TUFTS COLLEGE LIBRARY. THE RISE THE VIVISECTION (MTBOVEBSY a Chapter of 1bi$ton> ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 1903 All persons interested in the general subject of Vivisection, and particularly those inclined to favor some reasonable measure for its legal regulation and supervision, are requested to send to the undersigned their names, and if possible, sp?ne expression of their views. Address : SYDNEY RICHMOND TABER, Secy American Humane Association, 532 Monadnock Block, CHICAGO, III. THE RISE THE YIYISECTION CONTROVERSY a Chapter of Ibtstor^ ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. NEW YORK 1903 PREFACE. The beginnings of the Vivisection agitation are vaguely and imper- fectly known by the scientific men of the present generation. The full history of the movement will some day be written, at a time when preju- dice shall be less potent, and when clear vision becomes possible through lapse of time. The following pages contain simply some materials for that history. The reader will discover that this agitation was no reckless outburst of misplaced sentiment and excited ignorance, — as too often it has been represented, — but that it took its rise in the humane protests of the Medical Profession against cruelty and abuse. The passages which appear in italics, unless so stated, are not thus emphasized in the original publication. As a general rule, italics are used to direct attention to views advocated by members of the medical profession, which notably differ from those maintained to-day by the extreme advocates of free vivisection. No editorial is quoted in full; and the extracts, as a rule, are given only so far as they illustrate divergence from the Continental school of opinions. However emphatic in condemnation, they must not be taken as indicative of the advocacy of anti-vivisection views, or of opposition to physiological experimentation when pursued by competent and con- scientious men. The writer is not an Anti-vivisectionist. But, believing in the justi- fiability of research, humanely conducted under the supervision of the law, he has no hesitancy in avowing that his sympathy is far more with the views which were almost universally held by the Medical Profession of England but a generation since, than with those of the "free vivisec- tion" party of the present time. The cruelties of unregulated vivisection seem to the writer no less abhorrent to-day, than but a little while ago they seemed to the leaders of the profession throughout the English- speaking world. The Hamilton Club, Brooklyn, N. Y., 1903. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION" CONTROVERSY Of the ethical agitations which interested humanity during the Nine- teenth century, none has been more seriously misapprehended by educated men than the one which questioned or impeached the morality of animal vivisection. To the present generation of scientific teachers or medical prac- titioners, the origin and purpose of the agitation seem, doubtless, very clear ; it is but another evidence, they would tell us, of that blind hatred of Science which in every age seeks, vainly, to prevent the advancement of the human intellect and the conquest of the Unknown. The vivisection of animals, we should perhaps be told, is a practice as old as the first question- ings of the human mind regarding the phenomena of life. Sometime during the past half century, there arose in England an irrational outcry against physiological research, a sentimental clamour concerning "cruelties" that had no existence except in the heated imaginations of ignorant men. Against this misguided agitation stood, of course, the entire medical pro- fession, and with them the teachers of science throughout Great Britain. Year after year, they doubtless fought for the maintenance of scientific liberty, and for the right of physiologists to do what they wished ; and they yielded at last to legislation which was without justification, and most serious in its detrimental effects upon the cause of learning and the advance- ment of medicine. Something like this is undoubtedly the way that the origin of the Vivisection controversy appears to the present generation of college graduates, of scientific teachers, and of medical men ; in some such inaccurate and visionary form it has been represented more than once, for their condemnation and contempt.* And yet such a view is absolutely false to the facts of history. They were not ignorant men who first raised protesting voices against the cruelties * An example of the vague and inaccurate notions entertained regarding the beginnings of the vivisection agitation, may be found in the address delivered June 10, 1896, before the Massachusetts Medical Society, by Dr. Henry P. Bowditch, Professor of Physiology at Harvard University. The speaker said: "The first serious attack upon biological research in England seems to have been in an essay entitled 'Vivisection: Is it necessary or justifiable ? ' published in London in 1864 by George Flemming, a British army veterinary surgeon. This essay is an important one, for ... its blood-curdling stories, applied to all sorts of institutions. have formed a large part of the stock in trade of subsequent antivivisection writers. "A fresh stimulus to the agitation was given by the publication in 1871 of a work . . . entitled ' Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory.' This book was intended to be used by students of physiology under the guidance of their instructors. . . . Unfortunately, however, it fell into the hands of excitable men and women, who were ignorant of many things that had properly been taken for granted in writing for members of the medical profession." 