| |
IV.
VIVISECTION,
AND EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
WE have been hearing a great deal of late years about Vivisection. If any one does not know what this word means, we may briefly explain that it is cutting into or otherwise operating upon live animals. The professed object is to obtain knowledge of the structure and functions of organs, through experiment, in the living body, in addition to what is obtained through observation, in the living or dead body.
Vivisection is a new name for a very old thing. In the medical school of Alexandria, two thousand years ago, there were some physiologists or physicians who, under the plea of the advancement of science, performed experiments upon human victims, upon malefactors who had been condemned to death. One vivisector is recorded to have operated on some hundreds of criminals. The Roman physician Celsus, who lived in the reign of Augustus, and whose book, "De Medicinâ," is still a classical work, very strongly condemned these cruel practices. He used words which men of sound science and respectable character in the medical profession, can now use in regard to the experiments of modern vivisectors. These do not operate on human victims, as there might be a prejudice in our time against such experiments, but they perpetrate cruelties on dumb helpless animals. The ancient experimenters learned very little by their researches, and the
67
OPINION OF CELSUS, THE ROMAN.
modern ones will learn less, because the differences of structure and function diminish the chance of any light being thrown on human physiology by such means. Now, what does Celsus say ? "It is alike unprofitable and cruel to lay open with the knife living bodies, so that the art which is designed for the protection and relief of suffering is made to inflict injury, and that of the most atrocious nature. Of the things sought for by these cruel practices, some are altogether beyond the reach of human knowledge, and others could be ascertained without the aid of such wicked means. The appearances and conditions of the parts of a living body, thus examined, must be very different from what they are in their natural state. If, in the entire and uninjured body, we can often, by external observation, perceive remarkable changes, produced from fear, pain, hunger, weariness, and a thousand other affections, how much greater must be the changes induced by the dreadful wounds and cruel mangling of the dissector, in internal parts whose structure is far more delicate, and which are placed in circumstances altogether unusual ?"
And again : "The prudent physician will acquire in the course of his practice a larger number of useful facts than he could obtain by dissections ; and he will, moreover, have the satisfaction that, while endeavouring to save life and performing offices of mercy, he is acquiring that knowledge which others vainly seek to obtain while inflicting death and performing deeds of dire cruelty ! "
These passages from an ancient heathen writer may well put to shame our modern vivisectors, not merely on moral ground, but on the ground of sound science. Our great English moralist, Samuel Johnson, had heard of such practices in his day, and in a paper in the "Idler" (No. 17), he describes "A race of wretches among the inferior professors of medical knowledge, whose lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty." "If such cruelties were not practised, it were to be desired
68
DR. JOHNSON'S OPINION.
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." "What is alleged in defence of these hateful practices every one knows but the truth is that by knives, fire, and poisons, 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 universal resentment should arise against those horrid operations, which tend to harden the heart and make the physician more dreadful than the gout or the stone."
This statement of Dr. Johnson has been ascribed to prejudice and ignorance by those against whose cruelty it is directed, and who are abashed by his strong and honest censure. His indignation led him to injustice in speaking of such experiments as the "favourite amusement" of the operators, for we may suppose that higher motives actuate even the most callous vivisector. But not the less it is true that the most stupid and wanton cruelties are still perpetrated, deserving all the severity of Dr. Johnson's criticism. Nor are these confined to "the inferior professors of medical knowledge." Let me give one or two examples. M. Brachet, an eminent French physician under Charles X. and Louis Philippe, who obtained the Physiological prize from the Institute, narrates the following experiment :
"I inspired a dog," he says, "with the greatest aversion for me, by plaguing and inflicting some pain or other upon it as often as I saw it. When this feeling was carried to its height, so that the animal became furious as soon as it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes ; I could then appear before it without its manifesting any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its
69
FRENCH EXPERIMENTERS.
barkings and furious movements proved the passion which animated it. I destroyed the drum of its ears, and disorganized the internal ear as much as I could; when an intense inflammation which was excited had rendered it deaf, I filled up its ears with wax. It could no longer hear at all. Then I went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without its falling into a rage ; it seemed even sensible to my caresses." It was thought necessary to repeat this experiment, in order that there might be no uncertainty in the result. "And what," observes Dr. Elliotson, who criticised the case, "was all this to prove? Simply, that if one brute has an aversion to another, it does not feel or show that aversion when it has no means of knowing that the other brute is present. If he had stood near the dog on the other side of a wall, he might have equally proved what common sense required not to be proved. After all, I do not understand how the poor dog did not scent him. I blush for human nature in detailing this experiment."
Here is another example. Painful as the recital is, it is well that non-professional readers should know what kind of experiments are made by men high in science, and so understand that it is no groundless prejudice which holds up their researches to reprobation.
