[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIH,—It is gratifying to
find an advocate of Vivisection taking up an intelligible and logical position, but Dr. Pye-Stnith's " modera- tion " appears to me to hinder his getting the full beuefit of his principle. If man is essentially different from the lower animals in an ascending scale, Dr. Pye-Smith should show in what the difference consists. If not, his principle should be extended to man, or to the next lower animal,—woman. There would be clear advantages arising from human vivisection,—we could r, mon from one case to another as little as possible dissimilar, we could clearly understand the amount of pain we inflicted, and would thus be
able to minimise it ; we could offer opportunities for heroism— (Bentham gave his dead body to science, why should not a devotee offer his living body ; men yield their lives in war, why not in science ?)—we could thin the surplus population by getting rid of flame of the most degraded types, for many a man to whom life is prolonged wretchedness would freely give a week's pain for a week's intoxication ; we should not be dependent on mere observation and experiment, for the operatee could inform us on his feelings, and doubtless would, unless we resorted to tracheotomy, which ought not to be permitted, except the operates was a relative or dear friend of the operator. In all ages there have been martyrs to religion. Why should there not be, in an age when science is religion, devotees (other than operators, who already suffer enough,) to science?
What consolation under a few days' or even a few weeks' agony would it be to know that our suffering would ensure immunity from suffering or alleviation of pain to countless fellow-creatures! Then the brutes might fairly suffer for their fellows. Let us be just in our dealings even with brutes.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. H. LAKE.
Previous page
