CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
 THE 
 
 THIS BOOK IS THE GIFT OF 
 
 <xwvd. -...., 
 
 SiwwdCAhu. {jj^JcW-Jroj^j^ 
 
Cornell University Ubrary 
 QP 45.F53 
 
 Zoophily versus 'i°'"°Elji!Y,;, 
 
 3 1924 000 312 003 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000312003 
 
iYo.M-H-^3 
 
 Reprinted from the Proceedings of the American Microscopical Society, iSgO, I// / ^ 
 
 ZOOPHILY VERSUS HOMOPHELY. 
 
 PIERRE A. FISH, D. Sc, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 The onward march of events, accompanied by new condi- 
 tions and new methods, has given a much wider significance 
 to the term vivisection than was formerly attached to it. It 
 is quite commonly regarded, by those opposed to the prac- 
 tice, as a method of inflicting, by dissection upon a living 
 conscious animal, excruciating pain for the gratification of 
 the operator's curiosity, or for the exhibition of some experi- 
 ment already demonstrated and thoroughly familiar. 
 
 Technically a man or animal is vivisected when a hypo- 
 dermic needle is thrust into the skin for the purpose of allevi- 
 ating the pangs of disease by this form of medication ; while 
 if any part of the body be crushed or mangled by a blow, as 
 from a club, resulting in serious injury, there is infinitely 
 more suffering but not literally vivisection, since the tissues 
 are not cut but bruised. Nor is the condition of the victim 
 taken into account ; a serious and prolonged operation upon 
 an anesthetised animal may result in as little discomfort to 
 it as the blows or accidental injuries received by any dog on 
 the streets as an incident in his career ; or, in the former 
 case, if the operation result in death, the end is without pain. 
 
 But the issue that now seems to be nearest the* surface, 
 under this really comprehensive term of vivisection, is whether 
 it is justifiable to utilise, even to their destruction, animals 
 for the real or probable benefit of mankind, and with this as 
 the issue, there would be the natural classification of those 
 who, influenced by genuine sentiments of mercy and a desire 
 for the alleviation of suffering, band themselves together for 
 its suppression, especially in animals, on account of the ina- 
 bility of the dumb beasts to make known certain existing 
 
 e.v. 
 
2 PIERRE A. FISH : 
 
 abuses and because of their helplessness in competition with 
 men. This class of persons would encompass the animals 
 with so many and rigid safeguards that if really put into 
 practice many lines of progress would be materially restricted. 
 For our presept purpose let such persons be classified as 
 Zoophiles — antivivisectionists — and the vivisectionists as 
 Homophiles, the latter advocating not only the essential doc- 
 trines of the former but something more. Actuated by the 
 same sentiments of mercy and regard for -suffering they would, 
 when obliged to inflict pain for the general good, minimise it 
 to the greatest possible extent, by the use of anesthetics or 
 otherwise. , , 
 
 The practice of vivisection, like the theory of evolution, 
 does not appeal to the finer esthetic qualities of mankind ; it 
 is not intended to ; it would appeal rather by an array of 
 self-evident facts to the importance and necessary usefulness 
 of the practice. 
 
 Is it justifiableto sacrifice an animal from a lower level in 
 the zoological scale for the preservation or benefit of another 
 animal in that same scale ? Nature has already decided that 
 ' question by the creation and maintenance of the order of 
 carnivorous animals, which live on flesh alone, and others 
 which subsist on mixed diets. If the zoophiles understood 
 and were enabled to trace the preparation ,of their animal 
 food from the living creature to the time it is ready for eat- 
 ing, would they still exercise as muph pertinacity in their 
 dpnial of the right to use lower forms for thp benefit of the 
 higher, or is Nature again at fault in fashioning the human 
 digestive apparatus so that a mixed diet may be enjoyed .' 
 AVould not a logical adherence to their cardinal principles 
 preclude anything but a vegetable diet, and extend even to 
 the matter of clothing and personal adornment .' 
 