The narrator in this instance was M. Bouillaud, a man of high scientific name, and one of the most conspicuous physicians in the Medical School of Paris. His mode of procedure in investigating the functions of the brain, was to injure or remove various portions of the cerebral substance in different animals, and then to watch and note the effects as long as they survived. The account of the eleventh experiment begins thus : "I made an opening on each side of the forehead of a young dog, and forced a red-hot iron into each of the anterior lobes of the brain. Immediately afterwards the animal, after howling violently, lay down as if to sleep. On urging it, it walked or even ran, for a considerable space : it did not know
70
M. BOUILLAUD'S EXPERIMENTS.
how to avoid obstacles placed in its way, and on encountering them groaned, or even howled violently. Deprived of the knowledge of external objects, it no longer made any movements either to avoid or approach them. But it still could perform such motions as are called instinctive : it withdrew its feet when they were pinched, and shook itself when water was poured upon it. It turned incessantly in the cage as if to get out, and became impatient of the restraint thus imposed." After noting many revolting details, he says, "It slept occasionally for a short time, and on awakening began its mournful cries. We tried to keep it quiet by beating it, but it only cried more loudly : it did not understand the lesson ; it was incorrigible." Some days elapsed, and the journal continues : "Its fore-legs are now half paralysed; in walking, or rather in dragging itself along, it rests upon the back of its foot bent upon the leg. No change has taken place in respect to its intellectual power : as its irrepressible cries disturbed the neighbourhood, I was obliged to kill it." Another young dog that had been exposed to similar suffering from having had "the cranium and cerebral hemispheres sawed transversely," escaped from its torturer by a comparatively easy death. "To prevent its plaintive cries disturbing my neighbours, I enveloped it in a thick sack. On examining it some time after-wards, I found that it had died from suffocation." Another dog was selected, "possessing the reputation of being lively, docile, and intelligent." The anterior part of its brain was transfixed on the 28th June, and day after day, for several weeks, it was tortured in every possible way, and the effects recorded. After detailing the results, he says, on the 7th July, "when menaced, it crouches, as if to implore mercy, but does not in consequence obey. It, on the contrary, utters cries which nothing can repress, similar to those of an uneducated dog, whose intellect is undeveloped. It eats with great voracity and is in good health. I watched attentively for the
71
COURSES OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY.
of this, and for the first fifteen days of the succeeding month. Its want of docility was remarkable : when called it did not come, but lay down and wagged its tail with an air of stupidity. When we tried to lead it, it resisted, rolled upon the ground, and cried, but at last walked, again stopped, and drew back, and cried anew. When confined it cried continually, in spite of all correction. It appeared astonished at everything ; it was easily alarmed ; and when menaces were succeeded by blows, in place of flying, or acting so as to avoid them, it merely lay down in a supplicating posture and cried. It did not caress us on our return, (!) although absent for many days. Some day's afterwards I led it to the river, and, regardless of its terror, threw it in ; on this occasion it quickly swam on shore, and returned to the house. I sometimes put it out at the door, menacing to make it go away, but it remained, or if it did go, it was only for a few steps, when it returned, uttering slight cries, as if entreating us to open the door. All its docility consisted in coming, when, after caressing it, we called upon it in a tone of kindness ; or, if we had menaced, beat, or called upon it in vain, in going away, holding down its head and tail, and in crouching down as if in the act of supplication. It was sacrificed on the 15th August, in the performance of a new experiment."
M. Brachet and M. Bouillaud were at the very head of the medical profession in their day in France. If they could unblushingly record such experiments, what may not be done by men of inferior caste ?
Some years ago an essay on vivisection was published in London, the writer of which, Dr. Markham, remarked : "I need hardly say that courses of experimental physiology are nowhere given in this country ; and that my remarks apply only to those schools in France and elsewhere in which demonstrations of this kind are delivered." Within the last few years these practices have been introduced into our medical schools,
72
"HANDBOOK OF THE VIVISECTION PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY."
which will sink to the continental level, if public opinion is not brought to bear strongly in the matter.
The nature of these demonstrations may be judged from the headings of some of the sections in the "Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory," prepared for the use of the pupils at University College. Whether the experiments are few or many, or whether performed by teacher or pupils, is not the point, so much as the repetition of them, merely for demonstrating ascertained facts. Among them we find "Asphyxia by slow suffocation," "Mode of producing permanent fistula," and others equally barbarous, and useless for practical purposes in "the healing art." One operation is thus referred to: "This can only be shown in the higher animals, the cat or dog being best adapted for the purpose. The method adopted is this : The arches of one or two vertebra are carefully sawn through, or cut through with the bone forceps, and the exposed roots very carefully freed from the connective tissue surrounding them. If the animals be strong, and have thoroughly recovered from the chloroform and from the operation, irritation of the peripheral stump of the anterior root causes not only contraction in the muscles, but also movements in other parts of the body, indicative of pain. On dividing the mixed trunk the contractions cease, but the general signs of pain or sensation remain." —Handbook. p. 403.