6 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. of vivisection. Strange as it now seems, it was the medical profession of Great Britain that first denounced the atrocities of research, and held them up to the execration of the English people. It was the medical press that year after year questioned the morality of practices which then were abhorrent to the vast majority of English medical men. The story which these facts imply appears to me worth telling, and worth remembering. The voices to which we shall listen seem, as it were, echoes from the tomb, for the men who, forty years ago, represented the English race in all that concerns the advancement of medical science, have, for the most part, passed beyond the gates. The denunciations of cruelty that they uttered so forcibly are now no longer heard ; other voices are there resonant ; other ideals dominate. But the eternal verities do not vary ; and what was the truth yesterday, is the truth to-day. The history of the Vivisection agitation has yet to be written. In the following sketch, I shall only attempt to outline one peculiar phase of the controversy : the attitude toward it and the part borne in it by the medical profession. It will be of interest to note how this agitation took its rise, and to what revelations and denunciations it was primarily due. In reviewing the controversy, at least three different views of vivisection may be clearly discerned. As constant reference must be made to them, let us at the outset define some of their distinguishing characteristics. First, we may take the Continental view ; vivisection for its own sake, without supervision, legal regulation or restrictions of any kind ; vivisection as it has been carried on for centuries by experimenters on the Continent of Europe. The advancement of knowledge and not- the utility of medicine is admitted to be the true object of the practice.* In performance of a vivisec- tion, an experimenter is under no obligation to consider the question of pain.f Whether an experiment be right or wrong, useful or useless, cruel or otherwise, are matters for the experimenter alone to decide: and any legislation which attempts to define under what conditions or for what pur- poses an experiment may be made, seems to the physiologist of the Con- tinental school "unnecessary and offensive in the highest degree. "% He insists that he cannot be subject to legal supervision, because no one is competent to testify to his fitness ; in other words, he holds himself superior to law that elsewhere determines and regulates the conduct of mankind. § He resents the imputation of "cruelty,'' but holds that it is the privilege of the vivisector to define the term. Magendie, Bernard, Brown-Sequard, * Dr. Hermann: "Die Vivisectionsfrage," Leipsic, 1S77. + Dr. Emanuel Klein ; see testimony following. $See Senate Doc. No. 31, 54th Cong., p. 3. This is a statement of American vivisectors. §See Letter of President Eliot; Report of Hearing, 1900, p. 219. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. y Mantegazza, and a host of their imitators and adherents in Europe and America may be said to represent this school of physiological theory and practice. Doubtless, there are shades of opinion and differences in practice. Upon one point, however, all are agreed : that the vivisector must be at liberty to do as he likes, and free from every restriction or restraint. A frank statement of the practices and opinions of this Continental type of physiologists was given, in 1876, in the evidence of Dr. Emanuel Klein before the Royal Commission on Vivisection. The evidence is the more important from the fact that now, for nearly thirty years, Dr. Klein has been one of the leading physiologists of England. (Chairman.) "What is your practice with regard to the use of anaesthetics in experiments that are otherwise painful? — Except for teaching purposes, for demonstra- tion, I never use anaesthetics where it is not necessary for convenience. When you say you only use them for convenience sake, do you mean that you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the animals ? — No regard at all. You are prepared to establish that as a principle that you approve? — I think that with regard to an experimenter, a man who conducts special research, and performs an experiment, he has no time, so to speak, for thinking what the animal will feel or suffer. As an investigator, you are prepared to acknowledge that you hold as entirely indifferent the sufferings of the animal which is subjected to your investigation? — Yes. Do you believe that that is a general practice on the Continent, to disregard alto- gether the feelings of the animals, — I believe so. Have you, since you have come to this country, had any proof of what you state now with regard to the different feeling that pervades the inhabitants of England with regard to the feelings of the