An Ethical Problem
By the Same Author
RAMBLES IN JAPAN WITHOUT A GUIDE. London, 1892
ILLEGITIMACY, and
THE INFLUENCE OF SEASONS UPON CONDUCT. London and New York, 1893
VIVISECTION IN AMERICA. New York, 1895
THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. New York, 1901
THE MORALITY OF LONDON. London, 1908
THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. London, 1908
AMERICAN MEAT. London and New York, 1910
AN ETHICAL PROBLEM
OR
SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN AND ANIMALS
BY
ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D.
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION
AUTHOR OF "THE VIVISECTION QUESTION," ETC.
SECOND EDITION, REVISED
LONDON
G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
NEW YORK
C.P. FARREL, 117 EAST 21st STREET
1916
PREFACE
The position taken by the writer of this volume should be clearly
understood. It is not the view known as antivivisection, so far as
this means the condemnation without exception of all phases of
biological investigation. There are methods of research which involve
no animal suffering, and which are of scientific utility. Within
certain careful limitations, these would seem justifiable. For nearly
forty years, the writer has occupied the position which half a century
ago was generally held by a majority of the medical profession in
England, and possibly in America, a position maintained in recent
years by such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson of England, by
Professor William James and Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard
University. With the present ideals of the modern physiological
laboratory, so far as they favour the practice of vivisection in
secrecy and without legal regulation, the writer has no sympathy
whatsoever.
An ethical problem exists. It concerns not the prevention of all
experimentation upon animals, but rather the abolition of its cruelty,
its secrecy, its abuse.
Written at various times during a period extending over several years,
a critic will undoubtedly discover instances of repetition and
re-statement. Now and then, it has seemed advisable to include matter
from earlier writings, long out of print; and new light has been
thrown upon some phases of a perplexing problem. Will it tend to
induce conviction of the need for reform? Assuredly, this is not to
be expected where there is disagreement regarding certain basic
principles. First of all, there must be some common ground. No
agreement regarding vivisection can be anticipated or desired with any
man who holds that some vague and uncertain addition to the sum total
of knowledge would justify experiments made upon dying children in a
hospital, without regard to their personal benefit, or sanction the
infliction of any degree of agony upon animals in a laboratory.
A liking for the use of italics as a means of directing attention to
certain statements is confessed. But wherever such italicized phrases
appear in quotations, the reader should ascribe the emphasis to the
writer, and not to the original authority.
The inculcation of scepticism regarding much that is put forth in
justification of unlimited research is admitted. It seems to the
writer that anyone who has become interested in the question would
more wisely approach it with a tendency toward doubt than toward
implicit belief; to doubt, however, that leads one directly to
investigation. We need to remember, however, that inaccuracy by no
means connotes inveracity. There is here no imputation against the
honesty of any writer, even when carelessness, exaggeration and
inaccuracy are not only alleged, but demonstrated to exist.
A. L.
Aurora, N.Y.,
1914
---------
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Another edition of this work being called for, the opportunity for one
or two emendations is afforded.
In the first chapter of the present work, reference is made to the
antivivisection societies of England, and, relying upon evidence given
before the Royal Commission in 1906, one of them is mentioned as the
"principal organization." The relative standing or strength of the
different societies at the present time would appear not to be
determined or easily determinable, and, of course, what was fact in
1906 may not be at all true ten years later. The matter would seem to
be of little importance as compared with the greater questions
pertaining to reform; but in the interest of accuracy the author would
now prefer to make no pronouncement concerning the relative rank of
the English societies, leaving decision as to precedence to those who
give them financial support.
Though the first edition of the present work was quite large, yet no
challenge of the accuracy of any of its statements concerning
experimentation upon human beings or animals has yet appeared. To
hope for absolute accuracy in a work of this character may be
impossible; yet that ideal has been constantly before the writer.
Should any errors of the kind be discovered to exist in the present
edition, their indication is sincerely desired.
In the chapter "Unfair Methods of Controversy" some illustrative cases
were given without mention, now and then, of the persons criticized.