I have underlined a few words for the sake of calling attention to a point of importance in the discussion. It is generally supposed that these experiments are painless, being only performed when the animals are under the influence of chloroform. Anæsthetics may be administered in most cases, but in many they are not ; and even when the operation commenced under their influence, the injury and the mutilation of the animals remain, after the effects of the chloroform have passed off: It is a mockery, therefore, to plead that the demonstrations are always painless. In some experiments the action of chloroform
73
DR. HOGGAN'S TESTIMONY.
would interfere with the results, as when the object is to demonstrate the increased sensibility, or the occurrence of pain, under certain conditions. The plea is put forward to lessen public odium ; but the readers of medical journals know that in many cases the animals are kept for days and even for weeks in a mutilated state, for the renewal or variation of experiments. The details of these agonizing scenes are too horrible to give, and no English surgeon of repute ought to sanction such atrocities by a general plea in defence of the right of vivisection.
"During three campaigns," says Dr. Hoggan, "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 the 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 tail in the trough as their 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 or 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
74
DR. GEORGE WILSON'S PROTEST.
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 low whine, instead of letting the poor mangled wretch loose to crawl painfully 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."
"It could be wished," says Dr. George Wilson, in his "Life of Dr. John Reid," "that the invitations to all and sundry among the students of a college or university, to imbrue their hands in innocent blood, as candidates for honours or medals, were more guarded than at present they are. A premium has thus been put upon animal torture and animal murder, at the hands of the most inexperienced and the most unskilful members of the profession, which has been productive of serious
75
MR. ABERNETHY AND DR. FETCHER.
evil. It is time that something be done to check it, by suitable caution and advice to students ; and few things would be more effectual than the public condemnation of injudicious and needlessly cruel physiological experiments, even when these occur in essays deemed worthy of reward. Our central, regulating, and examining medical bodies have much in their power in reference to this and owe it to the character of the profession for humanity, not to tempt young men to let desire for distinctions induce them to be thoughtlessly, much less deliberately, cruel."
Let it be observed, that all these operations are what have hitherto been admitted to be "needless and cruel." Experiments performed merely for demonstrating facts already established, have been till now almost universally condemned. It was for such practices that the late M. Magendie, in Paris, incurred just odium. Men who have had ample experience in teaching have testified that these experiments are useless, and therefore cruel. The late Dr. Fletcher, of Edinburgh, a favourite pupil of Mr. Abernethy, who himself often denounced the needless cruelties of vivisectors, thus expressed his sentiments in his "Introductory Lecture to Physiology :" "Certainly no cruelty is requisite in conveying, whatever may have been practised in acquiring, the knowledge. None of the functions of animals need be seen in action in order to be perfectly well understood ; they may be abundantly well fancied from preparation and representations of the organs engaged in performing them. During many years' experience in lecturing on this subject, I have never yet found it necessary, in a single instance, to expose a suffering animal, even to students of medicine (who are necessarily, in some degree, familiarized with sights of horror), for the purpose of elucidating any point in physiology." In the lectures on the Institutes of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh, Professor Alison never had recourse to such exhibitions in illustration of his lessons. In
76
VETERINARY SCHOOLS 0F ENGLAND.
view of the new system of teaching recently introduced in the London schools, every humane and truly scientific man will thank Professor Owen for his emphatic words, "I reprobate the performance of experiments on living animals to show to students what such experiments have taught the master ; whilst the arguments for learning to experiment by repeating experiments on living animals, are as futile as those for so learning to operate chirurgically."
To the honour of the Veterinary Schools of England, vivisection has never been allowed in them. The English veterinary surgeons have no other means of acquiring dexterity before entering on practice than by operations on the dead body ; and, as Mr. Fleming—distinguished in his profession, and author of a prize essay on the subject—with just pride observes, "No one will deny that they are as well qualified to undertake the management of difficult operations as the vivisectionists." "Every operation," Mr. Fleming adds, "can be as successfully taught on the dead as on the living horse ; indeed, from experience, I can sincerely aver that more instruction and more skill and dexterity will be acquired in less time in the dissecting room than in the operating yard."
Even those who admit the abstract right to perform experiments on living animals, for the advancement of science, with the view of improvement of the healing art, may yet hesitate to admit the value of any such method of research. The whole history of this branch of physiological inquiry must convince men of science of the almost total inutility of vivisection. Take any of the particular subjects that have occupied the attention of vivisectors—the functions of the various parts of the encephalon, for example ; and after tens of thousands of experiments, what a mass of vague and absurdly discordant results appears as the fruit of all their inquiries !
Let the question be put calmly to medical men, or to physiologists,
77
ALLEGED DISCOVERIES DUE TO VIVISECTION.
what additions of importance have been made to our theoretical knowledge, and what accessions to our resources, either in the prevention or the cure of disease, have been obtained strictly through vivisection, and it will be found that they are in general at a loss for a reply, or that their answers are confined to a very poor list of alleged results. A Scotch professor examined before the Parliamentary Committee mentioned many wonderful discoveries, but he must have counted on the ignorance of the non-professional members, most of the results being due to scientific and medical research, utterly irrespective of vivisection.1 It was by a similar disingenuousness that the Bishop of Peterborough was prompted to say in the House of Lords that a great operation, formerly unknown, had been introduced in consequence of vivisection. The truth is, that Mr. Spencer Wells learned the operation from Dr. Clay, who, after quoting Sir J. Y. Simpson of Edinburgh, and challenging Mr. Wells as to the priority, concludes a letter to the "British Medical Journal," with the homely but emphatic assertion, "In my opinion vivisection had no more to do with advancing the success of ovariotomy than the Pope at Rome."
