Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

ON THE JUSTIFIABILITY

OF SCIENTIFIC

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.

By FREDERICK POLLARD, M.D. LOND.

THE Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose persistent efforts to quicken the public conscience with regard to the infliction of thoughtless and wanton cruelty are worthy of all praise, began about the year 1873 to turn their attention to the subject of experimentation on animals for the purposes of scientific research, and from that time they have continued, in a fair and reasonable spirit, to protest against the abuses of vivisection, not seeking to entirely prohibit experimentation, but only desiring to prevent the infliction of excessive or unnecessary pain. As the result of a prosecution undertaken by this Society in 1874, a long discussion took place in the Times and the Spectator on the usefulness and justifiability of vivisection, a very prominent part against it being taken by Mr. R. H. Hutton, the able editor of the Spectator.

Very different was the character of the agitation commenced in 1875 by a Mr. George R. Jesse, of Macclesfield, and his friends, who styled themselves the "Society for the Abolition of Vivisection." This Society endeavoured in various ways to inflame the popular sentiment against physiologists. For instance, advertisements such as the following were day after day inserted in the Times and other papers, accompanied by the offer of a reward of twenty pounds for information leading to the detection and conviction before a magistrate of anyone engaged in the practice of vivisection:

[ocr errors]

The hideous cruelty of dissecting living animals, and inflicting on them, though innocent and defenceless, multitudinous deaths of ex

cruciating and protracted agony, has secretly grown up in this nation, a nation which for ages past has been nobly distinguished by the courageous and unsanguinary character of its people. This moral ulcer has spread widely, and (whether it be or not a dreadful form of insanity) becomes dangerous and demoralising to society, a blot on civilisation, a stigma on Christianity. The public has little idea what the horrors of vivisection are; its crimes in studied, ingenious, refined, and appalling torture, in wantonness, uselessness, and wickedness, cannot be surpassed in the annals of the world!" and so on.

I may add that Mr. Jesse has always been so proud of this unique specimen of melodramatic writing, that he still has it reprinted, and will be glad to send a copy, with other choice samples of his composition, to anyone who will write to him for them.

About the same time, also, offensive caricatures, representing men of science, with fiendish delight depicted on their countenances, carving away at poor brutes, whose attitudes and expressions were indicative of acute suffering, were placarded about the London streets. Not long after, the services of that well-known guardian of public morality, the Illustrated Police News, were called into requisition, and its artist reproduced, with a view to the enlightenment of the provinces, one of the most startling of those placards with which the walls of London were adorned. The public interest having been thus in various ways aroused regarding vivisection, the subject was speedily brought under the notice of both Houses of Parliament; and in 1875 the Government decided to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. The Commission consisted of the following gentlemen:-Viscount Cardwell (chairman), Lord Winmarleigh, Sir J. B. Karslake, Mr. W. E. Forster, Professor Huxley, Professor Erichsen, and Mr. R. H. Hutton.

The Commissioners held twenty-six sittings for receiving evidence, and examined fifty-three witnesses, including the

leaders of the medical profession in this country; some of the best-known writers on biology and physiology, such as Mr. Darwin, Mr. George Henry Lewes, and Dr. Carpenter; most of those who were known to practice vivisection; the Secretaries of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Society for the Abolition of Vivisection, together with a number of delegates from these societies, and several well-known veterinary surgeons. The Royal Commissioners presented their Report in January, 1876. They pointed out that the whole subject of experiments on animals had been relieved of the greater part of its difficulty by the discovery of anæsthetics, and that all British physiologists accepted the principle that painful operations should invariably be made under chloroform, except in the rare instances where the anesthetic would defeat the object of the experiment. There was no reason to believe that there was any indifference to suffering, either among physiologists or students. Their conclusion was that it was neither possible nor reasonable altogether to prevent vivisection; that the greatest mitigations of human suffering had been in part derived from such experiments; but that they should only be performed by properly licensed persons, and under regulations which should insure that as little suffering as possible should be inflicted.

Shortly after this Report was issued, the Government brought in a Bill to regulate the performance of painful experiments on animals, which became law on August 15th, 1876, and is still in force. It prohibits, under heavy penalties, any pain-giving experiment on a living vertebrate animal by any person who is not licensed by the Home Secretary, or, in Ireland, by the Chief Secretary. Anæsthetics must be used throughout the experiment, and if subsequent pain be anticipated, the animal must be killed before recovery from the anesthetic; but these latter restrictions may be

relaxed for any licensee by the Home Secretary if he think fit. Other clauses relate to experiments used for purposes of instruction, and to the appointment of Inspectors.

This measure, though going further than the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in the stringency of its regulations, was accepted with good grace by physiologists and by the medical press, which advocated loyal adherence to its regulations on the part of investigators, and deprecated further agitation on the subject. This advice, however, did not meet the views of the promoters of the anti-vivisectionist movement, who professed themselves entirely dissatisfied with the Government measure, and soon recommenced agitation more actively than ever.

It is very important that an enlightened public opinion should be formed on this important question; that calm judgment, founded upon adequate knowledge, should take the place of vague impressions or of unreasoning prejudice. I therefore venture to submit to your consideration the following facts and arguments in regard to the justifiability of experiments on lower animals, restricted within certain limits, for the advancement of scientific knowledge, and for the benefit of mankind and of other animals.

I.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF VIVISECTION.

(1) In the first place, I would observe that the subordination of the interests and lives of the lower animals to those of man is not only a principle which is universally acted upon, but is an actual necessity for the continuance of human society. By the struggle for existence, as Mr. Darwin tells us, man has attained his supremacy over all other forms of animal life, and he can only maintain that supremacy by the constant sacrifice of the lives of other animals.

If man refrained from destroying carnivorous animals, they would soon destroy him. If he were to leave off feeding

on herbiverous animals, they would soon monopolise all the vegetable food, and he would have to starve. The results of protecting instead of exterminating the various forms of lower life which infest our homes by day and by night can be imagined better than described.

But it is not merely the destruction of dangerous or annoying creatures, and the slaying of animals for food, that are sanctioned by the universal practice of mankind. Men have always acted as if they had a perfect right to make any use they could of lower animals, for their own pleasure or advantage; and the principle that as little suffering as possible should be inflicted in thus using them has been very little recognised. No doubt, as civilisation advances, this latter principle becomes more generally accepted, and various painful uses to which animals have been subjected gradually die out. The public conscience becomes quickened, and demands that, at all events in the case of a few selected animals, severe pain shall not be inflicted on them without something like adequate cause. Now, the contention of physiologists is that the employment of animals for experimental purposes is not only in accordance with this generally recognised subjection of their lives and interests to those of mankind, but that such employment of them entails less suffering, and is at the same time more beneficial than many of the other uses to which animals are constantly put, and is therefore more justifiable.

I will give a few illustrations of the many ways in which animals are or have been used by men for their pleasure or advantage: In days of yore countless animals were slain in order to attract the favour or to avert the wrath of the divinities. The employment of the muscular power of animals for man's purposes, and the use of their bodies for food and in other ways, are almost universal, and at the same time much needless suffering is constantly inflicted. Various painful

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »