[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTITOR:]
SIR,—Some time ago the Lancet informed its readers that Professor Montego= of Pavia had made certain experiments with the object of ascertaining "the physiological effects of pain."
A reply to a letter addressed by me to one of the lecturers at that University confirmed the accuracy of the statement published by the above journal.
It appears that "various animals" were made to suffer dread- -fully.by means capable of causing permanent pain. What those means were I was not informed, but I will leave your readers to imagine a small enclosure wherein the poor creatures were confined. Day after day, night after night, there is no relief. Montegazza is "master of the situation," and does not think they have suffered -enough to enable him to judge of the physiological effects of pain. Most of them are too sickened to partake of any food, but some -hobble to the water-trough. Whether any of them died or were killed, I was not informed, but although I cannot prove it, I fear that most likely they were at some subsequent period made the subjects of vivisection. However that may be, what did the Professor learn from this barbarous, inhuman, and irrational ex- periment? "That the digestive functions became deranged !"
Persons whose judgment is enfeebled by prejudice easily dispose -of such dreadful facts. They will assume that all vivisectors are among the wisest and noblest of mankind—devoted to science— aim at the attainments of the order of Nature, and by similar inferences justify everything they do ; while, as the above instance proves, the irrational nature of the experiment consists in violating first, the common-sense, and then the moral feelings Nature her- -self has given to um, that she may be obeyed and not violated.
Allow me, then, again to assert, from long experience, in more than one physiological laboratory, that, in my judgment, half, if not two-thirds of the experiments made on living animals are mere " scientific" pastime. My proposition is, not that vivisection is saseless—I have never said so, although, if very many scientific men could, they would utterly abolish it everywhere—but my pro- position is that vivisection must in some effectual way be checked and legally controlled.
The primary physiological result of respiration is to convert 'venous into arterial blood. I suppose most persons know this, nevertheless the experiment, which I need not describe, is repeated over and over again every year, after which the wound in the animal's neck is sewn up, and when the helpless creature is well again, it is subjected to a second, and sometimes to a third experiment. Vivisections performed merely to show this and other physiological facts, already established beyond a doubt, are a cruel pastime, and must not be allowed. We all know exactly the sort of people, affected by what I am in the habit of describing as scientific flatulency, who will ask,—Is not this, that, or the other eminent man to be trusted? For myself, I reply;—Certainly not. Every one -of us, with no exception of any kind, is liable to excess or abuse in the practice of that which we are exclusively given to, and vivisectors are a glaring example of the truth of this assertion. In saying this, I wish to state I do not allude to any one vivisector in particular.
With respect to Professor Schiff's letter in the Times of this week, all things considered, I think it fair to state that I deem it I
satisfactory,—although, aloe! general readers will be much more relieved by it than professional men are likely to be, as I shall attempt to show you next week, when, at the same time, I hope to submit for your consideration certain data whereby vivisectors will, I trust, soon be constrained to restrict thepractice to a useful, and not to a shameful extent.—I am, Sir, &c.,
ARTHUR DE Nod WALKER.
Previous page
