The British Medical Journal of last week contained a paragraph
on our expression of opinion in the Spectator of the 29th May that the Commission on Vivisection ought to have compulsory powers, --a paragraph, by the way, which, with an unusual violation of literary etiquette, it ascribes without hesitation to a named indi- vidual,—but its criticism only shows how heated party feeling can distort an editor's judgment. It chooses to suppose that we imputed to medical men a disposition to "hide their convictions," "deny their opinions," and "falsify their acts." Yet the passage re- ferred to contained the clearest evidence of what we especially pointed at,—the reluctance of porters, assistants, and other sub- ordinates to give evidence, except under the plea of legal neces- sity, of the number of animals supplied to the medical schools for the purposes of vivisection. However, all evidence given on such a subject should be given in the most formal manner possible, and under the gravest sense of responsibility,—in other words, should be given upon oath. The difference . between an airy statement, corresponding generally to the impression left on a man's mind, and a statement which is guaranteed by all the forms of law, is generally considerable, even though dis- honourable suppression of the truth be as far from the witness's mind as it was from our own to suppose that the medical pro- fession in general is not a profession of honourable gentlemen.
Previous page