It seemed to the writer that in certain instances it should be quite
sufficient to point out and to condemn inaccuracies and errors
without bringing upon the record every individual name. No
misunderstanding could possibly exist, since the references were ample
in every case. But since this reticence, in at least one instance,
has been criticized by an unfriendly reviewer, it is perhaps better to
state that the repeated allusions to Lord Lister's journeyings to
France, and the article in Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, were from
the pen of the author of Animal Experimentation--a work which is
reviewed in the Appendix to the present edition. To his advanced
age--now far beyond the allotted span--we may ascribe the inaccuracies
which, at an earlier period of his career, would doubtless have been
recognized.
A. L.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION - - - - - xi
I. WHAT IS VIVISECTION? - - - - 1
II. ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS - - 12
III. AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIVISECTOR - - - 22
IV. MAGENDIE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES - - - 29
V. A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE - - - - 47
VI. IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY? - - 57
VII. THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION - - - 66
VIII. ATTAINMENT OF REGULATION IN ENGLAND - - 88
IX. A GREAT PROTESTANT - - - - 113
X. THE VIVISECTION REPORT OF 1912 - - - 127
XI. THE ANAESTHETIC DELUSION - - - 149
XII. THE VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY - - - 162
XIII. WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM? - - - 196
XIV. THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES - - - 216
XV. UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY - - - 228
XVI. RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION - - - 254
XVII. THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION - - - 276
XVIII. THE FINAL PHASE: EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN - 289
XIX. CONCLUSION - - - - - 326
APPENDIXES - - - - 333-364C
INDEX - - - - 365-369
PRESS NOTICES - - - - 371-374
INTRODUCTION
It is now somewhat over a third of a century since my attention was
specially directed to the abuses of animal experimentation. In
January, 1880, a paragraph appeared in a morning paper of New York
referring to the late Henry Bergh. With his approval a Bill had come
before the legislature of the State of New York providing for the
abolition of all experiments upon living animals--whether in medical
colleges or elsewhere--on the ground that they were without benefit to
anybody, and demoralizing alike to the teacher and student. As I
dropped the paper, it occurred to me that the chances of success would
have been far greater if less had been asked. That certain
vivisections were atrocious was undoubtedly true; but, on the other
hand, there were some experiments that were absolutely painless.
Would it not be wiser to make some distinctions?
The attempt was made. An article on the subject was at once begun,
and in July of the same year it was published in Scribner's Magazine,
the predecessor of the Century. So far as known, it was the first
argument that ever found expression in the pages of any American
periodical favouring not the entire abolition of vivisection, but the
reform of its abuse.
My knowledge of vivisection had its beginning in personal
experience. Nearly forty years ago, while teaching the elements of
physiology at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, it occurred to me
to illustrate the statements of textbooks by a repetition of such
simple experiments as had come before my own eyes. Most of my
demonstrations were illustrative of commonplace physiological
phenomena: chloroform was freely used to secure unconsciousness of the
animal, and with the exception of one or two demonstrations, the
avoidance of pain or distress was almost certainly accomplished.
But what especially impressed me at the time was the extraordinary
interest which these experiments seemed to excite. Students from
advanced classes in the institute were often spectators and voluntary
assistants. Of the utility of such demonstrations as a means of
fixing facts in memory, I could not have the slightest doubt. Nor as
regards the rightfulness of vivisection as a method either of study or
demonstration, was there at that period any question in my mind.
Whatever Science desired, it seemed to me only proper that Science
should have. The fact that certain demonstrations or experiments upon
living animals had already been condemned as unjustifiable cruelty by
the leading men in the medical profession, and by some of the
principal medical journals of England, was then as utterly unknown to
me as the same facts are to-day unknown to the average graduate of
every medical school in the United States. It was not long until
after this early experience, and following acquaintance with the
practice in Europe as well as at home, that doubts arose regarding the
justice of CAUSING PAIN TO ILLUSTRATE FACTS ALREADY KNOWN. These
doubts became convictions, and were stated in my first contribution to
the literature of the subject, the paper in Scribner's. It is not the
position of what is called "antivivisection," for that implies
condemnation of every phase of animal experimentation. In the third
of a century that has elapsed since this protest was made, the
practice of vivisection has taken vast strides: it appears in new
shapes and unanticipated environment. But the old abuses have not
disappeared, and some of them, more urgently than ever before, demand
the attention of thinking men and women.
