The question of vivisection is again pushing itself to the front. A
distinguished American physiologist has lately come forward in defense
of the French experimenter, Magendie, and, parenthetically, of his
methods of investigation in the study of vital phenomena. On the other
hand, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made an
unsuccessful attempt, in the New York Legislature last winter, to
secure the passage of a law which would entirely abolish the practice
as now in vogue in our medical schools, or cause it to be secretly
carried on, in defiance of legal enactments. In support of this bill
it was claimed that physiologists, for the sake of "demonstrating to
medical students certain physiological phenomena connected with the
functions of life, are constantly and habitually in the practice of
cutting up alive, torturing and tormenting divers of the unoffending
brute creation to illustrate their theories and lectures, but without
any practical or beneficial result either to themselves or to the
students, which practice is demoralizing to both and engenders in the
future medical practitioners a want of humanity and sympathy for
physical pain and suffering." How far these statements are true will
be hereafter discussed; but one assertion is so evidently erroneous
that it may be at once indicated. _No_ experiment, however atrocious,
cruel and, therefore, on the whole, unjustifiable, if performed to
illustrate some scientific point, was ever without "any beneficial
result." The benefit may have been infinitesimal, but every scientific
fact is of some value. To assert the contrary is to weaken one's case
by overstatement.
Leaving out the brute creation, there are three parties interested
in this discussion. In the first place, there are the professors and
teachers of physiology in the medical colleges. Naturally, these
desire no interference with either their work or their methods. They
claim that were the knowledge acquired by experiments upon living
organisms swept out of existence, in many respects the science of
physiology would be little more than guesswork to-day. The subject of
vivisection, they declare, is one which does not concern the general
public, but belongs exclusively to scientists and especially to
physiologists. That the present century should permit sentimentalists
to interfere with scientific investigations is preposterous.
Behind these stand the majority of men belonging to the medical
profession. Holding, as they do, the most important and intimate
relations to society, it is manifestly desirable that they should
enjoy the best facilities for the acquirement of knowledge necessary
to their art. To most, the question is merely one of professional
privilege against sentiment, and they cannot hesitate which side to
prefer. In this, as in other professions or trades, the feeling of
_esprit de corps_ is exceedingly strong; and no class of men likes
interference on the part of outsiders. To most physicians it is wholly
a scientific question. It is a matter, they think, with which the
public has no concern; if society can trust to the profession its sick
and dying, they surely can leave to its feeling of humanity a few
worthless brutes.
The opinion of the general public is therefore, divided and confused.
On the one hand, it is profoundly desirous to make systematic and
needless cruelty impossible; yet, on the other, it cannot but hesitate
to take any step which shall hinder medical education, impede
scientific discovery, or restrict search for new methods of treating
disease. What are the sufferings of an animal, however acute or
prolonged, compared with the gain to humanity which would result from
the knowledge thereby acquired of a single curative agent? Public
opinion hesitates. A leading newspaper, commenting on the introduction
of the Bergh bill, doubtless expressed the sentiment of most people
when it deprecated prevention of experiments "by which original
investigators seek to establish or verify conclusions which may be of
priceless value to the preservation of life and health among human
beings."
The question nevertheless confronts society,--and in such shape, too,
that society cannot escape, even if it would, the responsibility of a
decision. Either by action or inaction the State must decide whether
the practice of vivisection shall be wholly abolished, as desired by
some; whether it shall be restricted by law within certain limits and
for certain definite objects, as in Great Britain; or whether we are
to continue in this country to follow the example of France and
Germany, in permitting the practice of physiological experimentation
to any extent devised or desired by the experimentalist himself. Any
information tending to indicate which of these courses is best cannot
be inopportune. Having witnessed experiments by some of the most
distinguished European physiologists, such as Claude Bernard (the
successor of Magendie), Milne-Edwards and Brown-Sequard; and, still
better (or worse, as the reader may think), having performed some
experiments in this direction for purposes of investigation and for
the instruction of others, the present writer believes himself
justified in holding and stating a pronounced opinion on this subject,
even if it be to some extent, opposed to the one prevailing in the
profession. Suppose, therefore, we review briefly the arguments to be
adduced both in favor of the practice and against it.