animals on which you operate? — Yes, there is a great deal of difference. Would you give the Commission an instance . . . ? — I mean in regard to the journals ; the outcry and agitation carried on in the different journals against the practice of vivisection. There is no such thing abroad; there the general public does not claim to pronounce any criticism or any judgment about scientific teaching or physiology in general. But you believe that, generally speaking, there is a very different feeling in Eng- land? — Not among physiologists; I do not think there is. If you were directed to perform an operation . . . with reference to the nerves of a dog, and it became necessary to cut the back of the dog severely for the purpose of exposing the dog's nerves, — for the sake of saving yourself inconvenience, you would at once perform that without the use of anaesthetics? — Yes. You say that a physiologist has the right to do as he likes with the animal? — Yes. And you think that the view of scientific men on the Continent is your view, that animal suffering is so entirely unimportant compared with scientific research that it should not be taken into account at all? — Yes, except for convenience sake."* A second opinion regarding vivisection is that which almost universally obtained in England up to 1870. For purposes of distinction from that * Testimony, somewhat abbreviated, from minutes of Royal Commission on Vivisection, p. 183 et seq. (Italics ours.) 8 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. which prevailed on the Continent, we may call it the English view, although to-day, we should find it largely pushed aside by its more vigorous competi- tor. But up to a third of a century ago, as we shall see, the medical pro- fession of England regarded with detestation and abhorrence the liberty of vivisection which prevailed on the Continent of Europe. They maintained, indeed, the right of animal experimentation for purposes of scientific dis- covery, but they condemned in no measured terms the repetition of experi- ments simply for the demonstration of well-known facts. Sir Charles Bell, who made the greatest physiological discovery of the Nineteenth century, thus alludes to some experiments made by him : "After delaying long on account of the unpleasant nature of the operation, I opened the spinal canal. ... I was deterred from repeating the experiment by the protracted cruelty of the dissection. I reflected that the experiment would be satisfactory if done on an animal recently knocked down and insensible."* Again, in a letter to his brother, he says : "I should be writing a third paper on the nerves ; but I cannot proceed without making some experiments which are so unpleasant to make that I defer them. You may think me silly, but I cannot perfectly convince myself that I am authorized in Nature or Religion to do these cruelties ... And yet, what are my experiments in comparison with those which are daily done, and are done daily for nothing !"f Such extreme sensitiveness, such tender-hearted hesitancy to inflict tor- ment would be laughed at in every Continental laboratory. It is typical, however, of the sentiment which once everywhere prevailed in the medical profession of Great Britain. A third phase of opinion, representing uncompromising hostility to every phase and form of animal experimentation, is that known as Anti-vivisection. Fifty years ago, as a form of party belief or ground of agitation, it had no existence. It sprang into being because of the revelations made by the medi- cal journals of England regarding Continental cruelties ; it exists from a belief that like cruelties will always be possible wherever any form of vivisection is sanctioned by law. The following extracts from the editorial columns of the leading medical journals of England tell their own story. We see where the agitation against the cruelties of vivisection first began. Arranged in chronological order, they give us a clear idea of the views regarding animal experimenta- tion held by the medical profession of England, from 1858 down to the passage of the Vivisection Act of 1876. * Nervous System of the Human Body, London 1830, p. 31. Of interest, in this connection, is a para- graph from the Lancet (London) of Dec. 17, 1881 : "Prof. Schiff has lately pointed out that under certain conditions vital functions can be studied by dissecting' freshly-killed animals." t Letters of Sir Charles Bell, London, 1875, p. 275. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 9 Medical Times "In this country we are glad to think that experiments on and Gazette animals are never performed, now-a-days, except upon some reason- Sept., 1858 able excuse for the pain thus wilfully inflicted. We are inclined to believe that the question will some day be asked, whether any excuse can make them justifiable? One cannot read without shuddering, details like the following. It would appear from these, that the practice of such brutality is the every-day lesson taught in the veterinary schools of France. "A small cow, very thin, and which had undergone numerous operations, — that is to say, which had suffered during the day the most extreme torture, was placed upon the table, and killed by insufflation of air into the jugular vein." This fact is related by M. Sanson of the