THE OLD LINE BETWEEN MAN AND BEAST

But there is still a distinction to be clung to by those who dare not

tell themselves the truth about the medical profession because they are

so helplessly dependent on it when death threatens the household. That

distinction is the line that separates the brute from the man in the old

classification. Granted, they will plead, that we are all cruel; yet the

tame-stag-hunter does not hunt men; and the sportsman who lets a leash

of greyhounds loose on a hare would be horrified at the thought of

letting them loose on a human child. The lady who gets her cloak by

flaying a sable does not flay a negro; nor does it ever occur to her

that her veal cutlet might be improved on by a slice of tender baby.

Now there was a time when some trust could be placed in this

distinction. The Roman Catholic Church still maintains, with what it

must permit me to call a stupid obstinacy, and in spite of St. Francis

and St. Anthony, that animals have no souls and no rights; so that you

cannot sin against an animal, or against God by anything you may choose

to do to an animal. Resisting the temptation to enter on an argument as

to whether you may not sin against your own soul if you are unjust or

cruel to the least of those whom St. Francis called his little brothers,

I have only to point out here that nothing could be more despicably

superstitious in the opinion of a vivisector than the notion that

science recognizes any such step in evolution as the step from a

physical organism to an immortal soul. That conceit has been taken

out of all our men of science, and out of all our doctors, by the

evolutionists; and when it is considered how completely obsessed

biological science has become in our days, not by the full scope of

evolution, but by that particular method of it which has neither sense

nor purpose nor life nor anything human, much less godlike, in it:

by the method, that is, of so-called Natural Selection (meaning no

selection at all, but mere dead accident and luck), the folly of

trusting to vivisectors to hold the human animal any more sacred than

the other animals becomes so clear that it would be waste of time to

insist further on it. As a matter of fact the man who once concedes

to the vivisector the right to put a dog outside the laws of honor and

fellowship, concedes to him also the right to put himself outside them;

for he is nothing to the vivisector but a more highly developed, and

consequently more interesting-to-experiment-on vertebrate than the dog.

The Doctor's Dilemma: Preface on Doctors · 第 30 / 52 题