THE COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION
The student of history, attempting to trace the agitation for reform
of vivisection, is early confronted by a curious fact. It is the
ignorance which generally prevails concerning the part borne by the
medical profession in exciting public attention to the cruelties of
experimentation. The present generation of scientific teachers, of
medical students and physicians, are as a rule profoundly ignorant of
the beginning of the controversy, and would be as surprised as
Professor Osler of Oxford University seems to have been surprised, to
hear that medical journals first made known to the world the abuses of
vivisection. Remembering how vigorously the physiological laboratory
of to-day resists and resents either investigation or criticism, one
is forced to confess that rarely, if ever, in the history of the world
has a transformation of ideals been more completely attained. If the
followers of Wilberforce and Clarkson, to whom the world is indebted
for the great impulse against negro slavery, were to-day organized for
the exploitation of the negroes on the Congo, or the Indians on the
Amazon, or for carrying on the slave-trade secretly, without
restriction or supervision, the condition of affairs could hardly be
more singular than the dominance obtained by the physiological
laboratory upon the medical conscience of to-day. The facts
constitute a remarkable chapter of human experience; and though once
before they have been stated by the present writer, it is evident, by
the evidence given before the Royal Commission, that a vast amount of
ignorance yet remains to be dispelled.
Up to a period considerably beyond the middle of the last century, the
sentiment of the medical profession in England was practically
unanimous in condemning the methods of vivisection which prevailed on
the Continent of Europe. In 1855 the science of bacteriology was
unknown. It is possible that not more than half a dozen English
physiologists at that time were making experiments on living animals.
It was not even regarded as an essential in the teaching of medical
schools. In 1875 some of the most distinguished surgeons and
physicians of Great Britain testified before the Royal Commission that
as medical students they had never witnessed an experiment on a living
animal.
That the agitation against the cruelties of vivisectors which made
itself evident during the last half of the previous century had no
origin in ignorance is easily demonstrated. It was the medical
journals of England which first made known to the world the atrocities
perpetrated in the name of Science in Continental laboratories. In
our own day, when some of the leading teachers in medical schools have
only scorn for those who denounce cruelty in the laboratory, it is
worth while to study the sentiments of an earlier generation, when
sympathy for animal suffering was not a subject for mockery.
The Medical Times and Gazette of London was one of the earlier of
medical journals to denounce the cruelties perpetrated by vivisection
abroad. In its issue of September 4, 1858, the editor says:
"In this country we are glad to think that experiments on animals are
never performed nowadays except upon some reasonable excuse for the
pain thus wilfully inflicted. We are inclined to believe that the
question will some day be asked, whether any excuse can make them
justifiable? One cannot read without shuddering details like the
following. It would appear from these that the practice of such
brutality is the everyday lesson taught in the veterinary schools of
France.
"A small cow, very thin, and which had undergone numerous operations--
that is to say, WHICH HAD SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME
TORTURE--was placed upon the table, and killed by insufflation of air
into the jugular vein."[1]
This fact is related by M. Sanson, of the veterinary school of
Toulouse, merely incidentally, when describing an experiment of his
own upon the blood. The wretched animal was actually cut to pieces by
the students! ... M. Sanson adds (merely wanting to prove that the
nervous system of the animals upon which he operated was properly
stirred up): `Those who have seen these wretched animals on their bed
of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of torture to which they
are subjected; torture, in fact, under which they for the most part
succumb!'"
[1] In all extracts italics are the compiler's.
A little later the same medical journal again touched the subject of
vivisection in its editorial columns. In its issue of October 20,
1860, the editor is even more emphatic in denunciation:
"Two years ago we called attention to the brutality practised at the
veterinary schools in France, and gave a specimen of the kind of
torture there inflicted upon animals. WE ARE VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT
THE PUBLIC ARE NOW OCCUPIED WITH THE SUBJECT, and we are sure that the
Profession at large will fully agree with us IN CONDEMNING EXPERIMENTS
WHICH ARE MADE SIMPLY TO DEMONSTRATE PHYSIOLOGICAL OR OTHER FACTS
WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS SETTLED POINTS AND ARE BEYOND
CONTROVERSY. We consider the question involved as one of extreme
interest to the Profession, and we shall gladly throw open our columns
to any of our brethren who may wish to assist in framing some code by
which we may decide under what circumstances experiments upon living
animals may be made with propriety."