veterinary school of Toulouse, merely incidentally, when describing an experiment of his own upon the blood. The wretched animal was actually cut to pieces by the students ! . . . M. Sanson adds (merely wanting to prove that the nervous system of the animals upon which he operated was properly stirred up), "Those who have seen these wretched animals on their bed of suffering — "lit de douleur," — know the degree of torture to which they are subjected, torture, in fact, under which they for the most part, succumb !" — The Medical Times and Gazette, London {Editorial) , Sept. 4, 1858. London Lancet After pointing out the utility of physiological investigations in Aug., i860 the past, the editor adds : "On the other hand, when at any moment the practice over- passes the rigourous bounds of utility, when its object is no longer the pursuit of new solutions of scientific problems, or the examination of hypotheses requiring a test ; when vivisection is elevated into an art and this art becomes a matter of public demonstration, then it is degraded by the absence of a beneficent end, and becomes a cruelty. Thus the exhibitions of experiments which aim only at a repetition of inquiries already satisfactorily concluded, and the demonstration of functions already understood, appear to us to rank among the excesses which must be deplored if not repressed. The displays in these amphitheatres* are of the most painful kind ; and it is to be most deeply regretted that curiosity should silence feeling and draw spectators to mortal suffering . . . The Commission [of the Societies for Prevention of Cruelty] asks for nothing which the most zealous devotees of science cannot, — and ought not — to grant. It demands only the cessation of experiments which are purely repetitive demonstrations of known facts." — The London Lancet (Editorial) , Aug. 11, i860. Medical Times "Two years ago, we called attention to the brutality practiced and Gazette at the veterinary schools in France, and gave a specimen of the kind Oct., i860 of torture, there inflicted upon animals. We are very glad to see that the public are now occupied with the subject, and we are sure that the Profession at large will fully agree with us in condemning experiments which are made simply to demonstrate physiological or other facts which have been received as settled points and are beyond controversy. We consider the question involved as one of extreme interest to the Profession; and we shall gladly throw open our columns to any of our brethren who may wish to assist in framing some code by which we may decide under what circumstances experiments upon living animals may be made with propriety." — Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial) , Oct. 20, i860. *Of the medical schools of Paris. 10 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. London Lancet "The moment that it (vivisection) overpasses the bounds of Oct., i860 necessity; when it ceases to aim at the solution of problems in which humanity is interested, and becomes a new means of public demonstration, having no benevolent end, then it is degraded to the level of a pur- poseless cruelty. The repetitive demonstration of known facts, by public or private vivisections, is an abuse that we deplore and have more than once condemned." — The Lancet, London (Editorial) , Oct. 20, i860. London Lancet "Prof. Owen,* one of the first physiological authorities of the Jan., 1861 present day, observes, 'That no teacher of physiology is justified in repeating any vivisectional experiment, merely to show its known results to his class or to others. It is the practice of vivisection, in place of physio- logical induction, pursued for the same end, against which, humanity, Christianity and Civilisation should alike protest/ " — From Letter to The Lancet, Jan. 12, 1861. London Medical "Vivisection. We have been requested to pronounce a con- Times and demnation of vivisection . . . Gazette We believe that if anyone competent to the task desires to March, 1861 solve any question affecting human life or health, or to acquire such a knowledge of function as shall hereafter be available for the preservation of human life or health, by the mutilation of a living animal, he is justified in so doing. But we do not hesitate to condemn the practice of operating on living animals for the mere purpose of acquiring coolness and dexterity ; and we think that the repetition of experiments before students, merely in order to exhibit them as experiments, showing what is already known, is equally to be condemned." — Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial) , London, March 2, 1861. British Medical "The Emperor of the French has received a deputation from Journal the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We May, 1861 sincerely trust that this interview may be the means of putting an end to the unjustifiable brutalities too often inflicted on the lower animals under the guise of scientific experimentation. It has never appeared clear to us that we are justified in destroying animals for mere experimental research under any circumstances ; but now that we possess the means of removing sensation during experiments, the man who puts an animal to torture, ought, in our opinion, to be prose- cuted." [Referring to the experiment upon a cow mentioned in Dr. Brown-Sequard's "Jour- nal of Physiology," and already described, the editor adds:] "We are not disposed, in a question of this kind, in which some of the highest considerations are concerned, to allow our opinion to be swayed by the opinions or the proceedings of even the greatest surgeons and the greatest physiologists. That such authorities performed vivisection is a fact ; but it does not satisfy us that the proceeding is justifiable. Under any circumstances, this much, we think, is evident enough : that if vivisections be permissible, they can only be so under certain limited and defined conditions. We need hardly add that these conditions have not yet been laid down. Altogether, the subject is one well worthy of serious discussion; and gladly would we see the interests of medical science in the matter properly reconciled with the dictates of the moral sense. — British Medical Journal (Editorial) , May 11, 1861. ♦Sir Richard Owen. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. u British Medical "The brutalities which have been so long inflicted upon horses, Journal etc., in the veterinary schools of France under the name of Science, Oct., 1861 are perfectly horrible. Some idea of what has been daily going on in those schools during many past years, may be obtained from such a statement as the following, taken from a paper by M. Sanson in the Journal of Physiology [edited by Dr. C. E. Brown-Sequard]. M. Sanson is speaking incidentally of the condition of the animals upon whose blood he was himself experimenting : "A small cow," he writes, "very thin, and which had undergone numerous operations, — that is to say which had suffered during the day, the most extreme torture, was placed upon the table," etc. M. Sanson adds : ". . . Those who have seen these wretched animals on their bed of suffering, — lit de doulcur, — know the degree of torture to which they are subjected; torture, in fact, under which, they for the most part succumb!" The poor brutes arc actually sliced and chopped, piecemeal, to death, in order that the elcves (students) may become skilful operators!" — British Medical Journal (Editorial) , Oct. 19, 1861. London Medical "No person whose moral nature is raised above that of the Times and Gazette savage would defend the practices which lately disgraced the Aug., 1862 veterinary schools of France, or in past years the theatre of Magendie.* Prof. Sharpey in his address to the British Medical Association has accurately drawn the required limits, by asserting that where the result of an experiment has been fully obtained and confirmed, its repetition is inde- fensible; and "as the art of operating may be learned equally on the dead as on the living body, operations on the latter for the purpose of surgical instruction are reprehensible and unnecessary." — Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial) , Aug. 16, 1862. British Medical After stating that some restrictions should be imposed regard- Journal ing vivisection, the editor says : "We will venture to suggest that Sept., 1862 these restrictions should be well and clearly defined ; that some high authority like Dr. Sharpey himself should lay down certain rules on the subject, and for the very purpose of preventing, if possible, any needless suffering from being inflicted experimentally on the lower animals. All of us must be well aware that many needless experiments are actually performed, and until some clearly defined rules on this head are laid down, we venture to think such needless suffering will still continue to be inflicted on animals. If, for example, it were publicly stated by authorities in the profession that experiments of this nature, made for the mere purpose of demonstrating admitted physiological facts, are unjusti- fiable, a great step would be gained, and a great ground of complaint cut from under the feet of the enthusiastic Anti-vivisection societies. The very fact of an authorita- tive declaration on this point would go far toward giving an authoritative sanction to the legitimate performance of such experiments. . . ." — British Medical Journal (Editorial) , Sept. 6, 1862. * i. e. the lecture room. 12 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. British Medical "Vivisection is often useful and sometimes necessary and there- Journal fore not to be absolutely proscribed ; but I would gladly petition May, 1863 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 a scalpel !" — British Medical Journal, May 2, 1863; quoted from editorial in "E 'Union Medicate," of Paris. British Medical "We are very glad to find that the French medical journals Journal are entering protests against the cruel abuse which is made of Aug., 1863 Vivisection in France. E'Abeille Medicate says: "I am quite of your opinion as to the enormous abuses prac- ticed at the present day in the matter of vivisection .... In the laboratories of the College of France, in the Ecole de Medicine, 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 the private study, and the results obtained are then explained to the pupils, or treated of in pub- lications. . . . But to repeat the experiments before the public, to descend from the professional chair in order to practice 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 senti- ments