THE GREAT ANAESTHETIC DELUSION
A popular delusion is often the basis of a great abuse. If at one
time witches were burnt by countless thousands, it was at a period
when implicit faith in the reality of diabolic conspiracy was
undisturbed by sceptical questionings. Human slavery existed for
centuries, not only because it was profitable, but because it came to
be regarded as the only conceivable permanent relation between the
negro and the white man. The Spanish Inquisition existed for ages,
because the pious Spaniard could not believe that the good men who
upheld, encouraged, and promoted its activity could be liable to
error, or actuated by other than the loftiest principles. Men find
themselves deluded not merely because of their faith in the integrity
of their fellow-men, but because they have also extended that faith to
the accuracy of their opinions.
There can be no doubt of the fact that public apathy regarding the
abuses of vivisection as now carried on without limitations or
restrictions is grounded upon the great anaesthetic delusion. This
misinterpretation of facts, this misunderstanding of scientific
statements, constitutes the most singular delusion of the present
time.
What is anaesthesia? It has been defined as a state of insensibility
to external impressions, sometimes introduced by disease, but more
generally in modern surgery by the inhalation of the vapours of ether
or chloroform. The discovery of the properties of these drugs
constitutes a very interesting chapter in the story of scientific
achievement; but in this connection the chief point of interest lies
in the fact that the most wonderful of all advances in medicine was
made without resort to the vivisection of animals. Sir Benjamin Ward
Richardson, an English scientist who had much to do with its various
methods, tells us that "the instauration of general anaesthesia came
from experiments on man alone; there is no suspicion of any experiment
on a lower animal in connection with it"; and Professor Bigelow, of
Harvard Medical School, as we have seen, makes the same statement.
The extent to which insensibility may be carried depends entirely on
the amount of the vapour inhaled. Suppose the quantity to be very
small. Then the result will be a diminished sensibility, without
entire loss of consciousness. Let the quantity inhaled be
considerably increase, and we may produce a profound stupor with
muscular relaxation, the eyes are fixed, and the eyelids do not
respond when the eyeball is touched. There is now deep anaesthesia,
and complete unconsciousness to the surgeon's knife. The borderline
between life and death is not distant; and if still more of the
anaesthetic is administered, we may reach a condition from which there
is no awakening. The skill of the anaesthetist is not unlike that of
a pilot, who needs to know just how far the ship may be steered in a
difficult channel without running upon the rocks.
For a slight operation, a very little of the drug will often suffice.
In some hospitals abroad--and perhaps in America--it is the custom not
to give anaesthetics to charity patients when the pain is not greater
than the extraction of a tooth. Between a light anaesthesia and the
deep insensibility required for some capital operation, THERE IS EVERY
CONCEIVABLE DEGREE. We see the same thing in ordinary sleep. The
deep unconsciousness of a thoroughly exhausted man is vastly different
from the light slumber of an anxious mother, who is aroused by a word
or touch. Yet both conditions are what we call "sleep."
Now, one of the popular delusions regarding what is called
"anaesthesia" arises from ignorance of its innumerable degrees. We
are told, for instance, "anaesthetics were used" in certain
vivisections. That assertion alone, in a majority of cases, will
quiet any criticism. If "anaesthetics were used," then the average
reader assumes that of course there was no pain. The experimenter may
know better. But if ignorance persists in misinterpreting statements
of fact, it is possible that he may think he is not obliged to make
the truth plain, to his positive disadvantage. If such method of
reasoning ever obtains, it may explain very much.
And yet it would seem that only very ignorant people could be so
blinded by authority as not to perceive where the fallacy lies. A
slight amount of ether or chloroform may mean to a vivisected animal
no protection whatever from extreme pain. The fact has long been
known. Many years ago Dr. George Hoggan declared that "complete and
conscientious anaesthesia is seldom even attempted, the animal getting
at most a slight whiff of chloroform by way of satisfying the
conscience of the operator, OR OF ENABLING HIM TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF A
HUMANE CHARACTER." In other words, it enables him to say,
"Anaesthetics are always used." Shall we always be blind to the
insignificance of that phrase?