The words italicized in the foregoing quotation are of special
significance to-day. The editor is "very glad" to note the interest
taken in the subject by the general public--a sentiment quite foreign
to that of the present time. One notes, too, the gratifying assurance
that the medical profession of England at that period would "fully
agree in condemning experiments," which nowadays are made not only in
medical schools but to some extent in every college of any standing in
the United States. And this condemnation on the part of the medical
profession was voiced four years before the date assigned by Professor
Bowditch as that of "the first serious attack upon biological research
in England."
A few months later the same medical periodical outlined the principles
which it believed should govern the practice of animal
experimentation. In the issue of this journal for March 2, 1861, the
editor makes the following pronouncement:
"VIVISECTION.--We have been requested to pronounce a condemnation of
vivisection....
"We believe that if anyone competent to the task desires to solve any
question affecting human life or health, or to acquire such a
knowledge of function as shall hereafter be available for the
preservation of human life or health, by the mutilation of a living
animal, he is justified in so doing. But we do not hesitate to
condemn the practice of operating on living animals for the mere
purpose of acquiring coolness and dexterity, and WE THINK THAT THE
REPETITION OF EXPERIMENTS BEFORE STUDENTS, MERELY IN ORDER TO EXHIBIT
THEM AS EXPERIMENTS, SHOWING WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN, IS EQUALLY TO BE
CONDEMNED."
Again, on August 16, 1862, the Medical Times and Gazette gives an
expression of its views on the subject. It condemns the cruelty of
Magendie, concerning which one will seek vainly to-day in medical
periodicals for any similar expression of reprobation. Referring to
the subject, the editor says:
"No person whose moral nature is raised above that of the savage would
defend the practices which lately disgraced the veterinary schools of
France, or in past years the theatre of Magendie.[1] Professor
Sharpey, in his address to the British Medical Association, has
accurately drawn the required limits, fully obtained and confirmed,
ITS REPETITION IS INDEFENSIBLE; and `as the art of operating may be
learned equally on the dead as on the living body, operations on the
latter for the purpose of surgical instruction are reprehensible and
unnecessary.'"
[1] The lecture-room in which vivisections were publicly performed.
To the London Lancet the cause of humaneness to animals is also
indebted, for its repeated condemnation of the cruelties of
vivisection. As the exponent and representative of British surgery,
its words undoubtedly carried great weight among medical
practitioners. In its issue of August 11, 1860, after pointing out
the utility of certain physiological inquiries, the Lancet's editor
thus defines what it regards as reprehensible cruelty:
"On the other hand, when at any moment the practice overpasses the
rigorous bounds of utility, when its object is no longer the pursuit
of new solutions of scientific problems, or the examination of
hypotheses requiring a test; when vivisection is elevated into an art,
and this art becomes a matter of public demonstration--then it is
degraded by the absence of a beneficent end, and becomes a cruelty.
The THE EXHIBITIONS OF EXPERIMENTS WHICH AIM ONLY AT A REPETITION OF
INQUIRIES ALREADY SATISFACTORILY CONCLUDED, and the DEMONSTRATION OF
FUNCTIONS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, appear to us to rank among the excesses
which must be deplored, if not repressed. The displays in these
amphitheatres are of the most painful kind, and it is to be deeply
regretted that curiosity should silence feeling, and draw spectators to
mortal suffering.... The Commission (of the Societies for Prevention
of Cruelty) asks for nothing which the most zealous devotees of
science cannot--and ought not--to grant. It demands only the
cessation of experiments which are PURELY REPETITIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF
KNOWN FACTS."
This is a remarkable utterance. It is quite probable that it voiced
an almost unanimous opinion among English physicians and surgeons of
half a century ago. How far have we strayed since then! The Lancet of
to-day would doubtless earnestly oppose any legal prohibition of
experiments which it once ranked among the "excesses which must be
deplored, IF NOT REPRESSED."
Two or three months afterward the Lancet again expressed its
condemnation of experiments made for the demonstration of known
facts. In its issue of October 20, 1860, the Lancet editor says:
"The moment that it [vivisection] overpasses the bounds of necessity;
when it ceases to aim at the solution of problems in which humanity is
interested, and becomes a new means of public demonstration, having no
benevolent end--then it is degraded to the level of A PURPOSELESS
CRUELTY. The repetitive demonstration of known facts, by public or
private vivisections, is an abuse that we deplore, and have more than
once condemned."
On January 12, 1861, the Lancet opens its columns to a correspondent,
who invites attention of its readers to the views of Professor Owen,
afterward Sir Richard Owen, and the most distinguished anatomist of
his time:
"Professor Owen, one of the first physiological authorities of the
present day, observes: `That no teacher of physiology is justified in
repeating any vivisectional experiment, merely to show its known
results to his class or to others. IT IS THE PRACTICE OF VIVISECTION,
in place of physiological induction, pursued for the same end, AGAINST
WHICH HUMANITY, CHRISTIANITY, AND CIVILIZATION SHOULD ALIKE PROTEST.'"
It is probable that no stronger denunciation of the cruelty of
vivisection ever appeared than that contained in the leading editorial
of the London Lancet of August 22, 1863. The writer was certainly not
an opponent of all experiments upon animals; he admits that "if
pressed for a categoric answer whether such a practice as vivisection
were permissible under proper restrictions for the purpose of
advancing science and lessening human suffering, the answer would be
in the affirmative." But the practice is evidently spreading. It is
asserted that experiments upon animals "are a common mode of lecture
illustration," and that such investigations "have spread from the hand
of the retired and sober man of matured science into those of everyday
lecturers and their pupils." Against such extension of vivisection the
editor of the Lancet enters an emphatic protest:
"If we were pressed simply for a categoric answer to the question
whether such a practice [as vivisection] were permissible under proper
restrictions and for the purpose of advancing science and lessening
human suffering, we need hardly say that the answer would be in the
affirmative. It is asserted, however, that the practice of
vivisection and such investigations as are implied by this term, `have
spread from the hands of the retired and sober man of matured science
into those of everyday lecturers and their pupils,' and that such
experiments `are a common mode of lecture illustration....'
"We will state our belief that there is too much of it everywhere, and
that there are daily occurring practices in the schools of France
which cry aloud in the name both of honour and humanity for their
immediate cessation. About two years ago, our Royal Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals became possessed of the knowledge
that it was still the practice in the schools of Anatomy and
Physiology in France for lecturers and demonstrators to tie down cats,
dogs, rabbits, etc., before the class; to perform upon them operations
of great pain, and to pursue investigations accompanied by the most
terrible torture. THIS, TOO, FOR THE PURPOSE ONLY OF DEMONSTRATING
CERTAIN FACTS WHICH HAD BEEN FOR LONG UNHESITATINGLY ADMITTED, and
for giving a sort of meretricious air to a popular series of lectures.
It learned, moreover, that at the veterinary schools of Lyons and
Alfort, live horses were periodically given up to a group of students
for anatomical and surgical purposes, often exercised with ... extra
refinements of cruelty...."
It appeared that at Paris the whole neighborhood adjoining the medical
school--including patients in a maternity hospital--"were constantly
disturbed, when the course of physiology was proceeding at the school,
by the howling and barking of the dogs, both night and day." The dogs
were silenced. "The fact was, the poor animals were now subjected to
the painful operation of dividing the laryngeal nerves as preliminary
to the performance of other mutilations! And what were these dogs for?
Simply for the vain repetition of clap-trap experiments, by way of
illustrations of lectures for first-year students! These facts
becoming known, the general public has at length interfered, and, we
think, with very great propriety. THE ENTIRE PICTURE OF VIVISECTIONAL
ILLUSTRATION OF ORDINARY LECTURES IS TO US PERSONALLY REPULSIVE IN THE
EXTREME. Look, for example, at the animal before us, stolen (to begin
with) from his master; the poor creature hungry, tied up for days and
nights, pining for his home, is at length brought into the theatre.
As his crouching and feeble form is strapped upon the table, HE
LICKS THE VERY HAND THAT TIES HIM! He struggles, but in vain, and
uselessly expresses his fear and suffering until a muzzle is buckled
on his jaws to stifle every sound. The scalpel penetrates his
quivering flesh. One effort only is now natural until his powers are
exhausted--a vain, instinctive resistance to the cruel form that
stands over him, the impersonation of Magendie and his class. `I
recall to mind,' says Dr. Latour, `a poor dog, the roots of whose
vertebral nerves Magendie desired to lay bare to demonstrate Bell's
theory, which he claimed for his own. The dog, already mutilated and
bleeding, twice escaped from under the implacable knife, and threw his
front paws around Magendie's neck, licking, as if to soften his
murderer, and ask for mercy! Vivisectors may laugh, but I confess I
was unable to endure that heartrending spectacle.' But the whole thing
is too horrible to dwell upon. Heaven forbid that any description of
students in this country should be witness to such deeds as these! We
repudiate the whole of this class of procedure. Science will refuse
to recognize it as its offspring, and humanity shudders as it gazes on
its face."
