A sharp discussion has been going on during the week
in the columns of the Times, in which Mr. Ernest Ilart has been the chief combatant on the side of Vivisection. As he has quoted the authority of Sir Charles Bell in favour of this practice, and as Mr. Hart defends it not only for the purposes of original research, but even, when guarded by anwsthetics, for the purpose of ordinary demonstrations in the lecture-rooms of medical schools, we take occasion to quote from Sir Charles Bell's own writings the follow- ing expression of his deep feeling that even a clear scien- tific object, unless under the most exceptional circumstances, did not cover this most distressing practice with the plea of neces- sity. Sir Charles Bell writes to his brother in 1822 :—" 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 authorised in nature or
religion to do these cruelties and yet what are my experi- ments, in comparison with those that are daily done, and are done daily for nothing ?" Of course it will be said at once that the most important of our anaesthetics had not been discovered in 1822. But those who really believe that anzesthetics have proved a blessing to the animal world, in relation to scientific research, should read the very painful letter of Mr. Hoggan to the Morning Post, contained in our correspondence columns. They will hardly think so again. The Lancet, the greatest medical authority among our journals, reiterates this week its wish for responsible enquiry, and for temperate legislation if any apt legislation can be suggested.
Previous page