That chloroform or ether will suppress the consciousness of pain
during a surgical operation, every reader is aware. But when we speak
of certain vivisections, we are on different ground. The pains to be
inflicted are sometimes far more excruciating than any surgical
operation. In the stimulation of sensory nerves, and in various
operations upon these nerves, there may be excited agonies so great
that they break through the limited unconsciousness induced by
chloroform. One of the most experienced vivisectors in America has
given his testimony on this point. Speaking of his experiments upon
some of the most exquisitely sensitive nerves, Dr. Flint says: "WHEN
we have used anaesthetics"--not the significance of the phrase--"WE
COULD NEVER PUSH THE EFFECTS SUFFICIENTLY TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY
OF THE ROOT OF THE NERVE. If an animal, brought so fully under the
influence of ether that the conjunctiva had become absolutely
insensible" (the degree of insensibility required by the surgeon),
"the instant the instrument touched the root of the nerve in the
cranium, THERE WERE EVIDENCES OF ACUTE PAIN."[1] Of other experiments
upon the same nerves he tells us that "in using anaesthetics, we have
never been able to bring an animal under their influence SO COMPLETELY
AS TO ABOLISH THE SENSIBILITY.... In cats that appear to be thoroughly
etherized, as soon as the instrument touches the nerve, there is more
or less struggling."[2]
[1] Flint's "Physiology," vol. iv., p. 97.
[2] Flint's "Physiology," vol. iv., p. 193.
This statement needs to be remembered. The agony may be so keen, so
exquisite, so far beyond the pain of a surgical operation, that it
makes itself felt. Pain, then, conquers the anaesthetic, exactly as
the anaesthetic usually conquers the pain.
What, then, is the value of the phrase, "ANAESTHETICS WERE USED"?
Dr. Hoggan has told us. It has no value whatever.
Sir Thornley Stoker, President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in
Ireland, and an inspector of laboratories under the Act, was
questioned about the pain endured by an animal in course of a
prolonged vivisection, and he frankly admitted that a vivisector
"could do no more than give an opinion. He could have no CERTAINTY as
to the entire absence, the continuous absence, of pain."[2] Dr. Thane,
a professor at University Medical College, London, and a Government
inspector, being asked whether one might not be able to distinguish
between painful and painless experiments, replied that "the inspector
never could distinguish exactly which experiments were painless and
which were painful, AND THE EXPERIMENTERS AND OBSERVERS THEMSELVES
cannot distinguish IN A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CASES."[3]
[2] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 1,064.
[3] Ibid., Question 1,335.
These are the opinions of experts. This attitude of uncertainty is
the only ground possible for a scientific man who aims at stating the
whole truth. When a professional vivisector gives us assurance that
no pain was felt during the severest operations, he is only putting
forth an opinion. He is but mortal. We are not obliged to assume his
infallibility in a region where experts are in doubt, and where there
may be a desire for concealment.
During the last decade of the nineteenth century, a work was published
describing in detail experiments upon surgical shock--so termed to
distinguish it from a similar condition arising from overwhelming
emotions. These experiments were almost exclusively made upon dogs,
man's faithful friend and companion; and their number was so great and
their character so horrible that their publication at first excited
general criticism and condemnation. At one the suggestion was put
forth that the experiments were painless, because "anaesthetics were
employed." The vivisector had said:
"In all cases the animals were anaesthetized, usually by the use of
ether, occasionally by chloroform, either alone or with ether. In a
few cases CURARE AND MORPHINE WERE USED."
In a number of succeeding volumes, the same assertion has been put
forth; and as understood by the average reader, it has tended to
dispel doubts regarding the character of the experiments. It seems
worth while to examine the account of these investigations a little
closely. The question for us is not whether anaesthetics were
employed, but to what extent we may find ourselves assured regarding
their efficiency in abolishing sensibility in every case.
The experiments in question were of a peculiar kind. They differ in
certain respects from anything to be found in the records of American
vivisection. The number of dogs sacrificed--148--was far greater than
seems necessary to establish any working hypothesis. It would appear
that the methods of vivisection selected were generally designed for
the purpose of making the strongest possible impression, and, if
consciousness was present, the sharpest pangs that human ingenuity
could invent were repeatedly inflicted. The most sensitive parts of
the body were crushed in various ways. The lungs were stabbed, or
shot through; the intestines were lifted from the body, and burned or
placed in boiling water; the nerves were exposed and scraped; loops of
intestines were manipulated or crushed; the ear was penetrated; the
jaws were opened as far as "the maximal normal separation," and then
by extraordinary force separated still more; the paws were crushed,
and sometimes burnt by the application of a Bunsen's flame; the
stomach was dilated by pumping air and water into it till the stomach
burst; one animal was subjected to "all kinds of operations for a
period of three hours more," including the cutting out of kidneys and
double hip-joint amputations; another suffered the opening of the
abdomen, the crushing of the kidneys, "severe manipulation of the
eye," "severe manipulation of the tongue, puncture, crushing," etc.,
and lastly, a "stimulation of the sciatic nerve"; in one case, the paw
"was placed in boiling water for a considerable time"; in another,
"boiling water was poured into the abdominal cavity"; in yet another,
flame was applied over the heart. I am not quoting all this from
memory; the work describing all these experiments lies open before me
as I write. No Iroquois savage, no Spanish inquisitor, no
professional tormentor of any age ever devised more exquisite
torments, more excruciating agonies, more lengthened tortures than
these 148 vivisections imply--UNLESS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT
THE COMPLETE INSENSIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS WAS SECURED BY RECOGNIZED
ANAESTHETICS, BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT.