Two principal arguments may be advanced in its favor.
I. It is undeniable that to the practice of vivisection we are
indebted for very much of our present knowledge of physiology. This is
the fortress of the advocates of vivisection, and a certain refuge
when other arguments are of no avail.
II. As a means of teaching physiological facts, vivisection is
unsurpassed. No teacher of science needs to be told the vast
superiority of demonstration over affirmation. Take for instance, the
circulation of the blood. The student who displays but a languid
interest in statements of fact, or even in the best delineations and
charts obtainable, will be thoroughly aroused by seeing the process
actually before his eyes. A week's study upon the book will less
certainly be retained in his memory than a single view of the opened
thorax of a frog or dog. There before him is the throbbing heart; he
sees its relations to adjoining structures, and marks, with a wonder
he never before knew, that mystery of life by which the heart, even
though excised from the body, does not cease for a time its rhythmic
beat. To imagine, then, that teachers of physiology find mere
amusement in these operations is the greatest of ignorant mistakes.
They deem it desirable that certain facts be accurately fixed in
memory, and they know that no system of mnemonics equals for such
purpose the demonstration of the function itself.
Just here, however, arises a very important question. Admitting the
benefit of the demonstration of scientific facts, _how far may one
justifiably subject an animal to pain for the purpose of illustrating
a point already known_? It is merely a question of cost. For instance,
it is an undisputed statement in physical science that the diamond is
nothing more than a form of crystallized carbon, and, like other forms
of carbon, under certain conditions, may be made to burn. Now most of
us are entirely willing to accept this, as we do the majority of
truths, upon the testimony of scientific men, without making
demonstration a requisite of assent. In a certain private school,
however, it has long been the custom once a year, to burn in oxygen a
small diamond, worth perhaps $30, so as actually to prove to the
pupils the assertion of their text-books. The experiment is a
brilliant one; no one can doubt its entire success. Nevertheless, we
do not furnish diamonds to our public schools for this purpose.
Exactly similar to this is one aspect of vivisection--it is a question
of cost. Granting all the advantages which follow demonstration of
certain physiological facts, the cost is pain--pain sometimes
amounting to prolonged and excruciating torture. Is the gain worth
this?
Let me mention an instance. Not long ago, in a certain medical college
in the State of New York, I saw what Doctor Sharpey, for thirty years
the professor of physiology in the University Medical College, London,
once characterized by antithesis as "Magendie's _infamous_
experiment," it having been first performed by that eminent
physiologist. It was designed to prove that the stomach, although
supplied with muscular coats, is during the act of vomiting for the
most part passive; and that expulsion of its contents is due to the
action of the diaphragm and the larger abdominal muscles. The
professor to whom I refer did not propose to have even Magendie's
word accepted as an authority on the subject: the fact should be
demonstrated again. So an incision in the abdomen of a dog was made;
its stomach was cut out; a pig's bladder containing colored water was
inserted in its place, an emetic was injected into the veins,--and
vomiting ensued. Long before the conclusion of the experiment the
animal became conscious, and its cries of suffering were exceedingly
painful to hear. Now, granting that this experiment impressed an
abstract scientific fact upon the memories of all who saw it,
nevertheless it remains significantly true that the fact thus
demonstrated had no conceivable relation to the treatment of disease.
It is not to-day regarded as conclusive of the theory which, after
nearly two hundred repetitions of his experiment, was doubtless
considered by Magendie as established beyond question. Doctor Sharpey,
a strong advocate of vivisection, by the way, condemned it as a
perfectly unjustifiable experiment, since "besides its atrocity, it
was really purposeless." Was this repetition of the experiment which
I have described worth its cost? Was the gain worth the pain?
Let me instance another and more recent case. Being in Paris a year
ago, I went one morning to the College de France, to hear
Brown-Sequard, the most eminent experimenter in vivisection now
living--one who, Doctor Carpenter tells us, has probably inflicted
more animal suffering than any other man in his time. The lecturer
stated that injury to certain nervous centers near the base of the
brain would produce peculiar and curious phenomena in the animal
operated upon, causing it, for example, to keep turning to one side in
a circular manner, instead of walking in a straightforward direction.
