APPENDIX A.
LINES OF INQUIRY REGARDING VIVISECTION
1. Do European physiologists as a rule profess or manifest in any way the slightest regard for the sufferings of the animals upon which they experiment?
(See Dr. Klein's testimony before the Royal Commission, 1876, Ques. 3535–3547 : "No regard at all." )
Dr. Yeo, Professor of Physiology, London, speaks "of the ofttold tale of horrors contained in the works of Claude Bernard, Brown–Séquard, Paul Bert, and Richet in France, Mantegazza in Italy, and Flint in America." (Fortnightly Review, March, 1882.) "Inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists ; we have seen it was so in Magendie." (Report of Royal Commission signed by Prof. T. H. Huxley.)
2. Have the cruelties of Magendie, Schiff, Bert, Mantegazza, Stricker, Goltz, and others, in any one single instance, led to the discovery of a new remedy for disease?
They have not. See Scribner's Monthly, July, 1880. Lippincott's Magazine, August, 1884.
170
3. When a writer asserts that in experiments "anæsthetics are always used," does he include curare?
Ask him. Often he includes it. But curare is used simply to keep the animal motionless.
4. Does the use of curare abolish pain?
Claude Bernard, of Paris, and Prof. Austin Flint, of New York, agree that sensation is not abolished. (See Flint's "Physiology," page 595.) Prof. Gamgee experimented on children and arrived at the same conclusion. (Report Royal Commission, Ques. 5407.)
5. Do any safeguards exist which would in any way prevent the most cruel experiments of Europe from being repeated here in America?
None whatever.
6. Does any State in the Union require a report to be made of all vivisection experiments, as in England, Scotland, and Ireland? Or are experiments with out any such restraint?
Experimenters are not required to make any report of what they do, and there are no restrictions of any kind.
7. Are experiments common in America which are contrary to law in all parts of Great Britain?
Painful experiments for teaching purposes are not allowed in England, but are everywhere employed in American medical schools. As examples of American practices,
171
consult Flint's "Physiology," pp. 269, 282, 403, 489, 585-589, 639, 674, 710, 738. Journal of Physiology vol. ii., p. 63, and vol. vii., p. 416. "Vivisection is grossly abused in the United States. . . . We would add our condemnation of the ruthless barbarity which is every winter perpetrated in the medical schools of this country." (Therapeutic Gazette, August, 1880.)
8. Would it not be entirely practicable for students of physiology to remember the functions of the spinal cord, for instance, by means of diagrams, without the use of torture as an illustration? How do they remember such facts in Great Britain, where torture cannot thus be used?
No answer has thus far been given to this query by the advocates of vivisection without restraint.
9. Are medical discoveries of any value ever made without vivisection, or by its opponents?
"Time was," says a writer in the New York Medical Record, "when in certain forms of peritonitis, opium was the chief remedy ; to–day, Lawson Tait's teaching that this is dangerous, and that the opposite treatment by salines is more useful, is most successfully followed." 1
Who is this Lawson Tait?
One of the most eminent surgeons of Great Britain. Yet he says : "Like every member of my profession I was brought up in the belief that many of our most valued
172
means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning surgery ; I do not believe vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit ; and I know it often led me astray."
10. Why do not American physicians condemn all experiments which are cruel in tendency ?
There are comparatively few American physicians who would approve or sanction some of the atrocities mentioned in these pages, related by the experimenters themselves ; may there not be many more who would welcome any legal restrictions which would not only make such extreme cruelty impossible, but also forbid all painful experiments for the illustration of well–known facts? If every physician who believes that the door to cruelty should be shut, would but use his personal influence to that end, the law would be speedily passed. Let us hope that the time may soon come, when no man in the medical profession will hesitate to denounce all atrocities of experimentation for fear of being regarded as an opponent of science.
____________
The final result of all inquiry regarding vivisection must depend greatly upon the point of view assumed regarding man's right of dominion over the animal world. Disregarding minor differences, it is believed that the principal opinions held respecting vivisection may be grouped together under four different statements.
173
The first of the following paragraphs presents the view practically held by those European physiologists who acknowledge no restrictions or restraints. The second perhaps fairly presents the opinion of American teachers of physiology at the present time. The third statement sets forth the position of those (including the writer), who would permit experimentation upon animals, but only when done under such legal restrictions and supervision as would make scientific torture a crime ; while the last clause is the ground taken by those who demand the abolition of vivisection under all circumstances whatever. The reader will note that each paragraph represents one phase of opinion, slightly different from that which either follows it or precedes it ; and that otherwise they have no connection.
1. "Animals have no rights which human beings are bound to consider or respect. There need be no restraint ; man may kill, torture, or torment them in any way or for any purpose of profit or amusement."
2. "For his own benefit—even if slight—man has the right to sacrifice animals with prolonged torture. The sight, for instance, of an animal like a dog, dying in torment, may often assist a dull or indolent student to remember what his books and lectures teach, better than otherwise. Wanton cruelty for mere amusement, however, should be severely deprecated."
3. "Man is justified in taking animal life as quickly as possible for any purpose of utility to himself, and even in using animals as subjects for scientific experimentation
174
whenever this may be done without causation of pain. On the other hand, to subject an animal to torment for any purpose whatever, other than the creature's own benefit, is an act of cruelty, and ethically wrong."
4. "The killing of animals for food, or for any other useful purpose, is perhaps right ; but all that scientific experimentation upon them known as 'vivisection' is so linked in the past with atrocious cruelty, and so certain of future abuse, that, whether slight or severe, painful or painless, every form of experiment is fraught with danger, and, with other forms of cruelty, should pass under the ban of civilization as a barbarity and a crime."
Footnotes
p171-1 N.Y. Medical Record, November 4, 1893, p. 577.
[171-*back]
| 