Such assurance as this it is now impossible for anyone to give with
scientific certainty. The absolute insensibility of each and every
animal thus vivisected cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, there
are reasons which compel belief that, in many instances, these
vivisections implied the most horrible and prolonged torments that the
practice of animal experimentation has ever been permitted to evoke.
What are some of these reasons?
FIRST. In the work describing these experiments, the author has
nowhere asserted that EACH ANIMAL SUBJECTED TO EXPERIMENT WAS FROM THE
BEGINNING TO THE END SO DEEPLY AND PROFOUNDLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
ETHER OR CHLOROFORM AS TO BE TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS OF PAIN.
Now, the omission of this statement is peculiarly significant. If it
had been possible, we may be quite sure that such a statement would
have been made. Suppose, for example, that in place of vague
generalities the experimenter had said:
"Before the commencement of each experiment, the animal was deeply
anaesthetized by the inhalation of chloroform or ether, or both; and
the insensibility thus induced before the experiment began was
maintained until the death of the animal. Curare was never used. In
no instance and at no time during any experiment was the anaesthesia
otherwise than profound; the corneal reflex was never to be obtained,
nor was any other sign of sensibility to pain ever to be noted."
A statement like this would have been definite. But with due regard
for truth, it could not have been made. Instead of an explicit
statement, we have merely the assertion--so easily misunderstood--
that "in all cases the animals were anaesthetized." And this statement
may mean nothing whatever, so far as concerns the painlessness of
these vivisections.
SECOND. GREAT CARE WAS APPARENTLY TAKEN IN SOME CASES TO PREVENT DEEP
ANAESTHESIA.
It is a well-known fact that dogs are peculiarly susceptible to
chloroform, and very likely to die while under its influence. The
president of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, a teacher of
science for many years, Sir Thornley Stoker, stated in his testimony
that a dog's heart is very weak and irregular. "I fear that in the
case of dogs, anaesthesia is not always pushed to a sufficient extent,
as these animals often die from the effects of the anaesthetic if
given to a full extent.... THE ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE, if the
dog lives as long as is necessary for some of these experiments."[1]
[1] Testimony before Royal Commission, Questions 761, 836.
Now, one of these experiments lasted over three hours, and many of
them over an hour. How many of the 148 animals died because the
anaesthesia was TOO DEEP?
On this point the admissions of the experimenter seem especially
significant. "OVER-ANAESTHESIA rendered the animals subject to early
collapse, and decidedly less capable of enduring a protracted
experiment." During certain experiments, "CONSIDERABLE CARE was
necessary to prevent excessive inhalation of the anaesthetic by the
animal." And yet all that could happen to the unfortunate victim would
be a painless death; to prevent that would require, doubtless,
considerable care. "If the animals were allowed PARTIALLY TO RECOVER
FROM THE EFFECT OF THE ANAESTHETIC, care was necessary in reducing
them again to surgical anaesthesia, as an excess of the anaesthetic
was liable to be inhaled."[1] This admission is evidence complete,
that the insensibility was not always maintained from beginning to
end; the creatures were in some cases--how many we can never know--
"ALLOWED PARTIALLY TO RECOVER."
In the detailed accounts of these vivisections, we find more than one
proof of the sensibility of the animals. Take the following:
EXPERIMENT 126. "The animal did not take the anaesthetic well, and
part of the experiment was made under INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." There
was noted, also, "contraction of the abdominal muscles, on account of
INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."
EXPERIMENT 133. "Bunsen's flame to the right paw.... In the control
experiments, as well as this, THE DOG WAS NOT UNDER FULL ANAESTHESIA
... THE ANIMAL STRUGGLED ON APPLICATION OF THE FLAME."
EXPERIMENT 5. "UNDER INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA, crushing of foot caused a
very sharp rise, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure.
THIS WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES. Under full anaesthesia crushing of
paws caused rise again."
EXPERIMENT 4. "First, crushing of paw.... Second, crushed foot
extensively, JUST BEFORE CORNEAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED."
To the average reader the last few words convey no definite meaning,
but their significance is plain. Until the corneal reflex is
abolished, the surgeon does not begin to operate, for sensibility
remains. It is needless to quote further; even a single instance of
incomplete anaesthesia, admitted by the vivisector himself, suffices
to overturn the claim that the insensibility was complete in every
case. "Words," says Bishop Butler, "mean what they do mean, and not
other things"; and no amount of literary juggling can prove that
whether the insensibility is complete or incomplete, the pain is
precisely the same.
THIRD. CURARE AND MORPHIA, NEITHER OF WHICH IS AN ANAESTHETIC, WERE
SOMETIMES USED IN THESE EXPERIMENTS, APPARENTLY TO PREVENT THE ANIMALS
UNDERGOING VIVISECTION FROM MAKING ANY MOVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT DISTURB
THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED.
The use of CURARE rests upon the admission of the vivisector himself.
After mentioning the employment of chloroform and ether, as before
quoted, he adds: "In a few cases, CURARE and MORPHIA were used." Now,
these drugs are not anaesthetics, and curare especially is only used
when it is desired to keep the vivisected creature incapable of any
movement--no matter what degree of torment it may be suffering. In
his textbook on physiology, Professor Holmgren calls curare the "most
cruel of poisons," because an animal under its influence "it changes
instantly into a living corpse which hears and sees, and knows
everything, but is unable to move a single muscle; and under its
influence no creature can give the faintest indication of its hopeless
condition." Dr. Starling, the professor of physiology at University
College, London, states that when an animal has had an anaesthetic
administered and also a dose of CURARE, if the anaesthetic passed off,
the animal would be unable to move, or to show any sign of suffering.
Nor is morphia an anaesthetic. "So far from suppressing sensibility
completely," says Claude Be'rnard in his lectures, "morphine sometimes
seems to exaggerate it." An animal under its influence "FEELS THE
PAIN, BUT HAS LOST THE IDEA OF DEFENDING HIMSELF."
We should have been very glad if the author had stated in his book the
precise experiments in which curare and morphia were employed. We are
told that the number was "few." But in comparison with the total
number--146--how many may that phrase signify? Were there twenty?
Possibly. It would seem that in every case after the preliminary
administration of anaesthetics--the dog's throat was cut, so that
artificial respiration could be easily maintained; "tracheotomy was
performed," to use the scientific phraseology. This is done when
curare is given, for then not the slightest movement of the tortured
animal can disturb the delicate instruments which are attached to it.
We may therefore assume that every case wherein only curare and
morphia were used--how many there were we do not know--implied torment
for the wretched victims.
Human beings are not submitted on the surgeons' table to operations of
this character, prolonged for hours. If, in the interest of Science,
some experimenter would place himself in like condition to that of the
animals upon which he worked; if, under anaesthesia--complete or
incomplete--he would permit a hand to be "crushed," a nerve trunk
"stimulated," his feet placed in boiling water "for a considerable
time," and a Bunsen's flame applied for two minutes to some part of
his body--we might possibly learn whether the acutest pains inflicted
could be absolutely suppressed. Perhaps he would survive to tell us;
but the animal cannot speak. No assurances suffice to clear our
doubts; assurances prove nothing. It may be, to use the words of a
great surgeon, that "in this relation, there exists a case of cruelty
to animals far transcending in its refinement and in its horror,
anything that has been known in the history of nations."
Such are some of the reasons which induce doubt of the theory that all
of the experiments of these vivisectors were conducted upon animals
wholly insensible to painful impressions. To become the victim of the
anaesthetic delusion regarding them is to justify; and to justify is
to share responsibility. But this is not all. There would seem to be
other evidence of the most convincing character, that some of the
animals thus subjected for hours to the stimulation of nerves and to
the most frightful mutilations were not at all times in such state of
unconsciousness as to prevent the occurrence of one most significant
indication of pain. It is proof to which the attention of the public,
so far as known, has never yet been directed; and I propose to
illustrate somewhat at length what has been done in the name of free
and unlimited vivisection, not only during the closing years of the
past century, but down almost to the present time.