In all the literature of what is known as "antivivisection" is it
possible to find a more emphatic condemnation of scientific cruelty
than this? The decadence of humane sentiment in the laboratory can
hardly be more strikingly illustrated than by a comparison of this
editorial utterance of the Lancet with some of the present-day
expressions of opinion in medical journals. When a quotation from
this editorial was brought to the attention of a professor in
Cambridge University not long since, it seemed to him so incredible
that he made "a special inquiry," and then felt safe in publishing a
doubt of its authenticity. If, as one may perhaps imagine without
undue violence to probability, this "special inquiry" was made in the
editorial rooms of the journal in question, the incredulity which even
there found expression only illustrates the gulf that lies between the
present and the past. It is a marvel, indeed, that the human
sentiment of that earlier period, before the dominance of Continental
ideals became an accomplished fact in America and England, can be so
utterly forgotten by the medical journals and medical teachers of the
present time.
A week later the Lancet again discusses the subject always, it should
be remembered, as the advocate of vivisection, provided the practice
be carried on under humane restrictions. A few sentences of the
editorial of August 29 are specially significant:
"... As a general rule, neither our [British] students nor teachers
are wont to carry on experiments upon living animals even in a private
way. The utmost that can be said is that perhaps some two or three--
at the most six--scientific men in London are known to be pursuing
certain lines of investigation which require them occasionally during
the year to employ living animals.... Whilst the schools of medicine
in this country are as a rule not liable to the charge of
vivisectional abuses as regards the higher animals, we cannot
altogether acquit them from a rather reckless expenditure of the lives
and feelings of cold-blooded creatures.... The reckless way in which
we have sometimes seen this poor creature [the frog] cut, thrown and
kicked about, has been sometimes sickening.... We cannot help feeling
there is both A BAD MORAL DISCIPLINE FOR THE MAN, as well as an amount
of probable pain to the creature, in such a practice."
How strange such criticism as this appears to-day! Can one imagine a
medical journal in America or England expressing in our time any
sympathy for the suffering of frogs in a physiological laboratory? Can
one fancy on the part of its editor a suggestion of "bad moral
discipline" which the ruthless vivisection of animals of the highest
organization or grade of intelligence might induce? To-day such
criticism is unthinkable. Yet the capacity of animal suffering has
not diminished. The number of victims is vastly larger. What change
has occurred which makes it impossible to conceive on the part of a
medical journal of the present time the expression of such a sentiment
of pity for one of the lower forms of animal life?
The Lancet was not alone in such condemnations. No periodical of that
day, devoted entirely to the problems of medicine, occupied a position
of influence equal to that of the British Medical Journal. One of its
earlier editorial utterances concerning vivisection appeared in its
issue of May 11, 1861, three years before the date given by
Dr. Bowditch as that of "the first serious attack."
"The Emperor of the French has received a deputation from the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We sincerely trust
that this interview may be the means of putting an end to the
unjustifiable brutalities too often inflicted on the lower animals
under the guise of scientific experimentation. IT HAS NEVER APPEARED
CLEAR TO US THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN DESTROYING ANIMALS FOR MERE
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES; but now that we possess
the means of removing sensation during experiments, the man who puts
an animal to torture ought, in our opinion, to be prosecuted."
Referring to the experiment upon a cow mentioned in
Dr. Brown-Se'quard's Journal of Physiology, and already described, the
editor adds:
"We are not disposed, in a question of this kind, in which some of the
highest considerations are concerned, to allow our opinion to be
swayed by the opinions or the proceedings of even the greatest
surgeons and the greatest physiologists. That such authorities
performed vivisection is a fact; but it does not satisfy us that the
proceeding is justifiable. Under any circumstances, this much, we
think, is evident enough: that IF VIVISECTIONS BE PERMISSIBLE, THEY
CAN ONLY BE SO UNDER CERTAIN LIMITED AND DEFINED CONDITIONS. We need
hardly add that these conditions have not yet been laid down.
Altogether, the subject is one well worthy of serious discussion, and
gladly would we see the interests of medical science in the matter
properly reconciled with the dictates of the moral sense."
Nothing could be more clearly stated. One reads almost with a feeling
of amazement the sentences we have italicized in the foregoing
quotation. Here, in the editorial columns of the principal medical
journal in the world, is expressed doubt of the justification of any
destruction of animals whatever, "for mere experimental research."
What magnificent independence of the opinions and experimentation "of
even the greatest surgeons and the greatest physiologists" is here
displayed!