Of personal contributions to the literature of the subject, during the
past third of a century, nearly everything has been more or less
polemical, called forth by either exaggeration of utility, inaccuracy
of assertion, or misstatement of fact. Now it has been protest
against the brilliant correspondent of a New York newspaper, who
telegraphed from London an account of a visit to a well-known
physiological laboratory, where he found animals all "fat, cheerful,
and jolly," yet "quite unaffected by the removal of a spinal cord"--as
sensible a statement as if he had referred to their jolly condition
"after removal of their heads." Now it has been the manifesto of
professors in a medical school declaring that in the institution to
which they belonged no painful experiments had been performed--an
assertion abundantly contradicted by their own publications. Now it
is a Surgeon-General of the Army, defending one of the most cruel of
vivisections in which he was not in any way concerned, by an
exposition of ignorance regarding the elements of physiology; and,
again, it has been a President of a medical association, making a
speech, wherein hardly a sentence was not stamped with inaccuracy and
ignorance. To some natures controversy is exhilarating; to myself it
is beyond expression distasteful. Yet, when confronted by false
affirmations, what is one's duty? To say nothing? To permit the
untruth to march triumphantly on its way? Or, in the interest of
Science herself, should not one attempt the exposure of inaccuracy,
and the demonstration of the truth?
Approaching the end of a long pilgrimage, it has seemed to me worth
while to make a final survey of the great question of our time. How
was the cruelty of vivisection once regarded by the leading members of
the medical profession? Shall we say to-day that the utility of
torment, in the vivisection of animals, constitutes perfect
justification and defence? How far did Civilization once go in the
approval of torture because of its imagined deterrent effects?
What has been accomplished by the agitation concerning vivisection
which has persisted for the last forty years? Has the battlefield been
well selected? Have demands of reformers been wisely formulated? Is
public opinion to-day inclined to be any more favourable to the legal
abolition of all scientific experimentation upon animals than it was a
third of a century ago?
What has been the result of vivisection in America, unrestricted and
unrestrained? Has it accomplished anything for the human race that
might not have been accomplished under conditions whereby cruelty
should be impossible except as a crime? Has the death-rate been
reduced by new discoveries made in American laboratories? Is it
possible that utility is persistently exaggerated by those who are not
unwilling to use exaggeration as a means of defence? And of the
Future, what are the probabilities for which we may hope? What is
being done in our century in the way of submitting animals to
unlimited torture?
To throw somewhat of light on these questions is the object of this
volume. I wish it had been in my power to write a more extended and
complete exposition of the problem, but limitations of strength, due
to advancing age, have made that hope impracticable. But as one man
drops the torch, another hand will grasp it; and where now is darkness
and secrecy, there will one day be knowledge and light.
AN ETHICAL PROBLEM
CHAPTER I
WHAT IS VIVISECTION?
Upon no ethical problem of our generation is the public sentiment of
to-day more uncertain and confused than in its attitude toward
vivisection. Why this uncertainty exists it is not very difficult to
discern. In the first place, no definition of the word itself has
been suggested and adopted sufficiently concise and yet so
comprehensive as to include every phase of animal experimentation. It
is a secret practice. Formerly more or less public, it is now carried
on in closed laboratories, with every possible precaution against the
disclosure of anything liable to criticism. Quite apart from any
questions of usefulness, it is a pursuit involving problems of the
utmost fascination for the investigating mind--questions pertaining to
Life and Death--the deepest mysteries which can engage the intellect
of mankind. We find it made especially attractive to young men at
that period of life when their encouraged and cultivated enthusiasm
for experimentation is not liable to be adequately controlled by any
deep consideration for the "material" upon which they work. Sometimes
animal experimentation is painless, and sometimes it involves
suffering which may vary in degree from distress which is slight to
torments which a great surgeon has compared to burning alive, "the
utmost degree of prolonged and excruciating agony." By some, its
utility to humanity is constantly asserted, and by others as earnestly
and emphatically and categorically denied. Confronted by
contradictory assertions of antagonists and defenders, how is the
average man to make up his mind? Both opinions, he reasons, cannot
possibly be true, and he generally ranges himself under the banner of
the Laboratory or of its enemies, according to his degree of
confidence in their assertions, or his preference for the ideals which
they represent.