A Guinea-pig was produced--a little creature, about the size of a
half-grown kitten--and the operation was effected, accompanied by a
series of piercing little squeaks. As foretold, the creature thus
injured did immediately perform a "circular" movement. A rabbit was
then operated upon with similar results. Lastly, an unfortunate
poodle was introduced, its muzzle tied with stout whip-cord, wound
round and round so tightly that it must necessarily have caused severe
pain. It was forced to walk back and forth on the long table, during
which it cast looks on every side, as though seeking a possible avenue
of escape. Being fastened in the operating trough, an incision was
made to the bone, flaps turned back, an opening made in the skull,
and enlarged by breaking away some portions with forceps. During
these various processes no attempt whatever was made to cause
unconsciousness by means of anaesthetics, and the half-articulate,
half-smothered cries of the creature in its agony were terrible to
hear, even to one not unaccustomed to vivisections. The experiment was
a "success"; the animal after its mutilation _did_ describe certain
circular movements. But I cannot help questioning in regard to these
demonstrations, _did they pay_? This experiment had not the slightest
relation whatever to the cure of disease. More than this: it teaches
us little or nothing in physiology. The most eminent physiologist in
this country, Doctor Austin Flint, Jr., admits that experiments of
this kind "do not seem to have advanced our positive knowledge of the
functions of the nerve centers," and that similar experiments "have
been very indefinite in their results." On this occasion, therefore,
three animals were subjected to torture to demonstrate an abstract
fact, which probably not a single one of the two dozen spectators
would have hesitated to take for granted on the word of so great a
pathologist as Doctor Brown-Sequard. Was the gain worth the cost?
This, then, is the great question that must eventually be decided by
the public. Do humanity and science here indicate diverging roads? On
the contrary, I believe it to be an undeniable fact that _the highest
scientific and medical opinion is against the repetition of painful
experiments for class teaching_. In 1875, a Royal Commission was
appointed in Great Britain to investigate the subject of vivisection,
with a view to subsequent legislation. The interests of science were
represented by the appointment of Professor Huxley as a member of this
commission. Its meetings continued over several months, and the report
constitutes a large volume of valuable testimony. The opinions of many
of these witnesses are worthy of special attention, from the eminent
position to the men who hold them. The physician to the Queen, Sir
Thomas Watson, with whose "Lectures on Physic" every medical
practitioner in this country is familiar, says: "I hold that no
teacher or man of science who by his own previous experiments, * * *
has thoroughly satisfied himself of the solution of any physiological
problem, is justified in repeating the experiments, however
mercifully, to appease the natural curiosity of a class of students or
of scientific friends." Sir George Burroughs, President of the Royal
College of Physicians, says: "I do not think that an experiment should
be repeated over and over again in our medical schools to illustrate
what is already established."[A] Sir James Paget, Surgeon
Extraordinary to the Queen, said before the commission that
"experiments for the purpose of repeating anything already ascertained
ought never to be shown to classes." [363.] Sir William Fergusson, F.
R. S., also Surgeon to her Majesty, asserted that "sufferings
incidental to such operations are protracted in a very shocking
manner"; that of such experiments there is "useless repetition," and
that "when once a fact which involves cruelty to animals has been
fairly recognized and accepted, there is no necessity for a continued
repetition." [1019.] Even physiologists--some of them practical
experimenters in vivisection--join in condemning these class
demonstrations. Dr. William Sharpey, before referred to as a teacher
of physiology for over thirty years in University College, says: "Once
such facts fully established, I do not think it justifiable to repeat
experiments causing pain to animals." [405.] Dr. Rolleston, Professor
of Physiology at Oxford, said that "for class demonstrations
limitations should undoubtedly be imposed, and _those limitations
should render illegal painful experiments before classes_." [1291.]
Charles Darwin, the greatest of living naturalists, stated that he had
never either directly or indirectly experimented on animals, and that
he regarded a painful experiment without anaesthetics which might be
made with anaesthetics as deserving "detestation and abhorrence."