The three most notable discoveries ascribed to experiments on living animals, are the circulation of the blood, by Harvey ; the double functions of the spinal nerves, by Sir Charles Bell ; and the use of chloroform as an anæsthetic, by Sir James Simpson. These are indeed splendid discoveries, but they were not due to vivisection.
Let us take first the discovery of chloroform as an anæsthetic."Surely any amount of suffering that the case might have required might have been legitimately inflicted upon the lower animals, to secure such an inestimable boon to humanity." These are the words of Dr. Carpenter, a humane man as
78
THE CIRCULATION OF BLOOD.
well as a distinguished physiologist, and who when a lecturer on physiology never exhibited experiments on living animals to his students. Dr. Carpenter puts the matter hypothetically —"might it have been legitimately inflicted" —for he knows well that chloroform, and the anæsthetic uses of it, were not discovered by experimenting on living animals. But other advocates of vivisection, less informed or less scrupulous, have made a great boast of this as a result of their art. The fact is that the use of chloroform was the result of an experiment, but it was an experiment, and rather a perilous one, tried by Sir James Simpson upon himself, and by his assistant Dr. Keith, as they have graphically narrated. The previous use of the vapour of sulphuric ether as an anæsthetic was also the result of a trial on himself by an American. These facts are so well known that the reference to chloroform in support of vivisection is an unworthy appeal to popular prejudice.
With regard to the circulation of the blood, the following remarkable passage occurs in the works of the Hon. Robert Boyle : "I remember," says Mr. Boyle, "that when I asked our famous Harvey, in the only discourse I had with him (which was but a little while before he died), what were the things which induced him to think of a circulation of the blood, he answered me, that when he took notice that the valves in the veins of so many parts of the body were so placed that they gave free passage to the blood towards the heart, but opposed the passage of the blood the contrary way, he was invited to think that so provident a cause as Nature had not placed so many valves without a design ; and no design seemed more probable than that, since the blood could not, because of the interposing valves, be sent by the veins to the limbs, it should be sent through the arteries, and return through the veins whose valves did not oppose the course that way."
Here we have the testimony of Harvey himself that he was
79
SIR CHARLES BELL'S DISCOVERIES.
led to the discovery by anatomical observation, and inference therefrom. Experiments were afterwards made in proof of what he had discovered. At that era of medical science prejudice was great, and experiments seemed necessary for the establishment of his doctrine, and for the removal of the violent opposition it met with. He generalized the previous observations of Fabricius, Cesalpino, and others, and demonstrated the main points of the system. But the demonstration was not completed till the microscope displayed the continuity of the arterial and venous circulation. The treatise on the Motion of the Heart is a most remarkable book for its time, but the extravagant way in which it is spoken of could not be exceeded, if (to borrow the words of Archbishop Whately) Harvey had made the blood to circulate instead of merely describing the process.
In the same manner Sir Charles Bell has left on record an express declaration that his great discovery was due, not to experiment, but to observation, and a few experiments were afterwards made, not for his own conviction, but for the satisfaction of others. "It was necessary," he says, "to know whether the phenomena exhibited on injuring the separate roots of the spinal nerves correspond with what was suggested by their anatomy." Some experiments were performed "after delaying long, on account of the unpleasant nature of the operation." And in a subsequent communication to the Royal Society, he says, "In a foreign review of my former papers, the results have been considered as in favour of experimenting on living animals. They are, on the contrary, deductions from anatomy, and I have had recourse to experiments, not to form my opinions, but to impress them on others. It must be my apology that my utmost powers of persuasion were lost while I urged my statements on the ground of anatomy alone." And again, "Experiments have never been the means of discovery, and the survey of what has been attempted of late years will
80
DR. BARCLAY'S TESTIMONY.
prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error, than to enforce the just views taken from anatomy and the natural sciences."
The following passage occurs in the late Dr. Barclay's work on the muscular motions : "In making experiments on live animals, even where the species of respiration is the same as our own, anatomists must often witness phenomena that can be phenomena only of rare occurrence. After considering that the actions of the diaphragm, in ordinary cases, are different from its actions in sneezing and coughing, and these again different from its actions in laughing and hiccup ; after considering that our breathing is varied by heat and cold, by pleasure and pain, by every strong mental emotion, by the different states of health and disease, by different attitudes, and different exertions,—we can hardly suppose that an animal under the influence of horror, placed in a forced and unnatural attitude, its viscera exposed to the stimulus of air, its blood flowing out, many of its muscles divided by the knife, and its nervous system driven to violent desultory action from excruciating pain, would exhibit the phenomena of ordinary respiration. In that situation, its muscles must produce many effects, not only of violent but irregular action : and not only the muscles usually employed in performing the function, but also the muscles that occasionally are required to act as auxiliaries. If different anatomists, after seeing different species of animals, or different individuals of the same species, respiring under different experiments of torture, were each to conclude that the phenomena produced in these cases were analogous to those of ordinary respiration, their differences of opinion as to motions or ordinary respirations would be immense." 1 What is here said with regard to respiration, will apply to almost every subject that has been investigated in a similar manner.
81
MM. LEGALLOIS AND COLIN.
We cannot depend on the accuracy of conclusions respecting the natural functions of parts, drawn from experiments which only show what takes place in those unnatural conditions induced by operations. For not only are the ordinary actions of the organs thereby often deranged or destroyed ; but the dreadful extremity of terror or suffering, and many other causes, may conspire to render still wider the difference between the observed and the natural condition of the objects which are examined.
M. Legallois, a man of great skill and extensive knowledge, remarks in one place of his "Experiments on the Influence of the Nervous System on the Circulation," "J'eus presque autant de résultats différens clue d'expériences ; et après bien des efforts inutiles pour porter la lumière dans cette ténébreuse question, je pris la partie de l'abandonner, non sans regret d'y avoir sacrifié un grand nombre d'animaux, et perdu beaucoup de temps."
The testimony of another French physiologist, M. Colin, a zealous advocate and extensive practicer of vivisection, is worthy of being noticed. "Certain experiments," he says, "are complex in their nature, when they are applied to important functions, the perturbations of which react on nearly the whole animal economy. Apply your instrument to the brain, or the heart, and immediately you have general and serious disturbances of the system, which it is necessary to disengage from those which belong to the direct and local result of the experiment." And again, with regard to the uncertainty of the results obtained, M. Colin says, "Often the same experiment repeated twenty times gives twenty different results, even when the animals are placed apparently in the same conditions. It may even happen that the same experiment gives contradictory results." M. Colin, after making this admission, speaks of the necessity for multiplying experiments : "It is necessary to recommence in order to learn."
82
UNCERTAINTY OF RESULTS OF VIVISECTIONION.
The fairer conclusion would be, with M. Legallois, to desist from a mode of research which experience had shown to be unsatisfactory and fallacious. M. Claude Bernard himself near his end confessed that "Vivisection as yet has but empty hands."
I submit, therefore, these testimonies of practical physiologists to the candid consideration of the medical profession. Experience has shown that experiments on living animals are attended by many sources of fallacy. The results obtained by different experimenters are so various, and often so contradictory, that there is scarcely a single position laid down by them that can with confidence be adopted. We find that the most opposite results occur at different times from injury of the same organs ; that injury of different organs often produces the same results ; and that the same experiments are not followed by the same results in different subjects. The latter remark is especially applicable to experiments with poisons, the effects of which show remarkable variations in different animals. I think that the true value of these experimental researches was rightly estimated by Dr. Pritchard, who in his work on "Insanity" says : "It is well known to all those who have paid attention to the recent progress of physiology, that attempts have been made to ascertain the functions of the different parts of the brain and its appendages, by removing successively parts of these organs from living animals, and noticing the changes which ensued in their actions when thus mutilated. The most celebrated of these was the series of experiments instituted by M. Fleurens. MM. Magendie and Serres, and more lately Fodera and Bouillard, have occupied themselves with similar researches. The results obtained by these experiments not only differ in essential respects from each other, but are completely opposed to conclusions deduced by others from inquiries instituted and pursued for several years on a different path. These inquirers are disposed to distrust all the result
83
DR. CARPENTER AND BARON CUVIER.
of vivisections, or experiments performed by cutting away the brains of living animals. The method of research which they have pursued is that of minute and accurate observation of pathological facts."
Dr. Carpenter says, "On such subjects as the functions of the different parts of the encephalon, I do not believe that experiment can give trustworthy results ; since violence to one part cannot be put in practice without functional disturbance of the rest. Here I consider that a careful anatomical examination of the progressively complicated forms of the encephalon, from fishes up to man—the experiments already prepared by nature—is far more likely than any number of experiments to elucidate the problem." And elsewhere : "Almost all our knowledge of the laws of life must be derived from observation only. Experimentation can conduct us very little farther in this inquiry. . . . The ever-varying forms of organized beings by which we are surrounded, and the constantly-changing conditions in which they exist, present us with such numerous and different combinations of causes and effects, that it must be the fault of our mode of study, if we do not arrive at some tolerably definite conclusion as to their mutual relations. In the language of Cuvier, the different forms of animals may be regarded as so many kinds of experiments ready prepared by nature."
Cuvier's own words in the passage referred to by Dr. Carpenter, as to the value of Comparative Anatomy, or the observation of the structure and functions of the organs of the lower animals, are worthy of quotation. "Nature has supplied the opportunities of learning that which experiments on the living body never could furnish. It presents us, in the different classes of animals, with nearly all possible combinations of organs, and in all proportions. There are none but have some description of organs by which they are made familiar to us and it only suffices to examine closely the effects produced by
84
PATHOLOGICAL STUDY.
these combinations, and the results of their partial or total absence, to deduce very probable conclusions as to the nature and use of each organ, and of each form of organ, in man."
To this I may add, that the observation of abnormal specimens of the human body is also capable of affording conclusions which experimenters seek to arrive at by their painful processes. A careful collection and arrangement of such observations would establish facts in physiology with far greater certainty than any experiments could do. In fact, the observation of the human species in its early periods, and in cases of anomalous growth, affords many analogies to "those experiments ready prepared by nature" which Cuvier refers to in comparative anatomy.
Equally instructive, and elucidatory of physiology, are the teachings of Pathology, or the observation of structure and functions under disease, and the appearances after death. Here again, nature supplies materials for study and for induction, far more varied and more trustworthy than any experiments could give. I am not disputing the conclusiveness of some of these experiments. For example, M. Magendie found that cutting off the eyelids of a rabbit and leaving bare the globe of the eye brought on ophthalmia. MM. Boulay and Colin starved a horse, made an open wound in the throat, and injected some grains of strychnine, and the poor animal died "in characteristic convulsions." M. Flourens removed with a knife some layers of the brain of a bird ; "it immediately manifested a loss of harmony in its movements, it staggered and fell." M. Béclard's "Treatise on Physiology," a standard book of instruction and reference, both in England and abroad, contains hundreds of similar "experiments," with directions for performing them. The operations certainly demonstrate the facts stated. But they are not the less stupid and cruel because they are conclusive. What is here affirmed is, that by
85
THE NORWICH PROSECUTION.
clinical and pathological observation the same results could be and are obtained.1
During the meeting of the British Medical Association at Norwich, in August, 1874, a French physiologist, M. Eugène Magnan, operated upon two dogs in the smoking-room of the Masonic Hall, in that city. The professed object was to show the effects of alcohol upon the system. The legs and heads of the poor animals were tied down to the table, and then through tubes inserted into their thighs absinthe was injected. The operator was assisted by four medical practitioners of Norwich, and there were many spectators, including eminent physicians and surgeons.
The case was one of flagrant and stupid barbarity, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals very properly instituted proceedings against the Norwich practitioners who assisted at the experiments. Sir William Fergusson, the eminent surgeon, on being examined as a witness, spoke of "the ghastly scene," "the groaning of the dogs," their "writhing agony," and in one of them "epileptic convulsions," adding an emphatic condemnation of the whole exhibition as a wanton piece of cruelty. Nothing was proved that had not been already known. It is a pity that Sir William was not present to raise his voice in protest, for it is probable that the arbitrator might then have had the manliness to put an end to the revolting exhibition. Mr. Tuffnell, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, was present at the beginning of the exhibition, but left the place in disgust, strongly protesting
86
THE VIVISECTION ACT AND THE INSPECTORS.
against the inhuman cruelty, and cutting loose the poor dog then stretched on the table for torture. The Norwich magistrates agreed in the opinion that the experiments constituted an act of cruelty, but eventually dismissed the case, as the offence did not seem to come within the meaning of the Act under which the prosecution was laid.
Although this first case of prosecution for cruelty under the pretext of science was unsuccessful, the report of the trial helped to educate public opinion on the subject of vivisection generally.
The question being brought before Parliament, a Royal Commission was appointed. The Report of the Commission, and the evidence taken, appeared in a voluminous Blue Book. This was followed by an Act of Parliament, by which the practice of Vivisection is confined to persons and places, licensed by the Home Secretary. There are at present about fifty licenses, and two inspectors. It is absurd to suppose that this inspection is anything but a delusion. There can be no effectual supervision, and the inspectors in making their Reports must be almost wholly dependent on the statements of the experimenters. So far from checking the evils complained of, they have by this Act obtained legal and national recognition. It is really an Act not for the protection of animals from cruelty, but for the protection of vivisectors from prosecution. The Norwich trial frightened them. We should like to see the Act repealed, and these deeds of shameless cruelty submitted to trial, so as to evoke and strengthen public opinion against their perpetration, as in the Norwich prosecution.
The question remains, what ought now to be done ?
Any appeal to vivisectors themselves would be in vain. The better sort of them, who are influenced by scientific zeal, no doubt hope that they may succeed in researches which have baffled their predecessors. The lower class of operators are too hardened to listen to any remonstrance. What can we expect
87
BAD EFFECT OF VIVISECTION ON OPERATORS.
from men, of one of whom we read this : "An English student having quitted a German physiological laboratory, unable to bear its horrors, the professor remarked that 'he never found Englishmen who would stop with him, and he supposed (with a sneer) that they thought God would make them suffer the same as the animals.' " An English surgeon, visiting a French laboratory, describes the conduct of the students, in mimicking the cries and moans of the tortured animals in derision, as so revolting, that he quitted the place in disgust. I myself in my student days witnessed this "tiger-monkey" spirit in Magendie's class. We have not reached that depth in England yet, and we must not risk our schools of medicine being degraded to the continental level.
An appeal can more hopefully be made to the medical profession at large, the majority of whom acquired their knowledge before these cruel practices were introduced into our schools of physiology. The number of distinguished men who have recently signed a protest and memorial on the subject, proves that a strong feeling pervades the profession as to the scandal of the present state of things.
The following observations were made by the eminent Ophthalmic Surgeon, Dr. C. Bell Taylor, at a meeting of the Nottingham Literary Philosophical Society, in reply to a Lecture by Dr. T. H. Pye Smith, of Guy's Hospital, in favour of the practice of Vivisection.
Dr. Taylor said he cordially detested this horrid system of cutting open living, quivering, sentient bodies, as sentient as our own, in the supposed interests of science, and he did so on three grounds ; first, on account of the great cruelty involved ; next, on account of its demoralizing influence; and lastly, because the results obtained were so very unsatisfactory, so very meagre, so constantly misleading.
With regard to the cruelty, Dr. Pye Smith had given them an altogether couleur de rose picture of the modern art and
88
A SURGEON'S OPINION OF VIVISECTION.
science of vivisection, and he would not presume to doubt that so far as Dr. Pye Smith was concerned the picture was strictly correct, but they were not concerned with Dr. Pye Smith's practice, or the practice of any other private individual. What concerned them was to know what was going on at the present moment in all the great physiological laboratories throughout Europe ; and he had no hesitation in saying that the cruelties perpetrated in those scientific retreats were of such a character that no man with a heart in him could contemplate them for one moment without a thrill of horror. They knew that animals were baked to death in slow ovens ; that others were frozen to death in ice-machines, that they were flayed alive without anæsthetics ; and that they were starved to death—handsome full-grown dogs having been deprived of food for three weeks together until they perished in agony. They knew that Dr. Wertheim, of Vienna, killed twenty-five dogs by pouring turpentine over them and then setting fire to it ; they knew that the same eminent physiologist partially boiled five other dogs, and that several of his victims survived for days in unutterable agony. They knew Professor Goltz, of Strasburg, was in the habit of sucking out with a force-pump the brains of various animals. Details of fifty-one dogs so treated were given. They had also the evidence of Dr. Hoggan, who told them that in the laboratory in which he was an assistant, three dogs, besides rabbits and other animals, were sacrificed daily. He told us that not one of those experiments was justifiable or necessary, and that the idea of the good of humanity would be laughed to scorn by the professor and his assistants, the great aim being to keep up with, or get ahead of, one's contemporaries in science at the price of an incalculable amount of torture, needlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals. Partially dissected animals were reserved from day to day for further torture, or when all but dead handed over for youths to practise easy experiments upon. But he had
89
DEMORALIZING INFLUENCE OF VIVISETION.
said enough, and he paused now to ask—had he established his first proposition that this system is to be condemned on account of its cruelty ?
Now as to the demoralizing effect. When he was a student in Paris he visited the Veterinary School, and he found there that some seven horses a week were then sacrificed in the practice of vivisection, sixty-four operations being performed on the same horse. The eyes were cut out, the ears cut off, the tail docked, the teeth punched out, the belly opened, the hoofs torn off, and every inch of the body fired. He said no man could do these things without suppressing his conscience, and the man who habitually suppressed his conscience was on the way to become a devil. These deeds were cruel to the horse, but they were also cruel to the young men who were compelled to take part in such fiendish rites. The young man was necessarily demoralized and spoilt by such an education.
And now as to results,—he said this practice was not necessary, that it did not attain the end in view, and that it precluded other legitimate methods of teaching and learning science of infinitely more value. It certainly was not necessary for the practice of a surgeon. Surely he might speak on that point with some authority. Very few men were called upon to operate more frequently than himself. If this practice were necessary to acquire skill in operating, it would have been necessary for himself, and he could only say that he never vivisected an animal's eye in his life. He knew that his old teacher Professor Syme—certainly one of the first surgeons the world had ever seen—was vehemently opposed to it; so was the late Sir William Fergusson, Serjeant Surgeon to the Queen. So he thought they might safely conclude that vivisection was not necessary to educate a surgeon. Was it necessary for a physician ? Sir Thomas Watson, who had been the leading Metropolitan physician for about half-a-century, told them that he never saw a vivisectional experiment in his life ; and it was
90
DR. C. BELL, TAYLOR AND DR. PYE
a fact that ninety-five per cent. of the general practitioners in this country were entirely innocent of the practice. The speaker thought they might, therefore, conclude that vivisection was not necessary for the practice of a surgeon or a physician. Had it ever done any good ? If Dr. Pye Smith asserted that humanity had ever benefited by these cruel experiments on animals, he met that assertion with a point-blank denial. Humanity had not benefited. Vivisection had been practised for two thousand years ; and Claude Bernard, one of the greatest vivisectors the world had ever seen, declared that "without doubt, our hands are empty of good results." And he spoke the simple truth. Not only was vivisection devoid of good results, but it exercised a terribly sinister influence in diverting men's minds from legitimate paths of study. Those paths were the bedside and the pathological theatre. The men who neglected those paths in the vain hope of finding a royal road to fame through torturing animals, were not only wasting their time, but preparing for themselves an old age of remorse. He regretted to differ in this from many of his respected professional brethren, but he should be less worthy of their esteem, if, feeling as he did, profoundly convinced of the iniquity and futility of this system, he either hesitated or feared to express his convictions.