of youth. An end should be put to them. Ought we to allow the elite 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 cus- toms are continued, the future physician will become marked by his cold and implac- able 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 E'Abeille Medicate. But here L'Union Medicate takes up and com- ments 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 College 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 fore paws 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. Berard, professor of physiology, never performed a single vivisection in his lectures, which THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 13 were brilliant, elegant and animated. But Berard 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 Berard 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 practicing vivisections, taking pleasure in the cries, the blood and the tortures of the poor animals." — British Medical Journal {Editorial) , Aug. 22, 1863. The London "If we were pressed simply for a categoric answer to the Lancet question whether such a practice (as vivisection) were permissible Aug., 1863 under proper restrictions and for the purpose of advancing science and lessening human suffering, we need hardly say that the answer would be in the affirmative." It is asserted, however, that the practice of Vivisection and such investigations as are implied by this term, "have spread from the hands of the retired and sober man of matured science into those of every-day lecturers and their pupils" ; and that such experiments "are a common mode of lecture illustration" . . . "We will state our belief, that there is too much of it everywhere, and that there are daily occurring practices in the schools of France which cry aloud in the name both of honour and humanity for their immediate cessation. About two years ago, our Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals became possessed of the knowledge that it was still the practice in the schools of Anatomy and Physiology in France for lecturers and demonstrators to tie down cats, dogs, rabbits, etc., before the class ; to perform upon them operations of great pain, and to pursue investigations accompanied by most terrible torture. This, too, for the purpose only of demonstrating certain facts which had been for long unhesitatingly admitted and for giving a sort of meretri- cious air to a popular series of lectures. It learned, moreover, that at the Veterinary schools of Lyons and Alfort, live horses were periodically given up to a group of students for anatomical and surgical purposes, often exercised with . . . extra refinements of cruelty." . . . It appeared, that at Paris the whole neighborhood adjoining the medical school — including patients in a maternity hospital, "were constantly disturbed when the course of physiology was proceeding at the school, by the howling and barking of the dogs, both night and day." The dogs were silenced. "The fact was the poor animals were now subjected to the painful operation of dividing the laryngeal nerves as preliminary to the performance of other mutilations ! And what were these dogs for? Simply for the vain repetition of clap-trap experiments, by way of illustrations of lectures for first-year stu- dents ! These facts becoming known, the general public has at length interfered, and we think, with very great propriety. The entire picture of vivisectional illustration of ordinary lectures is to us personally repulsive in the extreme. Look, for example, at the animal before us, stolen (to begin with) from his master; the poor creature hungry, tied up for days and nights, pining for his home, is at length brought into the theatre. As his crouching and feeble form is strapped upon the table, he licks the very hand that ties him! He struggles, but in vain, and uselessly expresses his fear and suffering until a muzzle is buckled on his jaws to stifle every sound. The scalpel penetrates his quivering flesh. One effort only is now natural until his powers are exhausted, a vain, instinctive resistance to the cruel form that stands over him, I 4 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. the impersonation of Magendie and his class. "I recall to mind," says Dr. Latour, "a poor dog, the roots of whose spinal nerves Magendie 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 fore-paws around Magendie's neck and lick his face ! I confess, — laugh Messieurs les Vivisecteurs, if you please, — I confess I could not bear the sight." — But the whole thing is too horrible to dwell upon. Heaven forbid that any description of students in this country should be witness of such deeds as these ! We repudiate the whole of this class of procedure. Science will refuse to recognize it as its offspring, and Humanity shudders as it gazes on its face." — London Lancet (Leading Editorial) , Aug. 22, 1863. British Medical "The atrocities of vivisection continue to occupy the attention Journal of the Paris papers. The Opinion Nationale says : "The poor Aug., 1863 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." — Britisli Medical Journal, Aug. 29, 1863. London Lancet . . . As a general rule, neither our (British) students Aug., 1863 nor teachers are wont to carry on experiments upon living animals even in a private way. The