Five months later the British Medical Journal in its editorial columns
again refers to the peculiarly atrocious vivisection which it had once
before denounced; it is evident that the journal intends that such
actions shall not be forgotten. In the issue of October 19, 1861, it
says:
"The brutalities which have been so long inflicted upon horses, etc.,
in the veterinary schools of France under the name of Science are
perfectly horrible. Some idea of what has been daily going on in
those schools during many past years may be obtained from such a
statement as the following, taken from a paper by M. Sanson, in the
Journal of Physiology [edited by Dr. C. E. Brown-Se'quard]. M. Sanson
is speaking incidentally of the condition of animals upon whose blood
he was himself experimenting: `A small cow,' he writes, `very thin,
and which had undergone numerous operations--that is to saw, WHICH HAD
SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME TORTURE--was placed upon the
table,' etc. M. Sanson adds `...Those who have seen these wretched
animals on their bed of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of
torture to which they are subjected; torture, in fact, under which
they for the most part succumb!' THE POOR BRUTES ARE ACTUALLY SLICED
AND CHOPPED, PIECEMEAL, TO DEATH, in order that the e'le`ves
(students) may become skilful operators!"
Almost a year passes, and on September 6, 1862, we again find the
editor of the British Medical Journal discussing the ethics of animal
experimentation. He admits that there is useless vivisection and
unnecessary infliction of pain. Significant, indeed, it will seem to
the physician of to-day to find one of the leading exponents of
medical opinion condemning as "unjustifiable" demonstrations of
well-known facts, which are now considered as essential to medical
education. After stating that some restrictions should be imposed,
the editor adds:
"We will venture to suggest that these restrictions should be well and
clearly defined; that some high authority like Dr. Sharpey himself
should lay down certain rules on the subject, and for the purpose of
preventing, if possible, any needless suffering from being inflicted
experimentally on the lower animals. All of us must be well aware
that many needless experiments are actually performed, and until some
clearly defined rules on this head are laid down, we venture to think
such needless suffering will still continue to be inflicted on
animals. If, for example, it were publicly stated by authorities in
the profession that experiments of this nature, made for the mere
purpose of demonstrating admitted physiological facts, are
unjustifiable, a great step would be gained, and a great ground of
complaint cut from under the feet of the enthusiastic antivivisection
societies. The very fact of an authoritative sanction to the
legitimate performance of such experiments...."
The denunciations of cruel vivisection by the British Medical Journal
extend over a considerable period. Occasionally the Journal quotes
the opinions of some of its medical contemporaries in Paris, admitting
the need for reform. For instance, in its issue of May 2, 1863, in
its editorial columns, the Journal presents us with a quotation from
L'Union Me'dicale of Paris, suggesting distinctions that should be
made in the selection of vivisection material:
"Vivisection is often useful and sometimes necessary, and therefore
not to be absolutely proscribed; but I would gladly petition the
Senate to forbid its performance on every animal which is useful to,
and a friend of, man. The mutilations and tortures inflicted upon
dogs are horrible. The King of Dahomey is less barbarous than these
merciless vivisectors. HE cuts his victims' throats, but without
torturing them; while THEY tear and cut to pieces these wretched dogs
in their most sensitive parts. Let them operate on rats, foxes,
sharks, vipers, and reptiles. But no; our vivisectors object to the
teeth, the claws, the beaks of these repulsive animals; they must have
gentle animals; and so, like cowards, they seize upon the dog--that
caressing animal, which licks the hand, armed with the scalpel!"
Think of a such quotation in the columns of the British Medical
Journal--a periodical which to-day rarely ventures to criticize any
phase of animal experimentation.
The following summer, on August 22, 1863, the Journal find space in
its editorial pages for yet other quotations from French medical
periodicals concerning the "enormous abuses" of vivisection.
"We are very glad to find that the French medical journals are
entering protests against the cruel abuse which is made of vivisection
in France. L'Abeille Me'dicale says:
"`I am quite of you opinion as to the enormous abuses practised at the
present day in the matter of vivisection.... In the laboratories of
the College of France, in the E'cole de Me'decine, eminent professors,
placed at the head of instruction, are forced to the painful sacrifice
of destroying animals in order to widen the field of science. In doing
so they act legitimately, and suffering humanity demands it of them.
Those experiments are performed in the silence of private study, and
the results obtained are then explained to the pupils, or treated of
in publications.... But to repeat the experiments before the public,
to descend from the professional chair in order to practise the part
of a butcher or of an executioner, is painful to the feelings and
disgusting to the sentiments of the student.... Such public
exhibitions are ignoble, and of a kind which pervert the generous
sentiments of youth. An end should be put to them. Ought we to allow
the e'lite of our French youths to feed their eyes with the sight of
the flowing blood of living animals, and to have their ears stunned
with their groans, at this time when society is calling for the doing
away of public executions? Let no one tell us that vivisections are
necessary for a knowledge of physiology.... If the present ways,
habits, and customs are continued, the future physician will become
marked by his cold and implacable insensibility. Let there be no
mistake about it: THE MAN WHO HABITUATES HIMSELF TO THE SHEDDING OF
BLOOD, AND WHO IS INSENSIBLE TO THE SUFFERINGS OF ANIMALS, IS LED ON
INTO THE PATH OF BASENESS.'
