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.
The awakening of a nation to the existence of a great evil is only accomplished after years of persistent agitation. We have seen that some of the strongest denunciations of cruelty in biological experimentation were due to that large element in the medical profession which refused to condone cruelty under the guise of utility. Gradually public opinion began to be thoroughly aroused. In the year 1864 the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals offered a prize for the best essay on these questions:
"Is vivisection necessary or justifiable for purposes of giving dexterity to the operator (as in veterinary schools)?
"Is it necessary or justifiable for the general purposes of science, and, if so, under what limitations?"
The committee which decided the merits of the essays submitted included some of the most distinguished scientists of England, among them Professor Owen (better known as Sir Richard Owen), and Professor Carpenter, physiologists of eminence and experience. The first prize was accorded to Dr. George Fleming, the leading veterinary authority in Great Britain for many years, and a second prize was given to Dr. W. O. Markham, F.R.C.P., one of the physicians to St. Mary's Hospital of London, and formerly lecturer on Physiology at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School.
Dr. Fleming's essay was undoubtedly of great utility in calling attention to the abuses pertaining to Continental physiological teaching. That which makes his essay of chief value is not so much the presentation of arguments, as the long array of unquestionable facts for which the authorities are given. There is hardly a physiological writer of distinction from whose works he did not quote to illustrate the excesses he condemns.
It is Dr. Markham's essay, however, which for us, at the present moment, has principal significance. It is the argument of a professional physiologist, defending the right of scientific research within limits which then seemed just and right to the entire medical profession of the United Kingdom. Every physiologist or physician upon that committee which examined the essays is said to have marked with approval this presentation of their views; and Professor Owen— probably then the most distinguished man of science in Great Britain— appended a note significant of his especial agreement. And yet Dr. Markham's essay is never quoted at present by any advocate of free vivisection; even Professor Bowditch in that address to which reference has been made left unmentioned the work of his professional brother, one of the earliest defenders of animal experimentation.
The reader of Dr. Markham's essay will not find it difficult to comprehend the cause of this significant silence. Although the essay was in no way sympathetic with antivivisection, it represented the Anglo-Saxon ideal, in marked distinction from the doctrines which then prevailed in the laboratories of Continental Europe, and which since have become dominant throughout the United States. Defending the practice of vivisection as a scientific method, Dr. Markham freely admitted the prevalence of abuses to which it was liable when carried on without regulation or restraint. Under proper limitations it was at present necessary that some vivisection should be allowed; but with the advance of knowledge, he believed that this necessity would decrease, and the practice of animal experimentation gradually tend to disappear. Some quotations from this essay will be of interest.
"The proper and only object of all justifiable experiments on animals is to determine unknown facts in physiology, pathology, and therapeutics, whereby medical science may be directly or indirectly advanced. When, therefore, any fact of this kind has been once determined and positively acquired to science, all repetition of experiments for its further demonstration are unnecessary, and therefore unjustifiable.
"All experiments, therefore, performed before students, in classes or otherwise, for the purpose of demonstrating known facts in physiology or therapeutics, are unjustifiable. And they are especially unjustifiable because they are performed before those who, being mere students, are incapable of fully comprehending their value and meaning. THEY ARE NEEDLESS AND CRUEL: needless, because they demonstrate what is already acquired to science; and especially cruel, because if admitted as a recognized part of students' instruction, THEIR CONSTANT AND CONTINUED REPETITION, THROUGH ALL TIME, WOULD BE REQUIRED. I need hardly say that courses of experimental physiology are nowhere given in this country, and that these remarks apply only to those schools i France and elsewhere where demonstrations of this kind are delivered."[1]
[1] "Experiments and Surgical Operations on Living Animals: One of Two Prize Essays." London: Robert Hardwick, 1866.
"ESPECIALLY CRUEL!" Little could Dr. Markham have imagined that this "especial cruelty" which he thus so emphatically denounced in 1864 would spread from the Continent of Europe and become, within the short space of a single generation, the accepted method of physiological instruction in every leading college or university in the United States!
Dr. Markham evidently fancied that with the larger acquirement of facts the vivisection method would gradually become obsolete. He says:
"A consideration of the conditions here proposed as requisite for the rightful performance of experiments on living animals shows that experiments of this kind must ever be very limited, because those persons who are fitted for the due performance of them are of necessity few in number; and that in proportion as new facts are added by them to our knowledge, THE EXPERIMENTS MUST DIMINISH IN NUMBER…."
"Thus, then, we have seen that in the case of experiments legitimately performed on living animals, … such experiments must always, from their nature, be comparatively few; that they must gradually diminish with the advance of scientific knowledge, so that A TIME MAY COME WHEN EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS WILL CEASE TO BE JUSTIFIABLE.
"… Very different, on the other hand, is the character and objects of physiological demonstrations performed in French Schools of Medicine…. These most painful practices are unjustifiable because they are unnecessary…. They afford no instruction to the student which may not be equally well obtained in another way. The pain, moreover, attendant on such proceedings is unlimited and unceasing. If they are to be accepted as a necessary part of the systemic instruction of the student, then must every veterinary student practice these experimental surgical operations, AND EVERY MEDICAL STUDENT BE MADE A WITNESS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMONSTRATIONS ON LIVING ANIMALS. In all veterinary schools, under such conditions, an incalculable amount of pain inflicted on animals becomes a part of the regular instruction of students. At such a conclusion Humanity revolts.