We trust that there are many physicians and surgeons who would give as clear and manly a protest as did Dr. C. Bell Taylor. The veteran and eminent surgeon, Mr. Macilwain, has spoken not less strongly as to the guilt of vivisection, while charging upon it the introduction of blunders instead of improvements in surgical practice.
We must not, however, be too sanguine as to the influence of the medical profession, when we read in the Reports of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, vol. ix., the record of the following series of experiments, performed by a physician attached to that school of medicine, and published without eliciting the indigant
91
EXPERIMENTS OF RECENT VIVISECTORS.
protest of the other medical officers belonging to that hospital. The operator took sixteen cats, and having opened their sides while under the influence of chloroform, tied up their bile ducts and then left them to expire slowly from the consequences of the operation. His professed object was to ascertain the changes in the liver, by examining microscopically the morbid conditions which his experiment had superinduced. He preferred, he tells us, cats to dogs, because dogs have been found to live only from five to ten days, whereas some of his cats lingered for more than three weeks. The first two creatures were fortunate enough to die after two days. The third, he remarked, three days after the operation, "seems to be dying, and lies on its side, mewing." It was "found dead" next day, and a fourth died in four days of prolapse of bowels. A fifth, "a very old white cat," lingered four days. Two were found dead on the seventh day. Of one which survived about a fortnight, it is noted that it was "very feeble ; when tumbled over, has great difficulty in regaining its feet." Two of the poor creatures lingered till the 27th and 29th day, when they were killed. The results of the experiments for any practical purpose are, and the whole affair was, an example of pitiless and stupid cruelty.
The experiments of an Edinburgh professor on the bilious secretion in dogs, published in the medical journals, and those of another vivisector on the brains of monkeys, sanctioned, we are sorry to say, by the medical section of the British association for the Advancement of Science, are of an equally horrible kind.
It is evident that public opinion outside must be brought to bear for the suppression of atrocities which thus pass with-out protest in the profession. The late Sir Arthur Helps ("Animals and their Masters," p. 43) says, "It is very little that legislation can do in this matter. We can only rely upon the force of enlightened public opinion" He adds that
92
DUTY OF EDUCATING PUBLIC OPINION.
"Women could do a great deal in this matter, as indeed they can in most social affairs. Any man," he says, "known to have practised needless cruelties on animals, should be placed under not only a professional but a social ban."
"I would not enter on my list of friends
(Though graced with polished manners and fine sense,
Yet wanting sensibility) the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm."
How much more are those to be shunned who pass their time in pursuits so repulsive and base. "Public opinion," Sir Arthur thought,"would stop many of the cruel and wicked experiments carried on under the sanction of public bodies." The evil is increasing, and is likely to increase, from the prominence given to such researches in our schools of medicine. Let it be remembered that this is a new feature in English medical education. There were no "demonstrations" on living animals at Guy's, or St. Bartholomew's, or Westminster, or University College, a few years ago ; nor in Dublin or Edinburgh was the practice recognized. "Physiological Laboratories" are new institutions in England, and deserve to be viewed with the same horror as the Chambers of the Inquisition. Medical students trained under such influences must deteriorate in moral and social tone, and the character and status of the whole profession will be affected by the misdeeds of the vivisectors.
While we seek the repeal of the Vivisection Act, and ultimately the total abolition of these cruel practices, we must remember that laws cannot precede public opinion, but must be the outgrowth of that opinion. The present duty of all who wish these evils abated, is to diffuse information on the subject, among non-professional as well as professional readers.
Footnotes
p77-1
A detailed examination of the discoveries ascribed to experiments on living animals will be found in the Edinburgh Prize Essays on Vivisection.
[77-1*back]
p80-1
"Barclay on the Muscular Motions," p. 298.
[80-1*back]
p85-1
An American physician, Dr. H. C. Wood, has written an article on "The Value of Vivisection," in Scribner's Monthly Magazine, for September, 1880. He says that "Anatomy may be studies upon the dead, but physiology must be studied upon the living." Perfectly true : but not by fire, poison, and the knife ! And again he says, "There is no other known way of making physiological researches except by vivisection." As if all observation of life and life–actions, in health or in disease, were worthless !
[85-1*back]
| | |
