MR. GALSWORTH'eS STOCKTAKING.
Mr. Galsworthy writes : " If vivisection were confined to experiments on anaesthetized animals, followed by instant destruction, I am not certain enough to protest." Here he is more antivivisectionist than the antivivisectionists I Our creed is based upon the fact that vivisection cannot be so con- fined ; no vivisector would allow that it could be. Hence, to quote Cardinal Manning, " What we cannot control we must prohibit." Mr. Galsworthy adds : " Destruction and torture are totally different things," but he does not define torture. The question is—does he regard the introduction of slowly working disease into an animal's body as torture ? We do. We hold that, if we must kill, the deed should be done quickly. Does Mr. Galsworthy approve or disapprove of such experi- ments, which form the bulk of those performed ? Finally, he reaches the lame conclusion : " I feel that vivisectional experiments should be confined to a minimum and be under the strictest possible supervision." That is no solution, for the " minimum " might involve torture to a few animals, and supervision is useless if a thing is allowed. To sit on the fence for ever while others are being pelted for a supposed scientific heresy is hardly worthy of Mr. Galsworthy.- BEATRICE E. KIDD, Hon. Sec. British Union for Abolition of Vivisection, 82 Charing Cross.
Previous page