"Experiments performed on living animals for the demonstration of facts already positively acquired to science are unjustifiable, and especially unjustifiable are such experiments when made a part of a systemic course of instruction given to students."
Here, then, we have a view of vivisection presented less than forty years since by a professional teacher of physiology in a London medical school. That the author was mistaken in his outlook, that the practice of vivisection instead of diminishing has a thousand times increased, and that operations then regarded as "especially cruel" have become the prevalent methods of instruction, are matters evident to all. Peculiarly significant is the fact that a creed, once almost universally held, may be so thoroughly obliterated by its antagonists within so brief a time. One may safely assert that not a single recent graduate from any Medical College in America, not a single student of physiology in any institution of learning in our land to-day, has ever been told that the practice of animal experimentation was once thus regarded by a large majority of the English-speaking members of the medical profession. So completely has the Continental view of the moral irresponsibility of science established itself in American colleges that the former preponderance of other ideals has passed from the memory of the present generation of scientific men.
The subject of vivisection does not again appear to have engaged the attention of the English medical Press for several years. The abuses and cruelties on the Continent, against which it had so vigorously protested, continued as before. In a brief editorial, the London Lancet, on April 3, 1869, again referred to the subject:
"VIVISECTION.—The subject of vivisection has been again brought on the tapis, owing to some remarks made by Professor (Claude) Be'rnard … at the Colle`ge de France…. He admits on one occasion having operated on an ape, but never repeated the experiment, THE CRIES AND GESTURES OF THE ANIMAL TOO CLOSELY RESEMBLING THOSE OF A MAN.
"As the Pall Mall Gazette remarks, M. (Claude) Be'rnard expatiates on the subject with a complacency which reminds us of Peter the Great, who, wishing, while at Stockholm, to see the WHEEL in action, quietly offered one of his suite as the patient to be broken on it….
"We consider that vivisection constitutes a legitimate mode of inquiry when it is adopted to obtain a satisfactory solution of a question that has been fairly discussed, and can be solved by no other means….
"We hold that for mere purposes of curiosity, OR TO EXHIBIT TO A CLASS what may be rendered equally—if not more—intelligible by diagrams or may be ascertained by anatomical investigation or induction, VIVISECTION IS WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE, and IS ALIKE ALIEN TO THE FEELINGS AND HUMANITY OF THE CHRISTIAN, THE GENTLEMAN, AND THE PHYSICIAN."
It is very probable that much of the criticism of foreign vivisection, which at this period appeared in the medical journals of England, was inspired by the abhorrence felt regarding the cruelty of certain French physiologists. We now know that the worst and most cruel of them all was Claude Be'rnard, Professor of Experimental Physiology at the Colle`ge de France, and the fit successor of Magendie. Just as pirates and freebooters have added to geographical discoveries, so science admits that regarding the functions of certain organs he added to accumulated facts. But the peculiar infamy of Be'rnard was the indifference displayed toward animal suffering long after the discovery of chloroform and ether, and his practical contempt for any sentiment of compassion for vivisected animals. Of this savagery one will look in vain for criticism or condemnation in the writings of the opponents of vivisection reform at the present day. Two physicians, however, have told us what they witnessed in the laboratory of Be'rnard. On February 2, 1875, there appeared in the Morning Post a letter from a London physician, describing his personal experience in the laboratory of this physiologist.
"If the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals intends to give effect to the memorial presented to it on Monday, and do its utmost to put down the monstrous abuses which have sprung up of late years in the practice of vivisection, it will probably find that the greatest obstacle to success lies IN THE SECRECY WITH WHICH SUCH EXPERIMENTS ARE CONDUCTED, AND IT IS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THAT SECRECY that its best efforts should be directed. So long as the present privacy be maintained, it will be found impossible to convict, for want of evidence. No student can be expected to come forward as a witness when he knows that he would be hooted from among his fellows for doing so, and any rising medical man would only achieve professional ruin by following a similar course. The result is that, although hundreds of such abuses are being constantly perpetrated among us, the public knows no more about them than what the distant echo reflected from some handbook of the laboratory affords. I venture to record a little of my own experience in the matter, part of which was gained as an assistant in the laboratory of one of the greatest living experimental physiologists.
"In that laboratory we sacrificed daily from one to three dogs, besides rabbits and other animals, and after four months' experience I am of opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary. The idea of the good of Humanity was simply out of the question, and would have been laughed at; THE GREAT AIM BEING TO KEEP UP WITH, OR GET AHEAD OF, ONE'S CONTEMPORARIES IN SCIENCE, even at the price of incalculable amount of torture needlessly and iniquitously inflicted on the poor animals. During three campaigns I have witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the saddest sight I ever witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, divining, apparently, their approaching fate. They would make friendly advances to each of three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, and tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in vain. Even when roughly grasped and thrown on the torture-trough, a low complaining whine at such treatment would be all the protest made, and they would continue to lick the hand which bound them, till their mouths were fixed in the gag, and they could only flap their tails in the trough as the last means of exciting compassion. Often when convulsed by the pain of their torture this would be renewed, and they would be soothed instantly on receiving a few gentle pats. It was all the aid and comfort I could give them, and I gave it often. They seemed to take it as an earnest of fellow-feeling that would cause their torture to come to an end—an end only brought by death.
"Were the feelings of experimental physiologists not blunted, they could not long continue the practice of vivisection. They are always ready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say that they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they frequently show the reverse. Hundreds of times I have seen, when an animal writhed with pain and thereby deranged the tissues during a delicate dissection, instead of being soothed, it would receive a slap and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. At other times, when an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or giving more than an occasional whine, instead of letting the poor mangled wretch loose to crawl about the place in reserve for another day's torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be said to have behaved well enough to merit death, and as a reward would be killed at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle, or `pithing,' as this operation is called. I have often heard the professor say, when one side of an animal had been so mangled and the tissues so obscured by clotted blood that it was difficult to find the part searched for, `Why don't you begin on the other side?' or `WHY DON'T YOU TAKE ANOTHER DOG? WHAT IS THE USE OF BEING SO ECONOMICAL?' One of the most revolting features in the laboratory was the custom of giving an animal, on which the professor had completed his experiment, and which had still some life left, to the assistants to practise the finding of arteries, nerves, etc., in the living animal, or for performing what are called `fundamental experiments' upon it—in other words, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory handbooks.
"I am inclined to look upon anaesthetics as the greatest curse to vivisectible animals. They alter too much the normal conditions of life to give accurate results, and they are therefore little depended upon. THEY, INDEED, PROVE FAR MORE EFFICACIOUS IN LULLING PUBLIC FEELING TOWARDS THE VIVISECTORS THAN PAIN IN THE VIVISECTED. Connected with this there is a horrible proceeding that the public probably knows little about. An animal is sometimes kept quiet by the administration of a poison called `curare,' which paralyzes voluntary motion while it heightens sensation, the animal being kept alive by means of artificial respiration.
"I hope that we shall soon have a Government inquiry into the subject, in which experimental physiologists shall be only witnesses, not judges. LET ALL PRIVATE VIVISECTION BE MADE CRIMINAL, AND ALL EXPERIMENTS BE PLACED UNDER GOVERNMENT INSPECTION, and we may have the same clearing away of abuses that the Anatomy Act caused in similar circumstances.
"I am, sir, your obedient servant,"George Hoggan, M.B. and C.M.
"13, Granville Place, Portman Square, W."
One of the oldest members of the medical profession in Massachusetts has also written of his experience in Be'rnard's laboratory, and his account of the cruelty there practised entirely accords with that of the English physician:
"When I was studying medicine in Paris, it was the custom of a distinguished physiologist to illustrate his lectures by operations on dogs. Some of his dissections were not very painful, but others were attended with excruciating, long-continued agony; and when the piteous cries of these poor brutes would interrupt his remarks, with a look of suppressed indignation he would artistically slit their windpipes, and thus prevent their howling! Curiousity prompted me to inquire of the janitor whether, after this period of torment, these creatures were mercifully put out of misery; and I ascertained that such animals as did not succumb to the immediate effects of their mutilations were consigned to a cellar, to be kept, unattended and unfed, until wanted for the following lectures, which occurred on alternate days. I never noticed the slightest demonstration of sympathy on their behalf, except on the part of a few American students. These dogs were subjected to needless torture, for the mere purpose of illustrating well-known facts, capable of being taught satisfactorily by drawings, charts, and models; and hence this cruelty, being unattended by any possible benefit to either students or mankind, was illegitimate and unjustifiable. But when it is considered that these same experiments might have been conducted under the influence of an anaesthetic, so as to minimize, if not remove, this needless suffering, this cold-blooded, heartless torture can only be characterized as contemptible and monstrous.
"From detailed accounts communicated to me by eye-witnesses of the incidents related, I entertain no doubt that barbarous cruelty was practised at that time in all the Parisian laboratories, though it is probable that, for novel and horrible experiments, none could rival the infernal ingenuity in this business of that master-demon, Claude Be'rnard."[1]
[1] Extracts from letter to Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, April, 1895.
Such is the memory which Be'rnard has left for posterity. It was by useless cruelty that he impressed. And no American physiologist, sounding the praises of free and unrestricted vivisection, has ever yet ventured to criticize or to condemn either the man or his work.
Let us go back a little. By the year 1871, the agitation had gone so far as to be deemed worthy of consideration by the leading scientific body in Great Britain. At the meeting of the British Association in Liverpool of that year, a committee was appointed to consider the subject of animal experimentation, and the result of their deliberations appears in the annual report. Regarding the practice, they suggest four recommendations or rules:
"1. No experiment which can be done under the influence of an anaesthetic ought to be done without it.
"2. No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already determined; in other words, experimentation without the employment of anaesthetics is not a fitting exhibition for teaching purposes."
A third rule suggested that painful experiments should only be made in laboratories under proper regulation; and a fourth rule condemned veterinary operations for the purpose of obtaining manual dexterity. It was evidently an attempt to allay agitation—there were no means of enforcing the recommendations concerning practices which the law did not touch.
One of the signers was Dr. Burdon Sanderson, a Lecturer on Physiology. Early the following year he began the delivery of a course of lectures in the physiological laboratory of University College in London, illustrated by vivisections. During one of these discourses, the lecturer made the following statement of his views:
"With respect to what are called `vivisections,' I assure you that I have as great a horror of them as any members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The rules in respect to them are these: First, no experiment that can be done under the influence of an anaesthetic ought to be done without it. Secondly, no PAINFUL experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already demonstrated. Thirdly, whenever for the investigation of new truth, it is necessary to make a painful experiment, every effort should be made to insure success, in order that the suffering inflicted may not be wasted. For the question of cruelty depends not on the amount of suffering, but on its relation to the good to be attained by it."[1]
[1] Medical Times and Gazette, February 25, 1871.
The lecturer contended that no experiment should be performed by an unskilled person with insufficient instruments, and argued, therefore, in favour of the establishment of Physiological Laboratories, equipped with all modern devices and instruments for vivisection.
Some of his demonstrations were doubtless unproductive of pain, but in view of the fact that in other experiments no anaesthetic was employed, it may be questioned whether his second "rule" was always very strictly observed. In one lecture he referred to his demonstration "as the first time that we have applied electrical stimulus to a nerve," and explains that when the experiment is made on an animal paralyzed with curare, the effect is more complicated when a sensory nerve is irritated, since then "the arteries all over the body contract, because the brain is in action."[1] No plainer confession of the existence of sensibility could be made, yet for obvious reasons the lecturer carefully avoids admitting the presence of pain. During the following year there appeared articles describing "the teaching of practical physiology in the London schools." At King's College in London, for example, demonstrations were made by the lecturer, but "experiments on animals are never given to the ordinary student to do; Professor Rutherford's experience on this point is that such attempts result only in total failure."[2] On the other hand, at University College, the Continental method of teaching was to be found. "Student perform experiments on animals. Frogs, curarized or chloroformed, are given them, and the experiment which has been fully explained and demonstrated by the professor, is performed by them as far as practicable."[3] Here, then, we find introduced into England (and perhaps there existing in secret for some time before), that vivisection of animals in illustration of well-known facts, which, but a few years earlier, every leading medical journal of Great Britain had so emphatically reprobated and denounced.
[1] Medical Times and Gazette, June 17, 1871. [2] Ibid., July 20, 1872. [3] Medical Times and Gazette, July 27, 1872.
The Continental school of English physiologists seemed confident of victory. But the leading exponents of English ideals in medicine were not inclined to surrender at once; now and then we find them vigorously maintaining their ground, and disposed to contrast the science gained in the laboratory with that gathered by experience and fortified by reflection. Some extracts from a leading editorial in the Medical Times and Gazette are extremely suggestive of the conflict of opinions:
"The relation of physiology to practical medicine is a subject which has been brought prominently into notice by the address of Dr. Burdon Sanderson … at the recent meeting of the British Association. That address may be considered as the first authoritative and public announcement made in this country that IT IS THE AIM AND INTENTION OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT and work to separate themselves more and more from the school of practical medicine; no longer to consider themselves auxiliary to it except as other sciences—for instance, chemistry and botany—may be considered auxiliary to it, but to win a place in the public estimation for their science as one which shall be cultivated FOR ITS OWN SAKE…
"The teaching of experience is more reliable than physiological theories and opinions…. The history of the advance of the cure of disease is in the history of empiricism, in the best sense of that much-abused word. The history of retrogression in the art of curing disease is that of the so-called Physiological Schools of Medicine… Physiological theory, based on experiments on dogs, wishes us to believe that mercury does not excite a flow of bile; but here the common sense of the Profession, educated by experience, has refused to be led by physiological theory…. Modern physiological science has taught us little more than the necessity of pure air, water, and food, good clothing and shelter, moderation in eating and drinking, and regulation of the passions—things, in fact, which are as old as the Pentateuch. We may safely assert that all the experiments made on luckless animals since the time of Magendie to the present, in France, America, Germany, and England, have not prolonged one tithe of human life, or diminished one tithe of the human suffering that have been prolonged and diminished by the discovery and use of Jesuits' bark and cod-liver oil."[1]
[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), September 7, 1872.
Early the next year (1873) was published the "Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory," compiled by leading men of the physiological party, among whom were Professors Sanderson, Foster, and Klein. Describing the method of performing various experiments upon animals, it included a particular account of some of the most excruciatingly painful of the vivisections practised abroad. So atrocious was one of the experiments thus described in this handbook for students that Professor Michael Foster, who wrote the description, afterward confessed that he had never seen or performed the experiment himself, partly "from horror of the pain." Reviewing the work, a medical journal justly declared that "the publication of this book marks an era in the history of physiology in England…. It shows THE PREDOMINANT INFLUENCE WHICH GERMANY NOW EXERCISES IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE."[1] A professor of physiology, Dr. Gamgee, about the same time, refers to the physiological laboratories of Edinburgh, Cambridge, and London, and the part they sustained "in what I may call the Revival of the study of experimental physiology in England."[2]
[1] Medical Times and Gazette, London, March 29, 1873. [2] Ibid., October 18, 1873.
Emboldened by continuing success, the advocates of Continental vivisection in England determined to advance yet another step. The annual meeting of the British Medical Association for 1874 was to be held that year in August in the city of Norwich. A French vivisector, Dr. Magnan, was invited to be present, and to perform in the presence of English medical men certain experiments upon dogs. On this occasion, however, the public demonstration of French methods of vivisection did not pass without protest; there was a scene; some of the physicians present—among them Dr. Tufnell, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, and Dr. Haughton of the medical school in Dublin, denounced the experiments at the time they were made as unjustifiably cruel. Public attention was beginning to be aroused; it was decided to test the question, whether such exhibitions were protected by English law, and a prosecution was instituted against some who had assisted in performing the experiments. Dr. Tufnell appeared to testify in regard to the cruelty of the exhibition, and Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the Queen, who had only just retired from the presidency of the British Medical Association, not only stigmatized one of the experiments as "an act of cruelty," but declared that "such experiments would not be of the smallest possible benefit."[1] The magistrates decided that while the case was a very proper one to prosecute, yet the gentlemen named as defendants were not sufficiently proven to have taken part in the experiment. The decision was not unjust; the real offender was safe in his native land.
[1] British Medical Journal, December 12, 1874.
It is not my purpose to trace the course of the English agitation against vivisection, except as it may be seen in the medical literature of the time; but one cannot refer to this period without mention of the name of Frances Power Cobbe. In 1863, while in Italy, she had protested, and not in vain, against the cruelties of Professor Schiff in Florence. Taking up the question again in 1874, she devoted the remainder of her life to the advancement of her ideals of reform. It was to her zeal that in 1875 was founded the "Society for the Protection of Animals liable to Vivisection." At this period, then, three phases of opinion opposed one another; first, the antivivisectionists, who desired the total suppression by law of all animal experimentation; second, the physiological enthusiasts, few in number, but favourable to the introduction of the Continental irresponsibility, and eager to free vivisection from every semblance of restraint; and, thirdly, the great body of Englishmen and of the medical profession, whose views we have seen reflected in medical journals of the day. The popular attack upon all animal experimentation became so pressing that for a time the entire medical profession seemed to unite in its defence; and editorial space once filled with denunciation of vivisection in France was now given over to criticism of the antivivisectionists of England. Yet, even at this period, there appeared no repudiation of those humane principles, so long professed by English medical men. One leading journal, the Medical Times and Gazette, thus suggests that very oversight of vivisection which we are told is impossible:
"Just as the law demands that a teacher of anatomy should take out a licence, and be responsible for the bodies entrusted to him, so a teacher of physiology might be required to take out some such licence as regards the teaching of practical physiology. We have never been of those who advocate the wholesale performance of experiments by students, especially on the higher animals, if they are of such a kind as to require any degree of skill for their performance. When the medical public seemed bitten with what was called `practical physiology,' many were ready to advocate the performance of all kinds of experiments on living animals by uninstructed students. Against this notion we were first to protest, as being at once cruel and worse than useless; for an experiment performed by bungling fingers is no experiment at all, but wanton cruelty."
After explaining his position in favour of scientific research, the editor refers to a recent discussion on vivisection in London:
"Dr. Walker declared that his desire was not to stop scientific research, but the abuses which were connected with it. In the first place, he would not allow vivisection to be practised by incompetent students. This was nothing but wanton and unrighteous cruelty. THEREFORE HE WOULD OBLIGE EACH VIVISECTOR TO OBTAIN LEGAL PERMISSION FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY. Another abuse related to operations performed merely to demonstrate physiological phenomena already verified and established. Again, the number of animals vivisected was shamefully high. Persons unacquainted with physiological laboratories could form no idea of the lavish way in which animals were made to suffer days and weeks of anguish and acute pain. If the people knew of these sufferings, they would insist that the number of animals annually vivisected should be limited, and that no animal rearing its young should be experimented upon. Nor should it be allowable to operate on an animal more than once…. Lastly, every licensed vivisector should be obliged to send in an annual return, showing the number of vivisections performed, and the scientific results attained, which would prevent repeated operations with the same object. Nothing in any of these proposals, urged Dr. Walker, would interfere with the progress of science; they would simply stop the abuses which existed."[1]
[1] Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), June 27, 1874.
In January, 1875, we find the London Lancet also suggesting legal supervision and restriction:
"We are utterly opposed to all repetition of experiments for the purpose of demonstrating established doctrines…. We believe an attempt might be made to institute something in the way of regulation and supervision. IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRACTICE OF THESE EXPERIMENTS as would effectually guard against their being undertaken by any but skilled persons, for adequate scientific objects."[2]
[2] The London Lancet (Editorial), January 2, 1875.
A month later the Lancet devotes its leading editorial to a discussion of the ethics of vivisection. After criticizing the position taken by the antivivisectionists, the writer says:
"On the other side, the discussion has been conducted as if it concerned physiologists alone, who were to be a law unto themselves, and each to do what might seem right in his own eyes; that the matter was one into which outsiders had no right whatever to intrude; in fact, that `WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT,' and so unquestionably right as to stand in no need of investigation or restriction. We have, from the first, striven to take a middle course, not because it was safe, but because it seemed to us the sound and true one. Without disguising the difficulties, we have nevertheless expressed our conviction that the subject was one about which it was impossible not to feel a sense of responsibility, and a desire to ascertain whether the line between necessary and unnecessary could be defined; and whether any attempt could be made to institute something in the way of regulation, supervision, or restriction, so as to secure that, while the ends of science were not defeated, the broad principles of Humanity and duty to the lower animals were observed. Animals have their rights every bit as much as man has his…."
Admitting the probable necessity of some repetition of experiments in research, the writer continues:
"It is for the purposes of instruction, however, that it becomes questionable whether and to what extent experiments of this kind should be performed. A chemical lecturer teaches well, in proportion to the clearness with which he can demonstrate the correctness of his statements by experiment, and there is no doubt it is the same with a Lecturer on Physiology. Some persons seem to regard the advance of knowledge as the whole duty of man, and they would perhaps consider experimentation as justifiable in the one case as in the other. We cannot so regard it, for the simple and sufficient reason (as it seems to us) that the element of Life and Sensibility being present in the one case and not in the other, carries a responsibility with it. We contend that in any case where certain phenomena are known to follow a given experiment, when the fact has been established by the separate and independent observation of many different persons, a lecturer is not justified in resorting to it FOR THE PURPOSE OF MERE DEMONSTRATION WHERE ITS PERFORMANCE INVOLVES SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL."[1]
[1] The London Lancet, February 6, 1875.
It is an instructive and interesting fact that one of the first steps toward the legal regulation of vivisection in England was taken by scientific men. The Lancet of May 8, 1875, contains the following paragraph:
"Some eminent naturalists and physiologists, including Mr. Charles Darwin, Professor Huxley, Dr. Sharpey, and others, have been in communication with Members of both Houses of Parliament to arrange terms of a Bill which would prevent any unnecessary cruelty or abuse in experiments made on living animals for purposes of scientific discovery. It is understood that these negotiations have been successful, and that the Bill is likely to be taken charge of by Lord Cardwell in the House of Lords, and by Dr. Lyon Playfair in the House of Commons."
A week later, the Lancet gives an outline of the proposed Act:
"The Bill introduced by Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Spencer Walpole, and Mr. Evelyn Ashley, `To Prevent Abuse and Cruelty in Experiments on Animals, made for the Purpose of Scientific Discovery,' has been printed. It proposes to enact that painful experiments on living animals for scientific purposes shall be permissible on the following conditions:
"`That the animal shall first have been made insensible by the administration of anaesthetics or otherwise, during the whole course of such experiment; and that if the nature of the experiment be such as to seriously injure the animal, so as to cause it after-suffering, the animal shall be killed immediately on the termination of the experiment.
"`Experiments without the use of anaesthetics are also to be permissible provided the following conditions are complied with: That the experiment is made for the purpose of new scientific discovery and for no other purpose; and that insensibility cannot be produced without necessarily frustrating the object of the experiment; and that the animal should not be subject to any pain which is not necessary for the purpose of the experiment; and that the experiment be brought to an end as soon as practicable; and that if the nature of the experiment be such as to seriously injure the animal so as to cause it after-suffering, the animal shall be killed immediately on the termination of the experiment.
"`That a register of all experiments made without the use of anaesthetics shall be duly kept, and be returned in such form and at such times as one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State may direct.
"`The Secretary of State is to be empowered to grant licences to persons provided with certificates signed by at least one of the following persons: the President of the Royal Society, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or of the College of Physicians in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin; and also by a recognized Professor of Physiology, Medicine, or Anatomy.'"[1]
[1] Lancet, May 15, 1875.
The Bill, though introduced in Parliament, was not pressed. Another and more stringent measure for the regulation of vivisection had been introduced a few days earlier through the efforts of Miss Frances Power Cobbe and the Earl of Shaftesbury. In the conflict of opposing statements and opinions, the Government wisely concluded that more light on the subject was necessary, and a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate and report.
But if the Continental party was to conquer in England, its members undoubtedly felt that it must be through audacity quite as much by silence and secrecy. At the annual meeting of the British Medical Association, therefore, Professor William Rutherford delivered an address, wherein for the second time an English physiologist openly advocated the vivisection of animals as a method of teaching well- known facts. Commenting upon this address, the editor of the Lancet remarks:
"We confess that we think Dr. Rutherford presses his principle too far when he argues that, teaching by demonstration being the most successful method, we are thereby always warranted in having recourse to it. Physiology and chemistry are both experimental sciences. The chemical lecturer can have no hesitation in employing any number of experiments, or repeating them indefinitely to illustrate every step he takes; but we may fairly assume that the physiologist would be restrained by the thought that the materials with which he has to deal are not so much inert, lifeless matter, but sentient, living things. We hold, therefore, that it would be both unnecessary and cruel to demonstrate every physiological truth by experiment, or to repeat indefinitely the same experiment, simply because by such demonstrations the lecturer could make his teaching more definite, precise, and valuable."[1]
[1] The London Lancet, (Editorial) August 21, 1875.
Again, somewhat later the same journal brings into prominence one of the greatest difficulties attending all discussion of vivisection—the lack of agreement upon the meaning of words:
"It is extremely difficult to get at the exact meaning of the terms used. The physiologist would be ready to declare his utter abhorrence of all `cruelty,' BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HIS OWN DEFINITION OF THE WORD. We hope Sir William Thompson was not justified in stating that revolting cruelties are sometimes practised in this country, in the name of vivisection, although we may concur with him in reprehending the performance of experiments on animals in illustration of truths already ascertained…. When the Cardinal (Manning) laid it down as the expression of a great moral obligation that we had no right to inflict NEEDLESS pain, he begged the whole question. By all means lay down and enforce any restriction that will prevent the infliction of NEEDLESS pain."[1]
[1] The London Lancet (Editorial), March 25, 1876.
We see how valueless, therefore, is the assertion so frequently made in this country that "no NEEDLESS pain is ever inflicted." The physiologist has his own interpretation of the word.
The testimony given before the Royal Commission was of utmost value. Leading members of the medical profession, such as Sir Thomas Watson, physician to the Queen, and Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the Queen, gave evidence against the unrestricted practice of animal experimentation. Physiologists after the Continental school stated their side of the controversy, usually with significant caution; but one of them, Dr. Emanuel Klein, with an honest frankness of confession that astounded his friends, made himself for ever famous in the history of the vivisection controversy. It is hardly accurate to say that no cruelty was uncovered by the Royal Commission. Everything depends on the meaning of words, but the evidence of one of the most noted of English physiologists as to his own personal practices in vivisection was quite sufficient to justify the legislation that ensued. How seriously this evidence was regarded at the time is clearly shown in an extract from a confidential letter of Professor Huxley to Mr. Darwin, dated October 30, 1875:
"This Commission is playing the deuce with me. I have felt it my duty to act as counsel for Science, and was well satisfied with the way things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, —- was examined; and if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he gave, I might as well throw up my brief. I am told he openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and he only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet!
"I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an unmitigated, cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles, and I would willingly agree to any law that would send him to the treadmill.
"The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster is profound, and I am powerless (even if I desire, which I have not) to combat it."[1]
[1] Huxley's "Life and Letters," vol i., p. 473. This characterization seems by no means fair, and probably it would have been so regarded by the writer in calmer moments. Is indignation chiefly directed to the "indifference to animal suffering," or to the "OPEN PROFESSION" of the feeling? For men, perfectly familiar with Continental indifference, to condemn with holy horror a young physiologist because he "openly professes" the generally prevalent sentiment of his class, is very suggestive.
The result of the Commission's report was the introduction by the Government of a Bill placing animal experimentation in Greta Britain under legal supervision and control. As first drawn up, it appears to have been regarded by the medical profession as unduly stringent and unfair. Protests were made, amendments of certain of its provisions were requested, concessions were granted, and at the close of the Parliamentary session, August 15, 1876, the practice of vivisection, like the study of human anatomy by dissection, came under the supervision of English law.
It is curious to observe how those who had vehemently opposed the Act were able to approve it when once the law was in operation, and criticism could no longer serve any purpose of delay. The British Medical Journal of August 19, 1876, announcing to its readers the passage of the Bill, says:
"Taking the measure altogether, we think the profession may be congratulated on its having passed…. So far, the Act facilitates the prosecution of science by competent persons, while it protects animals from the cruelty which might be inflicted by ignorant and unskilful hands. THE ACT IS A GREAT STEP IN ADVANCE TOWARD PROMOTING KINDNESS TO ANIMALS GENERALLY…."
The Medical Times and Gazette also regained its equanimity, and an editorial referring to the Act admits that "the profession may regard it without much dissatisfaction."[1] There are even advantages to be discerned:
"It gives scientific inquirers the protection of the law; it protects animals from cruelties which might be inflicted by unscientific and unskilled persons, and it satisfies to a great extent a demand made by a hypersensitive … portion of the public."
[1] December 30, 1876.
Nor did further experience with the working of the Act appear greatly to disturb this favourable impression. For instance, after the law had been in operation nearly three years, the London Lancet in its issue of July 19, 1879, editorially remarked:
"There is no reason to regret the Act of 1876 which limits vivisection, except on the ground that it places the interests of science at the arbitration of a lay authority…. MEANWHILE, THE ACT WORKS WELL, AND FULFILLS ITS PURPOSE."
There can be no doubt, however, that the law has always been regarded with marked disfavour by the extreme vivisectionists of Great Britain. They had planned, as we can see, to introduce in the United Kingdom the freedom of vivisection which obtained on the Continent. They had failed, and instead of liberty to imitate Be'rnard, Magendie, and Brown-Se'quard, they saw between them and the absolute power they had craved and dreamed of obtaining, the majesty of English law. Among American representatives of the same school—the strenuous opponents of all legal supervision—it has been the fashion on every possible occasion to cast discredit upon this Act. For obvious reasons they have sought to represent it to the American public as having proven a serious detriment to medical science and an obstruction to medical advancement. The idea is absurd. English physicians and surgeons are as well educated and equipped in every respect as are the graduates of American schools. The complete refutation of all such misstatements regarding the effect of the English law will be found elsewhere. The Act is far from being an ideal law—it is capable of amendment in many respects—but it is an evidence of the acceptance by the English people of the principle of State regulation, and of their wish that between the will of the vivisector and the irresponsible and unlimited torment of the victim, there hall be some power capable, if it so desires, of making effective intervention.
Among the critics of unlimited vivisection one American name of the present century stands pre-eminently above all others, not only for emphasis of denunciation, for vigour of condemnation, for clear distinctions between right and wrong, but also for the distinguished position which the writer held. Forty years ago in the medical profession of the United States no name stood higher than that of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, the professor of surgery in Harvard University. To estimate the value of his criticism it is necessary to outline his career.