"So writes L'Abeille Me'dicale. But here L'Union Me'dicale takes up
and comments on the tale:
"`This is all excellently said; but we must correct a few errors.
Magendie, alas! performed experiments in public, and sadly too often
at the Colle`ge de France. I remember once, among other instances,
the case of a poor dog, the roots of whose spinal nerves he was about
to expose. Twice did the dog, all bloody and mutilated, escape from
his implacable knife, and twice did I see him put his forepaws around
Magendie's neck and lick his face! I confess--laugh, Messieurs les
Vivisecteurs, if you please--that I could not bear the sight.... It is
true that Dr. P. H. Be'rard, Professor of Physiology, never performed
a single vivisection in his lectures, which were brilliant, elegant,
and animated. but Be'rard was an example of a singular psychological
phenomenon. Toward the close of his life, so painful to him was the
sight of blood and the exhibition of pain, that he gave up the
practice of surgery, and would never allow his students to witness a
vivisection. But Be'rard was attacked by cerebral haemorrhage, and
the whole tone of his character was thereby afterward changed. The
benevolent man became aggressive; the tolerant man, irritable.... He
became an experimenter, and passed whole days in practising
vivisections, TAKING PLEASURE IN THE CRIES, THE BLOOD, AND THE
TORTURES OF THE POOR ANIMALS.'"
The following week the Journal again refers to the subject, the
"ATROCITIES OF VIVISECTION." It is a noteworthy phrase, proceeding
from a medical journal, and should not be forgotten. Concerning the
truth of the charges, the absolute heartlessness exhibited, there can
be no possible doubt, for the evidence is cumulative. Has the phrase
"atrocities of vivisection" appeared in the editorial columns of any
medical journal during the past twenty years, unless in the way of
ridicule or contempt? It may be doubted.
"The atrocities of vivisection continue to occupy the attention of the
Paris papers. The Opinion Nationale says: `The poor brutes' cries of
pain sadden the wards of the clinic, rendering the sojourn there
insupportable both to patients and nurses. Only imagine that, when a
dog has not been killed at one sitting, and that enough life remains
in him to experiment upon him in the following one, they put him back
in the kennel, all throbbing and palpitating! There the unhappy
creatures, already torn by the scalpel, howl until the next day, in
tones rendered hoarse and faint by another operation intended to
deprive them of voice.'"
Again, only three weeks later, in its issue of September 19, 1863, the
British Medical Journal presents in an editorial an account of the
debate on Vivisection in the French Academy of Medicine. It is of
interest, not only as an indication of English opinion at that day,
but also as evidence of what was being done by vivisectors over
fifteen years after the discovery of chloroform.
"Our readers are aware that the French Minister of Commerce submitted
to the Academy of Medicine documents supplied to him by a London
society.... A committee of the Academy examined these questions and
issued a report, but they did not answer the simple questions put to
it. A discussion on the report has naturally taken place in the
Academy itself, and has given rise to some very interesting remarks.
M. Dubois ... refused to draw up the report because he differed
somewhat in opinion on the subject of vivisections from many of his
associates. He therefore reserved the liberty of speaking his mind
freely on the subject before the Academy. His conclusions are well
worthy serious attention. They seem to us to contain all that can be
rightly said in favour of vivisection, and to put the matter on its
true and proper footing. The greatest praise is due to M. Dubois for
having had the courage to express his opinion so boldly and openly....
"In the first part of his speech, M. Dubois demolished the work of the
report, showing that it did not answer the questions of the
Government, and left things exactly in their previous state. He then
proceeded to give his opinion as to what reforms should be made in the
practice of vivisection. The greatest physiologists, he remarked,
such as Harvey, Asselli, Haller, were parsimonious and discreet in
their use of vivisection. To-day we have before our eyes a very
different spectacle. Under pretence of experimentally demonstrating
physiology, the professor no longer ascends the rostrum; he places
himself before a vivisecting-table, has live animals brought to him,
and experiments. The habitual spectators at the School of Medicine,
the College of France, and the Faculty of Sciences, know how
experiments are made on the living flesh, how muscles are divided and
cut, the nerves wrenched or dilacerated, the bones broken or
methodically opened with gouge, mallet, saw, and pincers. Among other
tortures there is that horrible one of the opening of the vertebral
canal or of the spinal column to lay bare membranes and the substance
of the marrow; IT IS THE SUBLIME OF HORROR. One needs to have
witnessed that sight thoroughly to comprehend the real sense of the
word `vivisection.' Whoever has not seen an animal under experiment
CANNOT FORM AN IDEA OF THE HABITUAL PRACTICES OF THE VIVISECTORS.
