• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

22900444027 Med K17661 ' r fitr.ir ^'ciATlb>^ f ,t h '<r THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. ' • Y-?» r' . ' ri * -V > , v' \ X \ V ' " J" < Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/b28086806 Dr. albert LEFFINGWELL (From a Vholo hy Purdy, ‘liotton, U.S.A. Tukcn ‘December, 1907.) : |;f I 'i THE Vivisection Controversy Essays and Criticisms BY ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. AUTHOR OF ILLEGITIMACY AND THE INFLUENCE OF SEASONS UPON CONDUCT ; SUICIDE IN AMERICAN CITIES ; THE MORALITY OF LONDON ; RAMBLES IN JAPAN WITHOUT A GUIDE; ETC. LONDON The London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society 13, Regent Street, .S.VV. iyo8 WELLCOME INSTITUTE LIBRARY Coll. welMOmec Call No. PREFACE. The object of the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisec- tion Society in issuing" an English edition of Dr. Leffingwell’s book is to place before tbe public additional and cogent reasons In furtherance of Anti-Vivisection principles. Although the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society is definitely committed by its rules to the prohibition of Vivisection, it takes no narrow or circumscribed view of its duty to the cause of humanity to animals. It does not ask that every writer who has anything to say that is worth saying on the question should necessarily endorse every principle of the Society. Although Dr. Leffingwell is in favour of the restriction of vivisection, as opposed to the prohibition of it, there is in his book, “ Tbe Vivisection Controversy,” which he presented to the American public some years ago, so much that is valuable and cogentl)" argued, so impressive a statement of facts, that the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society felt it would be failing in its duty to the Cause if it did not take active steps to make the work more generally known. The English edition here presented is slightly different in its arrangements. One or two chapters have been omitted and one or two added, in particular a most valuable one on the Royal Commission on Vivisection, which has been sitting in England this year. We venture to think that, for the VI. PREFACE. intellig-ent investigator who requires facts and logical arguments in preference to mere rhetorical and unrestrained sentiment, Dr. Leffingwell’s work, “The Vivisection Con- troversy,” will supply them with that of which they are in need. It may be added that Dr. Leffingwell was a student of medicine and surgery not only in America, but in England and France, and that he has had practical acquaintance with the physiological laboratory in all these countries, and, therefore, does not speak at second-hand. He is undoubtedly one of the leading literary experts on the question in the medical profession. We issue his book in the certainty that what he has said commands the consideration, not only of the general public, but of his scientific colleagues, and that it cannot fail to do the greatest possible service to the cause of humanity to animals throughout the civilised world. SIDNEY TRIST. (Secretary ; on behalf of the Committee of the Society.) London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society. 13, Regent Street, London, S.W. December igof. CONTENTS. PACK I. The Vivisection Controversy ... ... ... i II. Certain Dangers of Vivisection ... ... i8 III. Concerning a Prize Ess.w ... ... ... 34 IV. Vivisection in Medical Schools ... ... 39 V. An Ethical Basis for Humanity ... ... 55 VI. Physiology in Schools ... ... ... ... 67 VII. Does Vivisection Need Concealment? ... 73 VIII. Does Science Need Secrecy? ... ... ... 79 IX. Some Mistakes of Scientists ... ... ... 92 X. Is Science Advanced by Deceit? ... ... 108 XI. The Value of Life and Truth 135 XII. Some Lessons of Great Reforms ... ... 139 XIII. The Rise of the Vivisection Controversy ... 171 XD’. The Vivisection Problem > ... ... ... 207 (A Reply to Dr C. S. Afyers.) XV. Comments on iMr. Myers’ Rejoinder ... ... 220 XVI. The Royal Commission of 1906 ... ... 224 XVII. Appendix. ... ... ... ... ... ... 242 {Corresl^ondeiice on the /irofirrlies of Mofphw.) The Vivisection Controversy.* BY ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. The question of vivisection is always pushing itself to the front. A distinguished American physiologist has lately come forward in defence of the French experimenter, Magendie, and, parenthetically, of his methods of investi- gation in the study of vital phenomena. On the other hand, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made an unsuccessful attempt in the New York Legisla- ture last winter, to secure the passage of a law which would entirely abolish the practice as now in vogue in our medical schools, or cause it to be secretly carried on, in defiance of legal enactments. In support of this bill “ it was claimed that physiologists, for the sake of demon- strating to medical students certain physiological phenom- ena connected with the functions of life, are constantly and habitually in the practice of cutting up alive, torturing and tormenting divers of the unoffending brute