THE RESTRICTION OF VIVISECTION.
IF we rightly interpret the drift of the very sensible and mode-
rate article which appeared in the Lancet on the 2nd January fast, the purpose of Monday's weighty deputation to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, will not be opposed by any but the most extreme devotees of scientific investigation and the most scornful of the indifferentists to animal suffering. Though many members of that deputation, and many of the eminent and influential men and women who signed the Memorial which was then presented, would themselves go much further than the Memorial, the evident belief of all who took part in it was that all that can be successfully achieved at present is the strict limitation of painful experiments on living animals within bounds which shall be defined by law,—defined with a view not only wholly to prevent needless pain, but also to forbid the infliction of even needful pain, except for the purpose of experi- ments whose issue in larger knowledge and greater remedial power is, in the opinion of highly qualified men, probable and near at hand. The Lancet, while, not unnaturally, perhaps, de- tailing, from time to time, for the instruction of its own profes- sional readers, experiments the character of which will seem to most of us very revolting, has honourably distinguished itself amongst Medical papers by a humane disapproval of all the extreme doctrines of the Vivisectional School, and by entering, with a cor- dial and kindly sentiment, into the feelings of those who are shocked and revolted by the rapid growth of the barbarities of modern science. We read with very sincere pleasure its demand, en the 2nd January, for further legislation defining the restric- tions within which, and within which alone, painful experimenta- tion on living animals should be permitted. With this powerful organ of the more humane physiologists and pathologists on our aide, we may hope that the scepticism of the Times as to the need for such legislation, may not produce any undue effect. The Lancet writes with full knowledge of what is going on, while the unprofessional papers write without it. Legislation is needed, if only to give practical effect to the restrictions agreed to by the pbysiologists of the Liverpool Meeting of the British Association 1870, and which have since been disregarded in too many of our medical schools.
Let us point out the line which must be taken by any scientific physiologist who resists this demand in toto, and not merely on the ground that this or that practical detail of the measure proposed, will be very difficult to fix. Any such physiologist must hold, in the first place, that the scientific aim is one so indefinitely higher than the compassionate or humani- tarian motive, that there is no substantial danger of extinguish- ing the latter completely in the ardour of the former,—that there is no real peril of the hardening of the hearts of the very caste who, by the very fact of their cultivation of science, suppose that they hold in their hands the destinies of the human race. Now, we would just suggest that there are circumstances under which the growth of the human intellect would simply degrade instead of elevating man, and that such a condition of things would be very near, if ever the feeling of pity for human suffering began to wane. Yet such a result is certain to flow from a habit of artificial indifference to the sufferings of the lower animals. In the next place, such an opponent must hold that no trained phy- siologist, if left to himself, is ever likely to omit humane precau- tions which might be taken without prejudice to scientific results, —is ever likely, for instance, to prolong needlessly or carelessly the sufferings of mutilated animals after their sufferings might and ought to be mercifully ended. Considering the records we have of what is actually done year after year, even in compara- tively merciful England, this assumption would, we need not say, be exactly contrary to the truth. In the third place, such an antagonist must hold that demonstrations on living animals are never given in our hospitals, though the students might be taught as well or even better by demonstrations on dead subjects. Once more, he must hold that unpractised hands are never allowed to operate on living animals, though the prospectus of one of our hospitals plainly says that " gentlemen will themselves per- form the experiments, so far as opportunities permit,"—the ex- periments referred to being experiments on living subjects. Now, we should say that he would be a hardy man who maintained any one of these four assertions; indeed, all of them are demonstrably false. And if so, we cannot understand what position a man is prepared to take up who simply contends that all restrictive legislation on this subject is needless and inexpedient. It is quite conceivable that a ruthless physiologist might go a certain distance with the memorialists and stop at a certain point. He might main-
thin, for instance, that on a physiologist once perfectly trained, it would be a blunder, from any motives of humanity, to impose restrictions to investigation, in conformity merely with the judg- ment of another,—since that other might be wholly unable toappre- ciate the suggestions of a new and original genius. But even so, he would hardly maintain that it is not necessary to impose restrictions both of time and place which would prevent incom- petent men from attempting, at frightful cost to their victims, what they were not fitted to succeed in ; nor could he well main- tain that it is not necessary to impose the restrictions of respon- sibility and publicity—the restriction, that is, of a responsible public statement of the ends and nature of the experiments performed,—even on such a one as this. Studiedly moderate as the demand of the memorialists to the ' Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' is, it is hardly possible for any one who thinks cruelty to animals a sin at all, to oppose their present object.
We only hope that the wealthy and powerful Society itself, which, through Lord Harrowby and Lady Burdett Coutts received the deputation so cordially on Monday, will show no symptoms of hesitation on this matter. We cordially believe they will not. When medical opinion has reached the point which the article in the Lancet shows, it is time for the scepticism of the world to cease. Medical men do not enjoy the con- tumely to which the enthusiastic vivisectors amongst their brethren expose the profession. Most of them probably honestly hope to see it carefully limited. No less than sixty medical men, a few of great eminence, signed the Memorial ; and many more would have done so, if the time for preparing it had been longer. Indeed, the present law against cruelty to animals leaves all wild animals entirely unprotected against cruelty of any kind. In such a condition of things the exigency for new legislation of a moderate kind, seems to us imperative. And we suspect that the Committee of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sees the necessity as well as we do, and will bend their mind with judgment and energy to the difficult work before them.
Previous page