[4672.] And finally the report of this commission, to which is
attached the name of Professor Huxley, says: "With respect to medical
schools, we accept the resolution of the British Association in 1871,
that experimentation without the use of anaesthetics is not a fitting
exhibition for teaching purposes."
[A] "Report of the Royal Commission on the Practice of
Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments for Scientific
Purposes." Question No, 175. Reference to this volume will
hereafter be made in this article by inserting in brackets,
immediately after the authority quoted, the number of the
question in this report from which the extract is made.
It must be noted that hardly any of these opinions touch the question
of vivisection so far as it is done without the infliction of pain,
nor object to it as a method of original research; they relate simply
to the practice of repeating painful experiments for purposes of
physiological teaching. We cannot dismiss them as "sentimental" or
unimportant. If painful experiments are necessary for the education of
the young physician, how happens it that Watson and Burroughs are
ignorant of the fact? If indispensable to the proper training of the
surgeon, why are they condemned by Fergusson and Paget? If requisite
even to physiology, why denounced by the physiologists of Oxford and
London? If necessary to science, why viewed "with abhorrence" by the
greatest of modern scientists?
Another objection to vivisection, when practiced as at present without
supervision or control, is the undeniable fact that habitual
familiarity with the infliction of pain upon animals has a decided
tendency to engender a sort of careless indifference regarding
suffering. "Vivisection," says Professor Rolleston of Oxford, "is very
liable to abuse. * * * It is specially liable to tempt a man into
certain carelessness; the passive impressions produced by the sight
of suffering growing weaker, while the habit and pleasure of
experimenting grows stronger by repetition." [1287.] Says Doctor
Elliotson: "I cannot refrain from expressing my horror at the amount
of torture which Doctor Brachet inflicted. _I hardly think knowledge
is worth having at such a purchase._"[A] A very striking example of
this tendency was brought out in the testimony of a witness before the
Royal Commission,--Doctor Klein, a practical physiologist. He admitted
frankly that as an investigator he held as entirely indifferent the
sufferings of animals subjected to his experiments, that, except for
teaching purposes, he never used anaesthetics unless necessary for his
own convenience. Some members of the Commission could hardly realize
the possibility of such a confession.
[A] "Human Physiology," by John Elliotson, M. D., F. R. S.
(page 448).
"Do you mean you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the lower
animals?"
"_No regard at all_," was the strange reply; and, after a little
further questioning, the witness explained:
"I think that, with regard to an experimenter--a man who conducts
special research and performs an experiment--he has _no time, so to
speak, for thinking what the animal will feel or suffer_!"
Of Magendie's cruel disposition there seems only too abundant
evidence. Says Doctor Elliotson: "Dr. Magendie, in one of his
barbarous experiments, which I am ashamed to say I witnessed, began by
coolly cutting out a large round piece from the back of a beautiful
little puppy, as he would from an apple dumpling!" "It is not to be
doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position
as physiologists. _We have seen that it was so in Magendie._" This is
the language of the report on vivisection, to which is attached the
name of Professor Huxley.
But the fact which, in my own mind, constitutes by far the strongest
objection to unrestrained experiments in pain, is their questionable
utility as regards therapeutics. Probably most readers are aware that
physiology is that science which treats of the various functions of
life, such as digestion, respiration and the circulation of the blood,
while therapeutics is that department of medicine which relates to the
discovery and application of remedies for disease. Now I venture to
assert that, during the last quarter of a century, infliction of
intense torture upon unknown myriads of sentient, living creatures,
_has not resulted in the discovery of a single remedy of acknowledged
and generally accepted value in the cure of disease_. This is not
known to the general public, but it is a fact essential to any just
decision regarding the expediency of unrestrained liberty of
vivisection. It is by no means intended to deny the value to
therapeutics of well-known physiological facts acquired thus in the
past--such, for instance, as the more complete knowledge we possess
regarding the circulation of the blood, or the distinction between
motor and sensory nerves, nor can original investigation be
pronounced absolutely valueless as respects remote possibility of
future gain. What the public has a right to ask of those who would
indefinitely prolong these experiments without State supervision or
control is, "What good have your painful experiments accomplished
during the past thirty years--not in ascertaining facts in physiology
or causes of rare or incurable complaints, but in the discovery of
improved methods for ameliorating human suffering, and for the cure
of disease?" If pain could be estimated in money, no corporation
ever existed which would be satisfied with such waste of capital
in experiments so futile; no mining company would permit a
quarter-century of "prospecting" in such barren regions. The usual
answer to this inquiry is to bring forward facts in physiology thus
acquired in the past, in place of facts in therapeutics. Thus, in a
recent article on Magendie to which reference has been made, we are
furnished with a long list of such additions to our knowledge. It may
be questioned, however, whether the writer is quite scientifically
accurate in asserting that, were our past experience in vivisection
abolished, "it would blot out _all_ that we know to-day in regard to
the circulation of the blood, * * the growth and regeneration of bone,
* * * the origin of many parasitic diseases, * * * the communicability
of certain contagious and infectious diseases, and, to make the list
complete, it would be requisite * * to take _a wide range in addition
through the domains of pathology and therapeutics_." Surely somewhat
about these subjects has been acquired otherwise than by experiments
upon animals? For example, an inquiring critic might wish to know a
few of the "many parasitic diseases" thus discovered; or what
contagious and infectious diseases, whose communicability was
previously unknown, have had this quality demonstrated solely by
experiments on animals? And what, too, prevented that "wide range into
therapeutics" necessary to make complete the list of benefits due to
vivisection? In urging the utility of a practice so fraught with
danger, the utmost precaution against the slightest error of
overstatement becomes an imperative duty. Even so distinguished a
scientist as Sir John Lubbock once rashly asserted in Parliament that,
"without experiments on living animals, we should never have had the
use of ether"! Nearly every American school-boy knows that the
contrary is true--that the use of ether as an anaesthetic--the grandest
discovery of modern times--had no origin in the torture of animals.
I confess that, until very recently, I shared the common impression
regarding the utility of vivisection in therapeutics. It is a belief
still widely prevalent in the medical profession. Nevertheless, is it
not a mistake? The therapeutical results of nearly half a century of
painful experiments--we seek them in vain. Do we ask surgery? Sir
William Ferguson, surgeon to the Queen, tells us: "In surgery I am not
aware of any of these experiments on the lower animals having led to
the mitigation of pain or to improvement as regards surgical
details." [1049.] Have antidotes to poisons been discovered thereby?
Says Doctor Taylor, lecturer on Toxicology for nearly half a century
in the chief London Medical School (a writer whose work on Poisons is
a recognized authority): "I do not know that we have as yet learned
anything, so far as treatment is concerned, from our experiments with
them (_i.e._ poisons) on animals." [1204.] Doctor Anthony, speaking of
Magendie's experiments, says: "I never gained one single fact by
seeing these cruel experiments in Paris. _I know nothing more from
them than I could have read._" [2450.] Even physiologists admit the
paucity of therapeutic results. Doctor Sharpey says: "I should lay
less stress on the direct application of the results of vivisection to
improvement in the art of healing, than upon the value of these
experiments in the promotion of physiology." [394.] The Oxford
professor of Physiology admitted that Etiology, the science which
treats of the causes of disease, had, by these experiments, been the
gainer, rather than therapeutics. [1302.] "Experiments on animals,"
says Doctor Thorowgood, "already extensive and numerous, cannot be
said to have advanced therapeutics much."[A] Sir William Gull, M. D.,
was questioned before the commission whether he could enumerate any
therapeutic remedies which have been discovered by vivisection, and he
replied with fervor: "The cases bristle around us everywhere!" Yet,
excepting Hall's experiments on the nervous system, he could enumerate
only various forms of disease, our knowledge of which is due to
Harvey's discovery, two hundred and fifty years ago! The question was
pushed closer, and so brought to the necessity of a definite reply, he
answered: "I do not say at present our therapeutics are much, but
there are lines of experiment which _seem to promise_ great help in
therapeutics." [5529.] The results of two centuries of experiments, so
far as therapeutics are concerned, reduced to a seeming promise!
