VIVISECTION.*

Dn. PrE-Ssurn, whose letter on Vivisection will be found in another column, goes ia one respect farther than any of the physiologists who have hitherto contended for the fight and duty of performing painful experiments on living animals. He asserts what all the physiologists whom we have hitherto consulted, including Mr. Ray Lankeater himself, somewhat indignantly repudiate—the right of making such experiments simply by way of demonstration to classes of learners. With regard, he says, "to repeating experiments for the purpose of demonstra- tion, it must be frankly admitted that the proper teaching of physiology (and hence of medicine) as an experimental science of observed facts, and not of mere hearsay, can only be ac- complished with the aid of such demonstrations. They * I. Handbook -for The Physiological Laboratory. By E. Klein, 31.D., J. Burdon Sanderson, M.D., J. Lander Brunton, M.D. Edited by J. Bunion Sanderson. London: Churchill.

2. Mitanitian'a Magazine. Article ix., "Vivisection." By Dr. Michael Foster.

should be few, well chosen, and carried out under responsible authority. Happily, it can be added that it rarely, if ever,

happens that such experiments are not aided instead of being hindered by complete auassthesia." But in cases in which com-

plete anesthesia is impossible, and we know there are plenty of such cases where the intention is to teach the student the slow effects—an effect of days, and not of hours—of an injury inflicted on an animal organism, Dr. Pye-Smith would, we suppose, maintain, in conformity with his principle, that experiments involving protracted suffering are legitimate and right, not to say a bounden duty of the physiological teacher.

We are anxious to have this point clear, because it is one of the greatest moment to the animals which are usually made the sub- jects of these experiments. Dr. Pye-Smith says :—" Physio- logical experiments are justifiable whenever they are performed by competent persons for adequate objects, and with all possible precautions against unnecessary pain, and then only." And one of these "adequate objects," as he asserts, is "the proper teaching of physiology." Nor is that only Dr. Pye- Smith's view ; it is clearly also Dr. Michael Foster's also, who says in his article in the new number of Macmillan what really comes to precisely the same, namely, that whenever "an animal is killed by man, or suffers at the hands of man, without benefit to man, or when the same benefit could be gained without the death or without the pain, then the death or the pain can be no longer justified," a rule which clearly refuses to restrain the absolute discretion of physiologists in weighing the end for which they inflict pain or torture against the pain, and justifies vivisections for the sake of instruction as much as vivisections for the sake of discovery. Both Dr. Michael Foster, then, and Dr. Pye-Smith go far beyond Mr. Ray Lankester in the principle they lay down, and we must also say that they take up a more logical position. It seems to us clear that if animals are to be conceded no sort of rights at all against the scientific zeal of man, they can hardly have any kind of rights against the didactic zeal of man. It is hardly possible to maintain that it is a duty to inflict any amount of torture on them.

for an adequate end as regards investigation, and yet wrong to in- flict the same for an adequate end as regards physiological disci-.

pline. In either case, it is the benefit of man in one form or other which outweighs every claim of the animal to ease, and why should not one kind of benefit to man be regarded as much as another?' Mr. Ray Lankester and the other eminent physiologists to whom we have referred may perhaps say, "Because the gain is not stiff-- dent, the student may learn the same things fairly from the dead body, though not perhaps so efficiently as from the living ;

taking the animal's pain into consideration, we should prefer that all demonstrations were on the dead body." But Dr. Michael Foster and Dr. Pye-Smith would, we suppose, reply that it is quite impossible to weigh any real loss to the lower animals against any real gain to human beings, for if you do, you involve your- self in a maze of intolerable difficulty,—the very first assumption.