He was born in Boston, March 11, 1818, his father being Dr. Jacob Bigelow, one of the leading physicians of his day. After completing his medical education in America, young Bigelow went abroad, and spent nearly three years studying in the great hospitals of Paris. It was at a period when the cruel vivisections of Magendie and his contemporaries had become the scandal of civilization, and there can be no doubt that Dr. Bigelow witnessed every phase of vivisection that his sensibilities permitted him to observe.
Returning to Boston in 1844, the young surgeon rapidly attained a prominent position. In January, 1846, before he had completed his twenty-eighth year, he was appointed visiting surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Here on November 7, 1846, there occurred one of the greatest historic events—the first surgical operation in which insensibility to pain was secured by the inhalation of ether. Dr. Bigelow's enthusiasm for the new discovery was very great, and it has been said that to him "the world was indebted for the introduction of anaesthesia in surgery at the exact time in which it occurred."
Dr. Bigelow was surgeon to the Massachusetts General Hospital from 1846 to 1886—a period of forty years. He was professor of surgery in Harvard University from 1849 to 1882, or a third of a century. When he resigned the latter position, President Eliot in his annual report referred to him as "a discoverer and inventor of world-wide reputation, a brilliant surgical operator, a natural leader of men." The faculty of Harvard Medical School also spoke of him as one "who had done so much to render this school conspicuous and to make American surgery illustrious throughout the world." This is high praise. Let it be remembered in reading his opinions concerning vivisection.
An abhorrence of pain was a marked trait in Dr. Bigelow's character. Even to the infliction of necessary suffering he had an extreme dislike. His gentleness to animals was akin to his tenderness for children. He had a great respect for their intelligence, their affection, their confidence in mankind. Toward the close of life he had among his pets a number of the little animals most closely related to human beings, and therefore the most-prized "material" of the vivisector. But such was Dr. Bigelow's sympathy with his little friends that he disliked to take visitors into their presence, and when he did, always cautioned them to assume a smiling face. He was unwilling to give his pets even the mental suffering of anxiety or fear.
He died October 30, 1890, at the ripe age of seventy-two. It was Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself illustrious in science and in literature, who referred to the name of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow as "one of the brightest in the annals of American surgery, not to claim for it A STILL HIGHER PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THE HEALING ART."
Such a tribute was well deserved. His was the most eminent name in the annals of American surgery. It was from this man, occupying such a position in the medical profession, that we have one of the strongest protests, one of the clearest, most discriminating, and emphatic criticisms of unregulated and unrestricted vivisection that the world has known. It is particularly valuable, because Dr. Bigelow was never an antivivisectionist, if by that term we mean one who is opposed to all experiments upon animals. But there are things done in the name of Science which he utterly repudiated and condemned as cruelty, and against which he made a protest that should never be forgotten until the evil shall be condemned by the universal judgment of mankind.
It is probable that Dr. Bigelow's first protest against the abuses of vivisection was in course of an address delivered before the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1871. It is not difficult, perhaps, to detect the reason for its utterance. Dr. H. P. Bowditch, for very many years afterward the professor of physiology in Harvard Medical School, graduated in 1868 from that institution, and went abroad to study physiology in Europe. There he remained about three years, and on his return in 1871 he was given the opportunity of introducing laboratory methods and all the newer processes of experimentation into Harvard Medical School. Now, the address from which the following extracts are taken was delivered on May 7, 1871. Perhaps the inference is not an unreasonable one that Dr. Bigelow was here protesting, and protesting in vain, against the introduction in America of those methods of vivisection which he always regarded with abhorrence and detestation.
In this address he says:
"The teacher of the art of healing has no more right to employ the time of the ignorant student disproportionately in the pleasant and seductive paths of laboratory experimentation—because some of these may one day lead to pathology or therapeutics—than a guardian has to invest the money of his ward in stocks or securities of equally uncertain prospective value to him.
"How few facts of immediate considerable value to our race have of late years been extorted from the dreadful sufferings of dumb animals, the cold-blooded cruelties now more and more practised under the authority of science!
"The horrors of vivisection have supplanted the solemnity, the thrilling fascination of the old unetherized operation upon the human sufferer. Their recorded phenomena, stored away by the physiological inquisitor on dusty shelves, are mostly of as little present value to man as the knowledge of a new comet or of a tungstate of zirconium, perhaps to be confuted the next year, perhaps to remain a fixed truth of immediate value,— … CONTEMPTIBLY SMALL COMPARED WITH THE PRICE PAID FOR IT IN AGONY AND TORTURE.
"For every inch cut by one of these experimenters in the quivering tissues of the helpless dog or rabbit or guinea-pig, let him insert a lancet one-eighth of an inch into his own skin, and for every inch more he cuts let him advance the lancet another one-eight of an inch; and whenever he seizes, with ragged forceps, a nerve or spinal marrow, the seat of all that is concentrated and exquisite in agony, or literally tears out nerves by their roots, let him cut only one-eight of an inch farther—and he may have some faint suggestion of the atrocity he is perpetrating when the guinea-pig shrieks, the poor dog yells, the noble horse groans and strains—the heartless vivisector perhaps resenting the struggle which annoys him.