"All reforms have to pass through three stages, viz., ridicule, argument and adoption." — John Stuart Mill
That our vision cannot at will always penetrate the surface of society and of civilization, is both fortunate and unfortunate: unfortunate in that wrongs we could right thus continue to flourish, fortunate because we may thus enjoy a serenity of mind which, although unearned, is sweet. Beneath the ordinary walks of life, though near yet hidden, there are on every hand, recesses and labyrinths as if of another world, strange and unknown to the ordinary mortal, yet playing an important part in the affairs of men. Amid these labyrinths is one chamber, the sights and sounds of which rarely reach the day and when described are often not credited; and yet, although concealed from the world in general, to the patient inquirer this chamber yields up its history. It is the history of "Vivisection."
Vivisection is the comprehensive term used to describe all forms of experiment upon living animals. It includes cutting, burning, freezing, poisoning, electrifying, breaking the bones, dissecting out the internal organs, etc. It is done principally by "scientific" men, as they say "for the advancement of science."
In such an important question as that of vivisection, every progressive person is anxious to distinguish the facts from the fancies. The facts are a matter of acknowledged record, and are gleaned largely from the statements of the experimenters themselves. Vivisection is not, as many suppose, a thing rarely done. It is a wide-spread, regular occupation, carried on by teachers for the purpose of demonstrating well-known facts, by students for the "practice" they acquire and by multitudes of physiologists all over the world. It is not done, however, by physicians in general, the majority of whom have but a slight knowledge of the subject. Animals are vivisected by the thousands, being often bred for that purpose in large establishments. Pasteur tells us that, in his experiments on rabies, the number of animals used had "passed beyond the possibility of numbering them."
We find, upon investigation, that vivisection is not, as many think, performed upon animals generally under the influence of an anaesthetic. Anaesthetics are the exception, not the rule. We find that to most animals, including cats and dogs, anaesthetics are very dangerous to life, and must be used with the greatest care. On the other hand, there is a drug called curare (1) (which we see commonly mentioned in descriptions of laboratory experiments), which has the power of paralyzing the nerves of motion, leaving the nerves of sensation intact, and not endangering life. We also discover that chloral and morphia are not true anaesthetics, but simply narcotics, producing a torpor but not destroying pain. In multitudes of cases, in fact in a great majority, including experiments upon the nerves and brain, physiologists tell us that anaesthetics, if used, would destroy the effect of the experiment: consequently they are omitted. In inoculation experiments, also, often involving long and painful disease, anaesthetics are not used. Someone has said, indeed, that the existence of anaesthetics is a curse rather than a blessing to the animal, inasmuch as the public, deluding itself with the idea that the animals do not suffer, imagines that its sympathy is not required.
With regard to the fruits of vivisection, the most valuable results in the past are claimed by its supporters. When we demand a definite statement, however, we find that these alleged results are comprised in a few standing and oft-repeated claims. Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood is mentioned; but we find that Harvey himself denies this in his published writings. Sir Charles Bell's discoveries regarding the double function of the nerves are claimed; and yet Sir Charles himself, referring to this in his Nervous System of the Human Body, page 217, says, "They are, on the contrary, deductions from anatomy." Hunter's treatment of aneurism is cited; but we find that the same method was employed before his time, and that Hunter himself never made the claim for vivisection. Anaesthetics are named as a result of experimentation upon animals; we know, however, that these were discovered by Simpson and Morton through experiments upon themselves. Beyond a few definite claims like these, which have been proved unwarranted, the defenders of vivisection appear to confine themselves to very broad and sweeping statements. The question, however, naturally arises: If the only definite statements, oft reiterated, are not susceptible of proof, what credence should be placed upon vague generalizations?
It is declared that wonders are being performed at the present time through inoculations based upon the germ theory, and the vivisectionist points with pride to Brown-Sequard, Koch, Pasteur, and Behring. And yet have not each one of these "discoveries" ended in failure on the very lines where the greatest success was expected? As Brown-Sequard's "elixir of life" is now a by-word, as Koch's "consumption lymph" is now spoken of as a cruel hoax, as Pasteur's "prophylactic" for hydrophobia has received and is receiving the denunciations of some of the brightest scientific minds of the age, (2) so the diphtheretic "antitoxin" of Behring and Roux seems to be slowly and surely coming under the cloud. (3)
As one contemplates this almost immeasurable sum of animal experimentation, which has been going on for generations, the question arises, "why has it not accomplished more?" If the results were in proportion to the cost in labor, expense, and pain, there would not be, it would seem, an incurable disease upon the earth, the cause and proper treatment of all the ills of the flesh would be tabulated in a perfect system, and lingering deaths from chronic ailments would be a thing of the past. Instead of this, we find that many chronic diseases are on the increase, and among them those very ones which have been the especial study of the professors of vivisection, — such as cancer, tuberculosis disease, epilepsy, diabetes, and brain disease. What is the cause of this failure? Is it not in the fact that the basis of action has been false from the beginning, and the method unscientific? An inference has been drawn from the animal under abnormal conditions and applied to man under entirely different circumstances. Nature has been tortured as in an inquisition, and then expected to give a truthful answer. Man has watched for valuable results over organisms, every function of which was distorted from its natural action by the influence of pain. He has mixed, as it were, his materials in the crucible, but could not keep out a disturbing element which, in unknown quantity, was ever present to frustrate his efforts. (4)
Why, then, it is asked, if vivisection be so unscientific and useless, is it carried on to such an extent and defended by so many? This is a vital question, but it is likely that an answer will be found when the following facts are considered. The principal defenders of vivisection are those whose regular and often lucrative occupation it is, and who find in this a fascinating field for the gratification of curiosity (5) in watching strange and exciting phenomena, and for the registration of a vast bulk of physiological happenings, having no necessary bearing on disease or its remedy, but which can be exploited in medical reports and help to build up some one's reputation as a "man of science." Vivisection is defended also by many physicians who possess but slight knowledge of the subject, but who have the idea that, being practiced by distinguished exponents in their own general line of work, it is therefore necessary to the profession, and that it would be treason to oppose it. We see, however, that many distinguished members of the medical and surgical profession, who have investigated this subject from a practical and disinterested standpoint, denounce the practice in no measured terms. Many of these in their earlier days practiced vivisection themselves. Among these opponents of vivisection may be mentioned: Prof. Lawson Tait, England's greatest abdominal surgeon; Sir William Ferguson, P. R. S., Sergeant-Surgeon to the Queen; Wm. F. Clarke, M. D., of London; the late Sir Charles Bell, F. R. C. S.; Dr. Ed. Haughton; Deputy Surgeon-General Thornton, M. B.; Dr. Chas. Bell Taylor, F. R. C. S.; Surgeon-General Charles Gordon, C. B.; Matthew Woods, M. D., of Philadelphia; Wm. R. D. Blackwood, M. D., of the same city. (6)
There is, however, another phase of this question to consider. Some one has pungently said that, "if there is anything worse than vivisection, it is the excuses that are made for it." The question is not alone, can vivisection truthfully claim certain beneficial results; it is not, have these results, if any, outweighed the cost in labor and pain; it is not even, would these alleged results have been impossible by means of other and more humane methods; the question is rather, is vivisection carried on by the sacrifice of the principles of justice? The law of justice should include all that can suffer and enjoy; its domain cannot be bounded by the limits of one race or species. The false idea that the end justifies the means has been and is the excuse for every atrocity. It does not matter so much what suffers, as whether the suffering is undeserved. The words of Bishop Butler will ever stand in the nature of an axiom: "On the simple fact that an animal is capable of pain, arises our duty to spare it pain." A truly civilized being would not torture an animal, or allow one to be tortured, to save himself a pang. Why, then, should he countenance the same thing, when done out of his sight, because some one else demands it? If not right in the one case, it is wrong in the other. That the strong have a right to inflict pain upon the weak for their own selfish benefit, is an idea born of savagery and superstition, and the greater the helplessness of the victim the greater the crime, for the less is the chance of redress. The same excuses that are given for the vivisection of animals would apply, and more strongly, to the vivisection of human beings, which, indeed, we see that the former prepares for and directly leads to. (7)
One of the strangest things connected with the discussion of this subject, is the apparent indifference of the defenders of the practice to its moral effects. In their eagerness for material gains or knowledge, they lose sight of the danger therein threatening the moral nature. The force of habit holds most of us as slaves. If, then, the finer sensibilities are continually repressed and the cruel tendencies given free scope, the mind becomes finally a relentless machine, preying upon whatever falls in its path and can serve its purpose, considering sensitive organisms, endowed with thought, feeling and affection, as mere "stocks and stones." (8) May not a system properly be questioned which can produce a result like this: an intelligent, educated human being of the nineteenth century, who, for the sake of prestige to be gained in some physiological journal, will rack with pitiless torments that friend of man, the dog, whose faithful heart would beat loyal to its trust even in its last moments! Which of the two is really the superior being?