M. Dubois drew an eloquent picture of these practices, become usual in
the physiological amphitheatres in the midst of blood and of howls of
pain, and he showed that under the dominant influence of the
vivisectors, physiological instruction has gone out of its natural
road. Himself an eminent pathologist, he treated without ceremony the
unjustifiable pretensions of those innovators, who, regardless at once
of the principles of physiology and those of pathology, try to
transport clinical surgery to the table of vivisection.
"M. Dubois, indeed, was so pungent in his censures that some of the
Academicians left the hall without awaiting the end of his discourse.
The veterinary part of his audience heard him to the end, and, it is
to be hoped, profited by the picture he drew of the sight that met his
eyes on his first visit to Alfort. M. Renault, the director of the
establishment, took M. Dubois into a vast hall, where five or six
horses were thrown down, each one surrounded by a group of pupils,
either operating or waiting their turn to do so. Each group was of
eight students, and matters were so arranged that each student could
perform eight operations, so well graduated that, although the sixty-
four operations lasted ten hours, a horse could endure them all before
being put to death. Although unwilling to hurt the feelings of his
host, M. Dubois could not help letting slip the word `ATROCITY.'
`Atrocities, if you please,' replied M. Renault, `but they are
necessary.' `What!' exclaimed M. Dubois; `SIXTY-FOUR OPERATIONS, AND
TEN HOURS OF SUFFERING?' M. Renault explained to him that this was a
question of finance; that if more money were allowed, the horses might
be kept only three or four hours under the knife. M. Dubois stated
that it was true fewer operations are now performed, and that horses
are kept less time under the hands of experimenting students. But, he
declared, he should never forget the sight he witnessed at Alfort.
Some of the horses were just begun upon; others were already horribly
mutilated; they did not cry out, but gave utterance to hollow moans.
M. Dubois, supported by the authority of many veterinary surgeons,
demands that these practices should be discontinued. Dr. Parchappe,
who spoke afterward, agreed with M. Dubois. He said: `... Experiments
on animals are in no way indispensable to completely efficacious
instruction in physiology.'"
It could hardly be expected by anyone but the most sanguine of mortals
that the French Academy of Medicine would agree to censure or condemn
certain of its own members at the instance of English humanitarians,
even though supported by men of their own nationality. When the
matter came to a vote, the opponents of change passed a resolution
declaring that complaints had no basis, and that the question of
performing experiments or surgical operations in the veterinary
schools "SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF MEN, OF SCIENCE." This is
precisely the position taken to-day both in England and America by
those who contend that the practice should not be restricted by law.
The Journal, however, adds:
"Everyone who has followed this debate must be aware that the
resolution is ... entirely opposed to the facts elicited in the
discussion. Almost every speaker, except the veterinaries, put in a
protest more or less strong against the practice of surgical
operations in veterinary schools, and again and again was the word
ATROCIOUS applied to them. We learn, moreover, that this mode of
instruction was adopted in 1761, so that for more than a century these
atrocious operations have been practiced on animals in French
veterinary schools. Yet the Academy decides that complaints on this
score are without foundation, and that men of science in this matter
NEED NO INTERFERENCE! We may be sure that, however much the
Academicians may snub the affair, the discussion cannot fail to have
beneficial results."
Two or three weeks later, on October 10, the Journal again touches the
subject of physiological demonstrations, and denounces them--when
conducted as in Paris--as a scandal to humanity. The Journal says:
"M. Dubois has published a discourse ... on the subject of vivisection
in answer to objections made to the amendments proposed by him. It is
a brilliant summary of the whole subject, and utterly condemnative of
the amendments carried by the Academy. M. Dubois showed to
demonstration that ... physiological demonstrations on living animals
in the public [Medical] schools ARE UTTERLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, AND A
SCANDAL TO HUMANITY. IN ALL THIS WE MOST THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH HIM.
He said:
"`If we are to carry out the wishes of certain savants, we shall make
everyone of our professional chairs a scene of blood.... Let us tell
the Minister that vivisections are necessary for the advancement of
science, and that to suppress them would be to arrest the progress of
physiology; but let us also say that THEY ARE UNNECESSARY IN THE
TEACHING OF THIS SCIENCE, AND THAT RECOURSE OUGHT NOT TO BE HAD TO
THEM, EITHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LECTURE.'"
Under what restrictions would the British Medical Journal of that day
permit animal experimentation?
In two editorial utterances the Journal briefly defines its position.
In the issue of January 16, 1864, we have the following expression of
its views:
"The conditions under which--and under which alone--vivisections may
be justifiably performed seem to us to be clear and easily stated....
We would say, then, in the first place, that those experiments on
living animals, and those alone, are justifiable which are performed
for the purpose of elucidating obscure or unknown questions in
physiology or pathology; that whenever any physiological or
pathological fact has been distinctly and satisfactorily cleared up
and settled, all further repetition of the experiments which were
originally performed for its demonstration are unjustifiable; that
they are needless torture inflicted on animals, being, in fact,
performed not for the purpose of eliciting unknown facts, BUT TO
SATISFY MAN'S CURIOUSITY....
"And in the second place, we would say that only those persons are
justified in experimenting upon living animals who are capable
experimentalists.... All experiments made by inexperienced and
incapable observers are unjustifiable, and for an obvious reason. The
pain in such case, suffered by the animal, is suffered in
vain.... Pain so inflicted is manifest CRUELTY."
If we compare this statement with any recent expression of the
Journal's views, we shall see how far this organ of medical opinion
has strayed in fifty years from the conservatism of Sir Charles Bell
toward the unrestricted freedom demanded by the apologists of Magendie
and Brachet. Six months later, another pronouncement appears in its
editorial columns. In the issue of June 11, 1864, we read:
"Far be it from us to patronize or palliate the infamous practices,
the unjustifiable practices, committed in French veterinary schools,
and in many French Medical schools, in the matter of vivisection. We
repudiate as brutal and cruel all surgical operations performed on
living animals. WE REPUDIATE THE REPETITION OF ALL EXPERIMENTS ON
ANIMALS FOR THE DEMONSTRATION OF ANY ALREADY WELL-DETERMINED
PHYSIOLOGICAL QUESTION. We hold that no man except a skilled
anatomist and a well-informed physiologist has a right to perform
experiments on animals."
It is unnecessary to state that these excerpts from the editorial
columns of medical journals are not quoted by way of criticism. On
the contrary, they seem in the highest degree creditable to the
medical periodicals in which they appeared. They voiced a
condemnation of scientific cruelty which then found a universal
response. In the awakening of public apprehension regarding the
growing abuses incident to vivisection, their influence cannot be too
highly esteemed. There can be no question that these exposures of
physiological methods, these repeated and emphatic denunciations of
cruelty, proceeding from the leading medical journals of England,
contributed more than anything else to arouse the general public to
the acknowledged existence of abuse, and to the necessity of some
legislation regarding the vivisection of animals. AND YET NO ADVOCATE
OF UNRESTRICTED VIVISECTION IN OUR DAY EVER REFERS TO THEM. Sir
William Osler tells the Royal Commission that "it is news to him."
Professor Bowditch, the leading physiologist of Harvard Medical
School, refers with contempt to "blood-curdling stories" in the
pamphlet of Dr. Fleming as the "first serious attack" upon
vivisection--without the slightest reference to all this earlier
criticism, this exposure of infamous cruelty by the leading journals
of the medical profession! But the worst and most regrettable result
of such ignorance on the part of those who teach is its effect upon
those who, as students, follow their guidance, accept their
prejudices, and, unconscious of their ignorance, give to their
statements implicit trust.
We shall perhaps be told that although the facts are as stated, yet
these medical condemnations of cruelty are the outgrown opinions of
the Past. Are the foundations of morals so unstable? Can lapse of
years transmute cruelty into benevolence and righteousness? Are we now
to be asked to approve the conduct of Magendie and of Mantegazza and
Be'rnard, and send to the lumber room of "past opinions" the
expressions of horror and repulsion which their acts once excited
throughout the English-speaking world? The science of the modern
school of physiologists gives that implication: "LET ALL THAT PASS,"
is their cry to-day. With this we cannot for a moment agree. Rather
let us believe that in the whirl and conflict of opinions that marks
the social evolution of Humanity, there are some principles which are
stable and some landmarks that cannot be altered. Cruelty is a vice
that should never be condoned. What was regarded as infamous in the
laboratory of fifty years ago should be considered equally infamous
to-day.