of the physiologists being that any kind of substantial good to man must take precedence of any amount of loss and pain to the lower creatures. Accordingly we find throughout the Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory, whose title we have placed below, and for which Dr. Michael Foster is himself in part responsible, that the writers and editor assume the purely scientific point of view, giving the student directions for many experiments which. are not even supposed to throw light on any unexplored problems,. but only to help him to realise vividly the exact conditions of the physiological facts already ascertained and the principles involved- in them. Take passages like this, for instance, and remember that they are put into the hands of young students, and that some of them describe experiments apparently of a kind easily performed not merely in a properly-ordered physiological labora- tory, but in the student's own lodgings, if he chooses:—

" IsarLAsussiimr or BONE.—Germination of the cells of bone may be induced in the long bones of mammalia by passing a red-hot needle as deeply as possible into a bone, previously freed of the soft parts covering it, and then cauterizing the hole with a pointed stick of nitrate of silver or by violent fracture. After a week or more the bone is excised.. INFLAMMATORY CHANGES Iv THE Lnaii Czu.s.—Inflammation, of the tissue of the liver may be induced by passing a needle into the organ. Twenty-four to forty-eight hours after the injury the animal must be killed."

Or take this more elaborate experiment, which is begun under chloroform, but which contemplates sometimes keeping the sub- ject of it alive, though dying, for a week :—

SncitEriox or Bum.—The secretion of bile goes on constantly, but is more rapid at one time than another. It is accelerated after taking food, usually attaining its maximum from two to four hours after each meal. The secretion is observed by tying the gall duet awl introducing

a cannula into the gall bladder. A detailed account of the method of performing this operation on dogs is given by Rutherford and Gamgee in the report of the British Association for 1868. The principal facts may be demonstrated in the guinea-pig, as follows :—Mode of Producing Biliary Fistula in Guinea-pigs: Chloroform the animal and secure it on the rabbit-support Make an incision from an inch to an inch and a quarter long through the abdominal parieties in the linea alba from the miphoid process downwards. The pyloric end of the stomach is thus exposed. Pull gently on the stomach until the duodenum is brought into view. The part corresponding to the superior transverse part in man forma a loop with its convexity directed towards the diaphragm, into the top of which convexity the duct= choleclochus enters. Tie the duct in this situation, then seize the gall bladder with a pair of forceps. It is always full, and cannot be missed if the forceps are passed imme- diately under the edge of the costal cartilages. Make a small incision into the gall bladder, introduce a cannula, and tie it in. The diameter of the cannula should be from two to three centimetres, ajtd the end to be inserted should have a projecting rim. This can Ije made very readily by heating the end of a piece of glass tubing of the proper size, and pressing it, while hot, against a flat piece of iron. Sew up the 'wound, leaving the free end of the cannula outside. The bile in guinea- pigs is secreted in very large quantities, being as much as 7.3 grammes in an hour per kilogramme of body-weight. It contains a very small proportion of solids, about 1.3 per cent. When the bile duct is tied the gninea-pigs die in less than twenty-four hours, but when it is not tied

they will live for a week." .

Again, take such directions as these, which distinctly contemplate that the anmsthesia should have passed away and the evidence of pain be given before the operation is over :—

"Recanarorr SENSIBILITY.—This is never witnessed in the frog. It can only be shown in the higher animals, the cat or dog being best adapted for the purpose. The method adopted is very similar to the above—the arches of one or two vertebra3 being carefully sawn through or cut through with the bone forceps, and the exposed roots being very carefully freed from the connective tissue surrounding them. lithe animal be strong and have thoroughly recovered from the chloroform and from the operation, irritation of the peripheral stump of the anterior root causes not only contractions in the muscles supplied by the nerve, but also movements in other parts of the body indicative of pain or of sensations. On dividing the mixed trunk at some little distance from the junction of the roots, the contractions of the muscles supplied by the nerve cease, but the general signs of pain or of sensation still remain."