Now, the object of all controversy should be to enable us to see facts
as they are--to get at the truth. That difference of opinion will
exist may be inevitable; for opinions largely depend upon our ideals,
and these of no two individuals are precisely the same. But so far as
facts are concerned, we should be able to make some approach to
agreement, and especially as regards the ethical supremacy of certain
ideals.
But first of all we need to define Vivisection. What is it?
Originally implying merely the cutting of a living animal in way of
experiment, it has come by general consent to include all scientific
investigations upon animals whatsoever, even when such researches or
demonstrations involve no cutting operation of any kind. It has been
authoritatively defined as "experiments upon animals calculated to
cause pain." But this would seem to exclude all experimentation of a
kind which is not calculated to cause pain; experiments regarding
which all the "calculation" is to avoid pain; as, for example, an
experiment made to determine the exact quantity of chloroform
necessary to produce death without return of consciousness. The
British Royal Commission of 1875 defined it as "the practice of
subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes,"
avoiding any reference to the infliction of pain; yet, so far as
pertains to the justification of vivisection, the whole controversy
may turn on that. Any complete definition should at least contain
reference to those investigations to which little or no objection
would be raised, were they not part of the "system." It should not
omit reference, also, to those refinements of pain-infliction for
inadequate purposes--also a part of a "system," and which, to very
distinguished leaders in the medical profession, have seemed to be
inexcusable and wrong.
Suppose, then, we attempt a definition that shall be inclusive of all
phases of the practice.
"Vivisection is the exploitation of living animals for experiments
concerning the phenomena of life. Such experiments are made, FIRST,
for the demonstration, before students, of facts already known and
established; or, SECOND, as a method of investigation of some theory
or problem, which may be with or without relation to the treatment of
human ailments. Such experiments may range from procedures which are
practically painless, to those involving distress, exhaustion,
starvation, baking, burning, suffocation, poisoning, inoculation with
disease, every kind of mutilation, and long-protracted agony and
death."
A definition of this kind will cover 99 per cent. of all experiments.
The extreme pro-vivisectionist may protest that the definition brings
into prominence the more painful operations; yet for the majority of
us the only ground for challenging the practice at all is the pain,
amounting to torment in some cases, which vivisection may involve.
They are rare, some one says. But how do we know? The doors of the
laboratory are closed. Of practices secretly carried on, what can we
know? That every form of imaginable torment has at some time been
practised in the name of Science, we may learn from the reports of
experimenters themselves, and from the writings of men who have
denounced them. It was Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, of Harvard University,
the most eminent surgeon of his day, who declared that vivisection
sometimes meant the infliction of "the severest conceivable pain, of
indefinite duration," and that it was "a torture of helpless animals,
more terrible, by reason of its refinement, than burning at the
stake." Is the above definition of vivisection stronger than is
implied by this assertion of Dr. Bigelow?
We need constantly to remember that vivisection is by no means a
simple act. It may indicate investigations that require no cutting
operation of any kind, and the infliction of no pain; or, on the other
hand, it may denote operations that involve complicated and severe
mutilations, and torments as prolonged and exquisite as human
imagination can conceive. Experiments may be made, in course of
researches, of very great interest and importance to medical science;
and, on the contrary, they may be performed merely to demonstrate
phenomena about which there is no doubt, or to impress on the memory of
a student some well-known fact. They may be performed by men like Sir
Charles Bell, who hesitated to confirm one of the greatest
physiological discoveries of the last century, merely because it would
imply a repetition of painful experiments; and they may be done by men
like Magendie, who declared of his mutilated and tormented victims,
that it was "DROLL to see them skip and jump about." It is because of
all these differences that the majority of men have an indefinite
conception of what they approve or condemn. The advocate of
unrestricted vivisection sometimes tells us that experimentation
implies no more pain than the prick of a pin, and that its results are
of great utility to the human race; the antivivisectionist, on the
other hand, may insist that such experimentation means inconceivable
torment without the slightest conceivable benefit to mankind. Both
are right in the occasional significance of the word. Both are wrong
if one meaning is to answer for all varieties of experimentation upon
living things.
Some years ago the attempt was made to obtain the view of animal
experimentation held by certain classes of intelligent men and women.
One view of the practice is that which regards it merely as a method
of scientific research, with which morality has no more to do than it
would have in determining in what direction a telescope should be
pointed by an astronomer, or what rocks a geologist should not venture
to touch. A statement embodying the views of those who favour
unrestricted vivisection included affirmations like these:
"Vivisection, or experimentation upon living creatures, must be looked
at simply as a method of studying the phenomena of life. With it,
morality has nothing to do. It should be subject neither to
criticism, supervision, nor restrictions of any kind. It may be used
to any extent desired by any experimenter--no matter what degree of
extreme or prolonged pain it may involve--for demonstration before
students of the statements contained in their textbooks, as an aid to
memory,....or for any conceivable purpose of investigation into vital
phenomena.... While we claim many discoveries of value,....yet even
these we regard as of secondary importance to the freedom of unlimited
research."
This is the meaning of free and unrestricted vivisection. Its
plainness of speech did not deter very distinguished physiologists and
others from signing it as the expression of their views. One can
hardly doubt that it represents the view of the physiological
laboratory at the present day. Sixty years ago this view of
vivisection would have found but few adherents in England or America;
to-day it is probably the tacit opinion of a majority of the medical
profession in either land. One may question whether any similar
change of sentiment in a direction contrary to reform has ever
appeared since Civilization began. We shall endeavor to show,
hereafter, to what that change is due.
Absolutely opposed to this sentiment are the principles of what is
known as "antivivisection." According to this view, all vivisection is
an immoral infringement upon the rights of animals. The cruelties
that accompany research will always accompany it, until all scientific
experimentation upon animals is made a criminal offence. From a
statement of opinion giving expression to this view, the following
sentences are taken:
"All experimentation upon living animals we consider unnecessary,
unjustifiable, and morally wrong.... Even if utility could be proved,
man has no right to attempt to benefit himself at the cost of injury,
pain, or disease to the lower animals. The injury which the practice
of vivisection causes to the moral sense of the individual and to
humanity far outweighs any possible benefit that could be derived from
it. Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Professor in the Medical School of Harvard
University, declared that `vivisection deadens the humanity of the
students.' Nothing which thus lowers morality can be a necessity to
progress.... Painless or painful, useless or useful, however severe or
however slight, vivisection is a practice so linked with cruelty and
so pernicious in tendency, THAT ANY REFORM IS IMPOSSIBLE, and it
should be absolutely prohibited by law for any purpose."
This is antivivisection. It is a view of the practice which has
seemed reasonable to large numbers of earnest men and women whose
lives in various directions have been devoted to the prevention of all
kinds of cruelty, and to the promotion of the best interests of the
race. When this view is maintained by men and women who oppose the
killing of animals for purposes of food or raiment or adornment, or
their exploitation in any way which demands extinction of life, it is
entirely consistent with high ideals. It is against this view that
the arguments of those who contend for vivisection, without
restriction or restraint, are always directed.
But even among antivivisectionists there are, naturally, differences
of opinion. For instance, the National Antivivisection Society, the
principal organization of England, desires to see vivisection totally
abolished by law; but, meanwhile, it will strive for and accept any
measures that have for their object the amelioration of the condition
of vivisected animals. On the other hand, the British Union for the
Total Abolition of Vivisection will accept nothing less than the legal
condemnation of every phase of such experiments. "Vivisection," the
secretary of this society writes, "is a system, and not a number of
isolated acts to be considered separately. Owing to its intricate and
interdependent character and the international competition involved,
USE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM ABUSE." In other words, every conceivable
phase of scientific experimentation upon living creatures, even if
absolutely painless, should be made a legal offence.
But we are not driven to accept one or the other of these definitions
of animal experimentation. A third view of vivisection exists, which
differs widely from either of these opposing ideals. Instead of
taking the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific
investigations involving the use of animals, should be legally
prohibited, it maintains that distinctions may, and should, be drawn,
and that only the abuses of vivisection should be condemned by law.
