From Mrs Dorothy M. Cooke
Sir; I have read with interest John Linklater's 'Poor Vivisected Doggy' (November 3) and in spite of his unfortunately patronising tone in choosing the title for his article and the sweeping assumption that anyone htilding views different from his or those of his colleagues is necessarily "a pain in the neck" he nevertheless makes three sound constructive suggestions, which an enlightened government would do well to note.
First that " the Government should introduce regulations by way of an amendment of the 1876 Act widening the scope of its inspectorate and encouraging research establishments to be more forthcoming." Secondly that "There is no intrinsic reason why a small inspection team should not be attached to each of the new Regional Health Boards" and thirdly "that the Government should publish a more realistic analysis of animals used."
John Linklater is wide of the mark when he accuses not only the RSPCA but FRAME of holding anti-vivisection views. Their policies are clearly printed for all to read. If it were not so all the animal welfare societies would be under the same umbrella which they are net.
It is true to say, and I doubt that John Linklater would disagree, that had a better communication, a greater awareness and understanding existed at the time, the Son of God would not have been nailed to the gallows, a Belsen and a Buchenwald would not have been created.
Dorothy M. Cooke Cob Cottage, Abberton Road, Fingringhoe, Essex
Previous page