It is perfectly obvious that all these directions of the Handbook contemplate experiments of a very painful kind made for the sake of demonstration ; and we now know that Dr. Pye- Smith agrees with Dr. Michael Foster and his colleagues that such experiments are fully justifiable, so far as they are supposed needful for the purpose of perfecting young physiologists in their science. We confess we had thought that with Mr. Ray Lan- !tester's pleas for 'original research,' the practical demands of English physiologists on the sufferings of animals had reached their limits, though we never saw why the logic of the plea should stop there. Now it is evident that almost every physiologist holds a separate opinion of his own as to what will or will not justify the' infliction of torture, and that each of them claims to be his own judge in the matter. Dr. Michael Foster, it is true, tells us in Macmillan that the number of really painful experiments on living animals must become fewer and fewer as the science of physiology advances :—

" The second class of experiments carried on without ananthetics, those entailing a considerable amount of pain, are not only by far the least numerous, but must of necessity become less and less numerous as physiology advances. The end which the physiologist has in view is to analyse the life of any being into its constituent factors. As his science advances, he becomes more and more able to disengage any one of these factors from the rest, and so to study it by itself. He can already, as we have seen, study the complicated phenomena of the circulation of the blood, of respiration, of various kinds of movement, quite apart from and independent of the presence of consciousness. As his knowledge widens and his means of research multiply, this power of analysis will grow more and more; and by and bye, if physiology be allowed free scope for its development, there will come a day when the physiologist in his experimental inquiries will cause pain then, and then only, when pain is the actual object of his study. And that he will probably study best upon himself."

But we are not much comforted by that, seeing that Mr. Ray Lankester has told us that the total number of such experiments must and ought to increase in geometrical ratio as science goes on advancing and suggesting new experiments, and therefore, we suppose, though the relative proportion of painful experi- ments to the- whole ma- diminish, the total number of ex- periments necessarily and essentially painful will probably increase. It is well to recall the remarkable words in which Mr. Ray Lankeater, as we understand him, expressly lays it down that, for purposes of research, living animals should be experimented on just as freely, and with just such a profusion of variations, as if they were mere groups of electric currents or of chemical elements. In a letter which appeared in our

own journal on the 10th January, he wrote :—" If you consider for a moment what experiment means, and what the experimental method is, the absurdity of the notion that one can limit the

number of experiments in a science which depends on it becomes obvious. What would you say to the proposition that experi- ments in electricity and magnetism are only in the rarest cases of real value ? It is, no doubt, true that experimental research with regard to some problems of physiology is exceedingly di Ill- cult, and that hundreds of experiments are performed yielding vague results, before a definite and fruitful variation of the ex- periment is devised. But that is of the very essence of experi- mental investigation, as every educated person is aware, and can be as largely illustrated from the proceedings of a physical or chemical as from those of a physiological laboratory. If Professor Schiff has carefully and intelligently experimented with the dogs entrusted to him, there is certainly no reason to reproach him with their large number. If you allow experiment at all, you must admit the more of it the better, since it is very certain that for many years to come the problems of physiology demanding experimental solution will increase in something like geometrical ratio, instead of decreasing."

Here, then, we have the physiologist who repudiates the notion that experiments—on living animals should be made for the sake of demonstration, asserting that the more of such experiments are made for purposes of research, the better, and that the number which ought to be made will increase in geometrical progression for many years to come ; while other eminent physiologists, coming to his aid, say that his repudiation of such experiments for the sake of demonstration is illogical and a mistake. And as, of course, demonstrative or didactic experiments will more or less follow, like a shadow, all the new experiments made for purposes of research, so far as these tarn out instructive, we have the prospect of an increase also in' the demonstrative experiments in something like geometrical ratio, in the wake of the discoveries.