It asks society neither to approve of everything, nor to condemn
everything, but to draw a line between experiments that, by reason of
utility and painlessness, are entirely permissible, and others which
ought assuredly to be condemned. It makes no protest against
experimentation involving the death of an animal where it is certain
that consciousness of pain has been abolished by anaesthetics; but it
condemns absolutely the exhibition of agony as an easy method of
teaching well-known facts. The utility of certain experiments it does
not question; but even increase of knowledge may sometimes be
purchased at too high a price. From a statement of this position
regarding vivisection, drawn some years since, the following sentences
may be of interest:
"Vivisection is a practice of such variety and complexity, that, like
warfare between nations, one can neither condemn it nor approve it,
unless some careful distinctions be first laid down.... Within certain
limitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to
be legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond these boundaries, it is
cruel, monstrous, and wrong.... We believe, therefore, that the common
interests of humanity and science demand that vivisection, like the
study of human anatomy in the dissecting-room, should be brought under
the direct supervision and control of the State. The practice,
whether in public or in private, should be restricted by law to
certain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard
against license or abuse."
This is a statement of what is meant by vivisection reform. Every
unprejudiced mind can see at once that it is not the same as
antivivisection. Is it the enemy of science? The leading name affixed
to this declaration of principles was that of the late Herbert
Spencer, the chief apostle of modern science. Is it against the
interests of education? It was signed by eleven presidents of American
universities and colleges, and by a large number of men closely
connected with institutions of learning. Is it antagonistic to
medical science and art? The statement received the endorsement of
twice as many physicians and surgeons as were favourable to
experimentation upon animals without any restriction or restraint; and
among these physicians favourable to reform were men of national
reputation. No one should expect that men whose sole profession is
experimentation of this character would approve of any limitations to
their activity in any direction; but they constitute only a small
fraction of human society. Outside their ranks we may be confident
that there are very few, at all acquainted with the subject, who will
not concede that in the past many things have been done in this
exploitation of animal life which are greatly to be deplored. Is
there, then, no method of prevention? Are we simply to fold our hands
and trust that the humaner instincts of the present-day vivisector,
working in the seclusion of his private laboratory, will keep him free
from all that we regret in the vivisection of the past? Or must we, on
the other hand, ask for the total condemnation of every experiment,
because some are cruel and atrocious?
This is the platform of the Restrictionist. It cannot--except by
perversion of truth--be regarded as antivivisection, for there is not
a single society in England or America, devoted to the interests of
that cause, which would acknowledge these views as in any way
representative of its ideals; but it is the expression of sentiments
which formerly were almost universally held by the medical profession
of England. Yet the advocates of unrestricted vivisection have never
been willing to consider this position, and, in controversy,
invariable fall back upon arguments applicable only to the views of
those who would abolish vivisection altogether.
There is yet another position to be taken; it is the attitude of
unconcern. From vast numbers nothing better can be expected. The man
who is utterly indifferent to the unnecessary agony accompanying the
slaughter of animals for food, or to the cruelties of sport, or the
woman whose vanity demands sacrifices of animals at the cost of
incalculable suffering, will take little or no interest in the
question of vivisections; nor is complicity with other phases of
torment and cruelty alone responsible for the indifference which so
generally exists. In every age, from the twilight of earliest savagery
down to the present time, the vast majority of human beings have been
inclined, not to doubt, but to believe, and especially to believe
those who claimed superior knowledge in matters of Life and Death.
This tendency to unquestioning faith has been the support of every
phase of injustice, of cruelty, and of wrong. It has led to
innumerable men and women of education and refinement to remit all
questions of animal experimentation to the vivisector and his friends,
precisely as they would have done had they lived three centuries ago,
and had it been theirs to decide on the morality of burning a witch.
On the other hand, the alliance between the laboratory and the medical
profession, their mutual endeavour to stifle criticism and to induce
approval of all vivisection whatever, has given rise to a new spirit
of inquiry. A moral question is never absolutely decided until it is
decided aright. If the problem of vivisection is ever settled, it
will be due, not to the influence of those who advocate unquestioning
faith in the humaneness of the average experimenter, who decline
inquiry, and who rest satisfied with their ignorance, but rather to
those who, having investigated the question for themselves, have given
all their influence for some measure of reform. In questions of
humanity, even the unwisdom of enthusiasm that tends toward reform is
far better than indifference and unconcern.
The ignorance of history, shown often by the advocates of unlimited
vivisection, is a singular phenomenon. The beginnings of this
controversy are not without interest. Let us glance at them.