 But the answer is made that it is not the aim to legislate 
 against animal inoculations for the determination of disease, but 
 to supervise and to eliminate the promiscuous and unnecessary 
 use of it. Much stress is also laid upon the tortures which have 
 been inflicted upon animals in the past, and these remote 
 
ZOOPHILY VERSUS HOMOPHILY. 3 
 
 instances, although exceptional when the vast number of 
 experiments are considered, are resurrected and represented 
 as being in common usage at the present day. There is no 
 practice that may not be abused. Are the principles of the 
 Christian religion, upon which so large a portion of the civi- 
 lised world depends for encouragement and support during 
 the battle of life, to be undermined because long years ago 
 there were certain enthusiasts whose zeal permitted them 
 to inflict the most excruciating, cruel and unparalleled tor- 
 tures upon their fellow-beings "In His Name"? Is the 
 future saving of human life, the saving of vast sums of money 
 by the preservation of the lives and eradication of disease 
 in domesticated animals, and the search for the truth 
 which elevates to a higher plane of civilisation to be retarded 
 by the misdeeds of past offenders.^ Will statistics confirm the 
 generalised statement that vivisection tends to brutalise the 
 operator .■' Such an accusation is not brought against a sur- 
 geon in the performance of his duties. Wherein lies the 
 great difference in the degree of vivisection .■' How many of' 
 the antivivisectionists have really gone beyond the first shud- 
 der at the thought of the existence of pain and appreciated 
 the fact that life itself is a struggle for existence, and that 
 the perception of a greater or less amount of pain, under 
 ordinary conditions, is a circumstance in the career of every 
 living creature ? 
 
 The vivisecting experiments of Galvani have illumined not 
 only the scientific world, but the material world as well. Out 
 of the crude apparatus of a vivisector have been developed 
 the wonderful electrical appliances of today.- Galvani's 
 experiments were the keys which unlocked the doors of 
 ignorance, not only as to certain physiological phenomena, 
 but ! the .manifold mysteries of the uses of electricity, many 
 of which are still unsolved. 
 
 The fact that mature and deliberate judgment may be 
 exercised in a question of such vital interest has been recently 
 exemplified in one of the Cantons of Switzerland, where a 
 measure for the total prohibition of vivisection was submitted 
 
4 ZOOPHILY VERSUS HOMOPHILY. 
 
 to the population ad referendum, with the result that 40,000 
 votes were cast against such prohibition and only 1 7, 000 for it. 
 
 In the District of Columbia, it has been proposed to legis- 
 late against vivisection, or, at least, to regulate it by the 
 maintenance of certain inspectors, who shall at intervals visit 
 the laboratories or other places where the practice is carried 
 on. 
 
 The bill as arranged is unnecessary, unreasonable, retro- 
 gressive and reactionary in its tendency. 
 
 It is unnecessary, because the great majority of vivisectors 
 are intelligent, earnest and humane gentlemen, whose object 
 in animal experimentation is to suppress and prevent the 
 occurrence of disease, or to add some new fact for the wel- 
 fare of mankind. 
 
 It is unreasonable, in that it advocates a system of espion- 
 age in which the inspector may be a person ignorant, unskil- 
 ful and unappreciative of the object to be investigated or of 
 the methods employed therein. It is manifestly unfair to 
 permit such a person to officiate as censor, and is a malicious 
 insinuation against the integrity of the investigator. 
 
 It is retrogressive, because it prevents further research; 
 medical and biological sciences can progress only through 
 experimentation. 
 
 It is reactionary, because in the efifort to encompass the 
 animals with so many safeguards their use for the real benefit 
 of mankind is lost sight of, and one should be reluctant to 
 assume that the antivivisectionists love animals more and their 
 fellow-beings less. 
 
 Pain is an. adjunct of life, and its merciful infliction upon 
 lower forms is not only justifiable but necessary when it may 
 alleviate human suffering. Humanity is above animality and 
 as long as Nature endows living animals with sensitive tis- 
 sues, just so long will pain exist. 
 
■^f^t^ IB 
 
 ^ 
 
 T > >■ 
 
 \ 
 
 '! V ' I' 
 
 <,V 
 
 y- .. ^; 
 
 
 .J^ 
 
 m 
 
 ," v 
 
 X 
 
 ..C'^;?;