creation to illustrate their theories and lectures, but without any practical or beneficial result either to themselves or to the students, which practice is demoralizing to both, and engenders in the future medical practitioners a want of humanity and sympathy for physical pain and suffering.” Perhaps these assertions go a little too far. Let us en- deavour to study the whole question dispassionately, and see how it thus appears. Leaving out the animal world, there are three parties * From Scribner's Monthly, July, 1880. B ; 2 THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. interested in this discussion. In the first place, there are the professors and teachers of physiology in the medical colleges. Naturally, these desire no interference with either their work or their methods. They claim that were the knowledge acquired by experiments upon living organ- isms swept out of existence, in many respects the science of physiology would be little more than guesswork to-day. The subject of vivisection, they declare, is one which does not concern the general public, but belongs exclusively to scientists. Behind these stand the majority of men belonging to the medical profession. Holding, as they do, the most important and intimate relations to society, it is mani- festly desirable that they should enjoy the best facilities for the acquirement of knowledge necessary to their art. In this, as in other professions or trades, the feeling of is esprit de corps exceedingly strong ; and no class of men likes interference on the part of outsiders. To most physicians it is a matter with which the public has no con- cern. Society trusts its sick and dying members to the it medical profession ; can not with equal confidence leave the lower animals to the same care ? The opinion of the general public is therefore divided and confused. On the one hand, it is profoundly desirous to make systematic and needless cruelty impossible yet, ; on the other, it cannot but hesitate to take any step which shall hinder medical education, impede scientific discovery, or restrict search for new methods of treating disease. What, men say, are the sufferings of an animal, however acute, compared with the gain to humanity which would result from the knowledge thereby acquired of a single curative agent ? Public opinion hesitates. And yet, either by action or inaction the State must finally decide whether vivisection shall be wholly abolished, as desired by some THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 3 whether it shall be restricted by law within certain limits are to and for certain definite objects ; or whether we continue in this country to follow the example of France and Germany, in permitting the practice of physiological experimentation to any extent devised or desired by the experimentalist himself. Any information tending to indi- cate which of these courses is best cannot be inopportune. Having witnessed experiments by some of the most dis- tinguished European physiologists, such as Claude Bernard (the successor of Magendie), Milne-Edwards and Brown- Sequard and, still better (or worse, as the reader may ; think), having performed some experiments in this direc- tion for purposes of investigation and for the instruction of others, I believe myself justified in holding a pronounced opinion on this subject, even if it be to some extent opposed to the one prevailing in the medical profession. At the outset of any discussion of the subject, there arises a very important question. Admitting the benefit of the demonstration of scientific facts, Aow far may one justifiably subject an animal to pain for the purpose of illustrating a point already known? It is merely a question of cost. For instance, it is an undisputed statement in physical science that the dia- mond is nothing more than a form of crystallized carbon, and, like other forms of carbon, under certain conditions, may be made to burn. Now most of us are entirely willing to accept this, as we do the majority of truths, upon the testimony of scientific men, without making demonstration a requisite of assent. In a certain private school, however, it has long been the custom once a year, to burn in oxygen a small diamond, worth perhaps thirty dollars, so as to prove to the pupils the assertion of their text-books. The experiment is a brilliant one ; no one can doubt its entire success. Nevertheless, we do not furnish diamonds to our B 2 4 THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. public schools for this purpose. Exactly similar to this is one aspect of vivisection—it is a question of cost, Granting all the advantages which follow demonstration of certain physiological facts, the cost is pain—pain some- times amounting to prolonged and excruciating torture. Is the gain worth this ? Let me mention an instance. Not long ago, in a certain medical college in the State of New York, I saw what Doctor Sharpey, for thirty years the professor of physi- ology in the University Medical College, London, once characterized by antithesis as “Magendie’s infamous expe- riment,” it having been first performed by that eminent physiologist.

Load more

  270

Copy Link