How to stem this undertow, as it were, of inherent barbarism, is one of the most important questions before the humane and thinking public. Two things are necessary to accomplish this end: information and organization. The inertia of the human mind is indeed a drawback, but one great reason why abuses are so lasting is because the people have not a vivid knowledge of them. When informed, however, the friends of reform should combine their forces. Little can be done without concerted action. Each earnest soul, who realizes the extent of this evil, should raise his protest, knowing that in unison with his own, are other mighty protests which cannot always be ignored. Science, whose canons are thus violated; myriads of living things whose lives, poor at best, are turned into a curse; the friends of the dumb and helpless, whose cup of bitterness by the knowledge of these acts is filled to the brim, and across whose lives is ever the shadow of a triumphant wrong; and, above all, the spirit of justice, the guide of the Higher Life, mourning at the sacrifice of the high to the low, of nobility of character to sordid ends, protest against it. These protests cannot always be in vain. Though the march of reform be slow, it is sure; and, as civilization was freed from the blot of human slavery, once likewise defended in high places, so some time shall this stigma also be effaced by friends of a true humanity.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Claude Bernard, in a physiological work, says, that we may "take it for granted that experiments when not otherwise described are performed on curarized dogs;" and their condition he himself describes as "accompanied by the most atrocious sufferings which the imagination of man can conceive!" Professor Holmgren says of this drug: "This venom is the most cruel of all poisons. It changes us into a living corpse, which knows everything but is unable to move a single muscle." (return to text)
2. Dr. Dolan, the eminent editor of the Provincial Medical Journal, in his work "Pasteur and Rabies," declares: "Not only does M. Pasteur not protect from the disease, but he has added a new terror to it by the introduction of paralytic rabies." (return to text)
3. Joseph E Winters, M D., Professor of Diseases of Children, medical department, New York University, and celebrated for his investigations in anti-toxin, has recently written: "Further observation of the anti-toxin treatment for diphtheria only tends to confirm me in my belief as to its uselessness, and what is still more important, to its dangerous and even fatal effects." (return to text)
4. Dr. William Rutherford, of Edinburgh, acknowledged before the Royal Commission that "pathological experiments must afterwards be tried on a man, before a conclusion could be drawn." (return to text)
5. Dr. Charles Richet, in Revue de Deux Mondes, February 15, 18S3, confesses that "it is not desire to relieve human suffering or advance utility that animates these men," but simply "scientific curiosity."
For the proof of this statement we refer the reader to such medical publications as The Journal of Experimental Medicine, New York. (return to text)
6. My indictment against vivisection (implying painful experiments such as are daily used upon dumb animals) is: That they are inconclusive. That they are cruel beyond all reasonable excuse, and shameless in their savage brutality. These experiments are sometimes apparently purposeless, often unnecessarily repeated, and occasionally silly, and without even the possibility of adding to our knowledge on account of their own inherent fatuity. They are gradually converting the old art of healing into a system of corrupting the blood with the most revolting concoctions"- (From speech at Nottingham, December, 1893. Dr. Ed. Haughton.)
"Experiments have never been the means of discovery, and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions." — (From The Nervous System, Part II, p. 184. The late Sir Chas. Bell, F. R. C. S.)
"One of the greatest physicians who ever lived .... Sir Thomas Watson, told me himself, not long before he died, that young men had to unlearn at the bedside what they had learnt in the laboratory." — (From speech of Canon Wilberforce, June 22, 1892.)
"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that by vivisection had been obtained almost every important fact in physiology, and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery; and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray." — (Birmingham Daily Post, December 12, 1881. Prof. Lawson Tait.)
"As a surgeon, I have performed a very large number of operations, but I do not owe a particle of my knowledge or skill to vivisection. I challenge any member of my profession to prove that vivisection has in any way advanced the science of medicine or tended to improve the treatment of disease." — (Letter in Times, July 31, 1880. The late Dr. Chas. Clay.) (return to text)
7. Prof Cyoti says: "Many a surgical operation is performed less for the benefit of the patient than for the service of science." ( Methodik, p. 8 ) This tendency in the direction of crime against human beings is seen in the experiment, described in the Lancet of November 3, 1883, in which Dr. Ringer practises on men and women with nitrate of sodium, inducing symptoms of violent poisoning, prostration, etc. This was done from motives of curiosity. (return to text)
8. Claude Bernard, in his "Introd. a l'etude," p. 180, says: "A physiologist does not hear the animal's cries of pain; he does not see the blood that flows. He sees nothing but his idea." (return to text)