[A] "Medical Times and Gazette," October 5, 1872.
On two points, then, the evidence of the highest scientific
authorities in Great Britain seems conclusive--first, that experiments
upon living animals conduce chiefly to the benefit of the science of
physiology, and little, if at all, at the present day, to the
treatment of disease or the amelioration of human suffering; and,
secondly, that repetition of painful experiments for class-teaching in
medical schools is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Do these
conclusions affect the practice of vivisection in this country? Is it
true that experiments are habitually performed in some of our medical
schools, often causing extreme pain, to illustrate well-known and
accepted facts--experiments which English physiologists pronounce
"infamous" and "atrocious," which English physicians and surgeons
stigmatize as purposeless cruelty and unjustifiable--which even Huxley
regards as unfitting for teaching purposes, and Darwin denounces as
worthy of detestation and abhorrence? I confess I see no occasion for
any over-delicate reticence in this matter. Science needs no secrecy
either for her methods or results; her function is to reveal, not to
hide, facts. The reply to these questions must be in the affirmative.
In this country our physiologists are rather followers of Magendie and
Bernard, after the methods in vogue at Paris and Leipsic, than
governed by the cautious and sensitive conservatism in this respect
which generally characterizes the physiological teaching of London and
Oxford. In making this statement, no criticism is intended on the
motives of those responsible for ingrafting continental methods upon
our medical schools. If any opprobrium shall be inferred for the past
performance of experiments herein condemned, the present writer asks a
share in it. It is the future that we hope to change. Now, what are
the facts? A recent contributor to the "International Review,"
referring to Mr. Bergh, says that "he assails physiological
experiments with the same blind extravagance of denunciation as if
they were still performed without anaesthetics, as in the time of
Magendie." In the interests of scientific accuracy one would wish
more care had been given to the construction of this sentence, for it
implies that experiments are not now performed except with
anaesthetics--a meaning its author never could have intended to convey.
Every medical student in New York knows that experiments involving
pain are repeatedly performed to illustrate teaching. It is no secret;
one need not go beyond the frank admissions of our later text-books on
physiology for abundant proof, not only of this, but of the extent to
which experimentation is now carried in this country. "We have long
been in the habit, in class demonstrations, of removing the optic lobe
on one side from a pigeon," says Professor Flint, of Bellevue Hospital
Medical College, in his excellent work on Physiology.[A] "The
experiment of dividing the sympathetic in the neck, especially in
rabbits, is so easily performed that the phenomena observed by Bernard
and Brown-Sequard have been repeatedly verified. _We have often done
this in class demonstrations._"[B] "The cerebral lobes were removed
from a young pigeon in the usual way, an operation * * _which we
practice yearly as a class demonstration_."[C] Referring to the
removal of the cerebellum, the same authority states: "Our own
experiments, which have been very numerous during the last fifteen
years, are _simply repetitions of those of Flourens, and the results
have been the same without exception."[D] We have frequently removed
both kidneys_ from dogs, and when the operation is carefully performed
the animals live for from three to five days. * * Death always takes
place with symptoms of blood poisoning."[E] In the same work we are
given precise details for making a pancreatic fistula, after the
method of Claude Bernard--"one we have repeatedly employed with
success." "In performing the above experiment it is generally better
_not_ to employ an anaesthetic,"[F] but ether is sometimes used. In the
same work is given a picture of a dog, muzzled and with a biliary
fistula, as it appeared the fourteenth day after the operation, which,
with details of the experiment, is quite suggestive.[G] Bernard was
the first to succeed in following the spinal accessory nerve back to
the jugular foramen, seizing it here with a strong pair of forceps and
drawing it out by the roots. This experiment is practiced in our own
country. "We have found this result (loss of voice) to follow in the
cat after the spinal accessory nerves have been torn out by the
roots," says Professor John C. Dalton, in his Treatise on Human
Physiology.[H] "This operation is difficult," writes Professor Flint,
"but we have several times performed it with entire success;" and his
assistant at Bellevue Medical College has succeeded "in extirpating
these nerves for class demonstrations."[I] In withdrawal of blood from
the hepatic veins of a dog, "avoiding the administration of an
anaesthetic" is one of the steps recommended.[J] The curious experiment
of Bernard, in which artificial diabetes is produced by irritating the
floor of the fourth ventricle of the brain, is carefully described,
and illustrations afforded both of the instrument and the animal
undergoing the operation. The inexperienced experimenter is here
taught to hold the head of the rabbit "firmly in the left hand," and
to bore through its skull "by a few lateral movements of the
instrument." It is not a difficult operation; it is one which the
author has "often repeated." He tell us "_it is not desirable to
administer an anaesthetic_," as it would prevent success; and a little
further we are told that "we should avoid the administration of
anaesthetics in all accurate experiments on the glycogenic
function."[K] It is true the pleasing assurance is given that "this
experiment is almost painless"; but on this point, could the rabbit
speak during the operation, its opinion might not accord with that of
the physiologist.
[A] A Text-book of Human Physiology, designed for the use of
Practitioners and Students of Medicine, by Austin Flint, Jr.,
M. D. D. Appleton & Co. New York: 1876 (page 722).
[B] Page 738.
[C] Page 585.
[D] Page 710.
[E] Page 403.
[F] Pages 269-70.
[G] Page 282.
[H] Page 489.
[I] Page 629.
[J] Page 463.
[K] Pages 470-71.
There is one experiment in regard to which the severe characterization
of English scientists is especially applicable, from the pain
necessarily attending it. Numerous investigators have long established
the fact that the great sensory nerve of the head and face is endowed
with an exquisite degree of sensibility. More than half a century ago,
both Magendie and Sir Charles Bell pointed out that merely exposing
and touching this fifth nerve gave signs of most acute pain. "All who
have divided this root in living animals must have recognized, not
only that it is sensitive, but that its sensibility is far more acute
than that of any other nervous trunk in the body."[A] "The fifth
pair," says Professor John C. Dalton, "is the most acutely sensitive
nerve in the whole body. Its irritation by mechanical means _always
causes intense pain_, and even though the animal be nearly unconscious
from the influence of ether, any severe injury to its large root is
almost invariably followed by cries."[B] Testimony on this point is
uniform and abundant. If science speaks anywhere with assurance, it
is in regard to the properties of this nerve. Yet every year the
experiment is repeated before medical classes, simply to demonstrate
accepted facts. "This is an operation," says Professor Flint,
referring to the division of this nerve, "that we have frequently
performed with success." He adds that "it is difficult from the fact
that one is working in the dark, and it requires a certain amount of
dexterity, _to be acquired only by practice_." Minute directions are
therefore laid down for the operative procedure, and illustrations
given both of the instrument to be used, and of the head of a rabbit
with the blade of the instrument in its cranial cavity.[C] Holding the
head of our rabbit firmly in the left hand, we are directed to
penetrate the cranium in a particular manner. "Soon the operator feels
at a certain depth that the bony resistance ceases; he is then on the
fifth pair, and the cries of the animal give evidence that the nerve
is pressed upon." This is one of Magendie's celebrated experiments;
perhaps the reader fancies that in its modern repetitions the animal
suffers nothing, being rendered insensible by anaesthetics? "_It is
much more satisfactory to divide the nerve without etherizing the
animal, as the evidence of pain is an important guide in this delicate
operation._" Anaesthetics, however, are sometimes used, but not so as
wholly to overcome the pain.
[A] Flint: "Text Book on Human Physiology" (page 641).
[B] Dalton's "Human Physiology" (page 466).
[C] Flint (pages 639-40).
Testimony of individuals, indicating the extent to which vivisection
is at present practiced in this country might be given; but it seems
better to submit proof within the reach of every reader, and the
accuracy of which is beyond cavil. No legal restrictions whatever
exist, preventing the performance of any experiment desired. Indeed, I
think it may safely be asserted that, in the city of New York, in a
single medical school, more pain is inflicted upon living animals as a
means of teaching well-known facts, than is permitted to be done for
the same purpose in all the medical schools of Great Britain and
Ireland. And _cui bono_? "I can truly say," writes a physician who
has seen all these experiments, "that not only have I never seen any
results at all commensurate with the suffering inflicted, but I cannot
recall a single experiment which, in the slightest degree, has
increased my ability to relieve pain, or in any way fitted me to cope
better with disease."
In respect to this practice, therefore, evidence abounds indicating
the necessity for that State supervision which obtains in Great
Britain. We cannot abolish it any more than we can repress dissection;
to attempt it would be equally unwise. Within certain limitations,
dictated both by a regard for the interest of science and by that
sympathy for everything that lives and suffers which is the highest
attribute of humanity, it seems to me that the practice of vivisection
should be allowed. What are these restrictions?
The following conclusions are suggested as a basis for future
legislation:
_I. Any experiment or operation whatever upon a living animal, during
which by recognized anaesthetics it is made completely insensible to
pain, should be permitted._
This does not necessarily imply the taking of life. Should a surgeon,
for example, desire to cause a fracture or tie an artery, and then
permit the animal to recover so as to note subsequent effects, there
is no reason why the privilege should be refused. The discomfort
following such an operation would be inconsiderable. This permission
should not extend to experiments purely physiological and having no
definite relation to surgery; nor to mutilation from which recovery is
impossible, and prolonged pain certain as a sequence.
_II. Any experiment performed thus, under complete anaesthesia, though
involving any degree of mutilation, if concluded by the extinction of
life before consciousness is regained should also be permitted._
To object to killing animals for scientific purposes while we continue
to demand their sacrifice for food, is to seek for the appetite a
privilege we refuse the mind. It is equally absurd to object to
vivisection because it dissects, or "cuts up." If no pain be felt, why
is it worse to cut up a dog, than a sheep or an ox? Such experiments
as the foregoing might be permitted to any extent desired in our
medical schools.
Far more difficult is the question of painful experimentation.
Unfortunately, it so happens that the most attractive original
investigations are largely upon the nervous system, involving the
consciousness of pain as a requisite to success. Toward this class of
experiments the State should act with caution and firmness. It seems
to me that the following restrictions are only just.
_III. In view of the great cost in suffering, as compared with the
slight profit gained by the student, the repetition, for purposes of
class instruction of any experiment involving pain to a vertebrate
animal should be forbidden by law._
_IV. In view of the slight gain to practical medicine resulting from
innumerable past experiments of this kind, a painful experiment upon
a living vertebrate animal should be permitted solely for purposes of
original investigation, and then only under the most rigid
surveillance, and preceded by the strictest precautions._ For every
experiment of this kind the physiologist should be required to obtain
special permission from a State board, specifying on application (1)
the object of the proposed investigation, (2) the nature and method of
the operation, (3) the species of animal to be sacrificed, and (4) the
shortest period during which pain will probably be felt. An officer of
the State should be given an opportunity to be present; and a report
made, both of the length of time occupied, and the knowledge, if any,
gained thereby. If these restrictions are made obligatory by statute,
and their violation made punishable by a heavy fine, such experiments
will be generally performed only when absolutely necessary for
purposes of scientific research.
In few matters is there greater necessity for careful discrimination
than in everything pertaining to this subject. The attempt has been
made in this paper to indicate how far the State--leaning to mercy's
side--may sanction a practice often so necessary and useful, always so
dangerous in its tendencies. That is a worthy ideal of conduct which
seeks
"Never to blend our pleasure or our pride
With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels."
Is not this a sentiment in which even science may fitly share? Are we
justified in neglecting the evidence she offers, purchased in the past
at such immeasurable agonies, and in demanding that year after year
new victims shall be subjected to torture, only to demonstrate what
none of us doubt? That is the chief question. For, if all compromise
be persistently rejected by physiologists, there is danger that some
day, impelled by the advancing growth of humane sentiment, society may
confound in one common condemnation all experiments of this nature,
and make the whole practice impossible, except in secret and as a
crime.
[_From_ LIPPINCOTT'S MAGAZINE, _August, 1884_.]