leffingwell's `Ethical Problem' is vivisection, TO WHICH HE IS +IMPLACABLY OPPOSED, and which he describes as antivivisectionists +generally do."--The Syracuse Post-Standard. + +"Probably the best-considered treatise on the subject now in print. +The author does not take the position that experimentation upon +animals is always wrong. He maintains, however, in the most +convincing way, that such experiments should be permitted only by +genuine scientists.... Anyone interested in this vital question will +find much that is stimulating, suggestive, and convincing in +Dr. Leffingwell's book."--Universalist Leader. + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN ETHICAL PROBLEM*** + + +******* This file should be named 20222.txt or 20222.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/0/2/2/20222 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + diff --git a/20222.zip b/20222.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ba32426 --- /dev/null +++ b/20222.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..73e6496 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #20222 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20222) |