Surely all this renders it abundantly evident that if physio- logists are to be trusted to limit themselves in these matters, there is a wretched look-out for their unhappy victims. We do not deny for a moment that if the subjects of these experiments were not sentient, the more of them there might be, the better it would be for science. When we said that we believed that only in the rarest cases were such experiments of real value, we ignorantly assumed that physiologists themselves, recognising the intrinsic evil of in- flicting severe pain, would not think it justifiable to try all the innumerable, tentative, and preparatory experiments by which experimenters grope their way,—they would regard themselves as limited to the far smaller class of experiments by which immediate restate of great value might be expected. It seems that in this we were utterly mistaken, that physiologists regard living animals as just as much the proper subjects of purely tentative experiment as dead animals or inanimate substances,—nay, that they claim the right to repeat them simply for the sake of demonstrating to students the re sults obtained. The question arises, then, is this what the English public approve ? The English Legislature has, we believe, decided that all experiments which amount to torture on domestic animals are penal, and liable to a fine of five pounds. And we do not doubt that any magistrate would enforce such a penalty against, say, the operator who killed a guinea-pig by the slow process of a week's pain, for the sake of illustrating biliary fistula. The real question is whether these poor creatures have any rights at all as against 1113, when their pain can minister to our benefit. The physiologists say, 'No, you must keep the right to kill them, and with the right to kill, the right to inflict any amount of further misery which is subordinate to man's benefit. Only that infliction of pain is cruel which is needless for the purpose of man's benefit.' If that be so, then the horrid ex- periments of Professor Montegazza, of Pavia, on the effect of long- protracted weeks of pain on the digestion of animals, were wicked only in case they were really unscientific. Experiments on the effect of equally acute and protracted pain, if they were but good tentatives, if they were likely to suggest other and more "fruitful variations" of such experiments on pain, would be completely justified. If it does happen that no such experiments at present could really be useful, that is the mere accident of time and cir- cumstance. It is certain that many experiments involving a week, or very many days of terrible suffering, like Professor Brown-Sequard's on the punctures which caused the wretched subjects of his experiments to tarn round and round for days while growing weaker and wearier and vainly attempting to resist the horrible necessity, are approved by our humanest physiologists as most instructive and fruitful. The physiologists clearly maintain that no amount of wilful infliction of suffering, if it opens out a prospect of scientific discovery, would be wrong ; nay, that all such wilffil infliction would be a matter of duty.

Now that seems to us diabolical doctrine, and somewhere or other, there must be tenable ground against it. It is impossible

that what we should think it wicked to inflict on an idiot, or on a criminal of the worst dye, it can be right to inflict on an animal which may suffer just as keenly, even for the sake of scientific discovery. Our own belief is, that while it is plainly lawful to kill,—otherwise we could never allow half the animals which exist to come into being at all,—and to inflict such suffering as is needful to kill in as humane a way as may be, we are bound to treat sensitive creatures, in proportion to their sensi- tiveness, as we would be treated ourselves by more powerful beings. Anyhow, there must be a limit somewhere, and the physio- logists are clearly not to be trusted to lay it down for themselves. They don't agree with each other about either the true limit or the prospects of their victims for the future. If we are to have physio- logical experiments on living animals, they should be made unlawful except in given places, and under special direction, and with careful guarantees for the effective use of narcotics, and for the protection of the victims against the protraction of the suffering after the anaesthesia has ceased. Dr. Michael Foster may think that such views are dictated by what he amiably terms "malevolent ignorance,"—we should have thought benevolent ignorance would have hit even his own mark better,—but we are persuaded that the Legislature which passed the Cruelty to Animals' Act will not agree with him. That Act was passed while the discussion about recent vivisections,—we fancy it was about Brow n-Sequard's experi- ments,—was still recent, and we fully believe with the explicit pur- pose of putting a strict limit upon them. We do not doubt that Dr. Michael Foster is right in saying that many of these physiological experimenters are personally among the humanest in their treat- ment of their own dogs and other domestic animals. But it must, we think, give them a grim sympathy with the Calvinistic doc- trines of election and reprobation, to find themselves electing some creatures to happiness and honour, while they doom others to the dismal reprobation of dying day by day of some " biliary fistula" or other artificially induced disease.