utmost that can be said is that per- haps some two, or three, or at the most six, scientific men in London are known to be pursuing certain lines of investigation which require them occasionally during the year to employ living animals. . . . Whilst the schools of medicine in this country are, as a rule, not liable to the charge of vivisectional abuses as regards the higher ani- mals, we cannot altogether acquit them from a rather reckless expenditure of the lives and feelings of cold-blooded creatures. . . . The reckless way in which we have seen this poor creature (the frog) cut, thrown and kicked about, has been sometimes sickening. . . . We cannot help feeling there is both a bad moral discipline for the man, as well as an amount of probable pain to the creature, in such a practice." — The London Lancet (Editorial), Aug. 29, 1863. British Medical "Our readers are aware that the French Minister of Commerce Journal submitted to the Academy of Medicine documents supplied to him Sept., 1863 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 . . . THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 15 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 vivisec- tion. To-day we have before our eyes a very different spectacle. "Under pretense 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 indispensa- ble to completely efficacious instruction in physiology." * Reference was undoubtedly to Brown-Sequard, who probably inflicted more torment upon animals by his experiments on the spinal cord than any vivisector who ever lived. In 1864 he came to America and was made a professor in Harvard Medical School. l6 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. (The following were the resolutions proposed by M. Dubois as amendments to the report) : "i. The Academy, without dwelling on the injurious form of the documents that have been submitted to it, acknowledges that abuses have been introduced into the practice of vivisection. 2. To prevent these abuses, the Academy expresses the wish that henceforward vivisection may be exclusively reserved to the research of new facts, or the verification of doubtful ones ; and that consequently, they may no more be practiced in the public or private courses of lectures for the demonstration of facts already established by science. 3. The Academy equally expresses the wish that the pupils at the schools of veterinary medicine may henceforward be exercised in the practice of operations on dead bodies, and no more on living horses." The discussion on vivisection was concluded by the passage of a resolution . . .' which leaves the matter where it was. "The Academy declares that the complaints brought forward by the Society for the Protection of Animals are without founda- tion ; that no notice need be taken of them, and that the performance of vivisections and of surgical operations as practiced in the veterinary schools, should be left to the discretion of men of science." 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 ; and yet the Academy decides that complaints on this score are without foundation and that men of science in this matter need no inter- ference ! ... At all events, we may be sure that however much the Academicians may snub the affair, the discussion cannot fail to have beneficial results." — British Medical Journal {Leading Editorial) , Sept. 19, 1863. British Medical "M. Dubois has published a discourse ... on the subject Journal of vivisection in answer to objections made to the amendments Oct., 1863 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 demon- strations on living animals in the public [Medical] schools are utterly unjustifiable and a scandal to humanity. In all this, zve 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 vivisec- tions 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 lectures." — British Medical Journal {Editorial) , Oct. 10, 1863. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 17 British Medical "The conditions under which, — and under which alone, — vivi- Journal sections may be justifiably performed seem to us to be clear, and Jan., 1864 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 elucidating unknown facts, but to satisfy man's curiosity. . . . 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." — British Medical Journal (Editorial) , Jan. 16, 1864. British Medical "Far be it from us to patronize or palliate the infamous prac- Journal tices, the unjustifiable practices committed in French veterinary June, 1864 schools, and in many French Medical schools, in the matter of vivisection. We repudiate as brutal and cruel all surgical opera- tions performed on living animals. We repudiate the repetition of all experiments on animals for the demonstration of any already well-determined physiological ques- tion. We hold that no man except a skilled anatomist and a well-informed physiolo- gist has a right to perform experiments on animals." * — British Medical Journal (Editorial) , June 11, 1864. In 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 opera- tor (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. Mark- ham, 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 atten- tion to the abuses pertaining to Continental physiological teaching. That * The writer then defends vivisections made by skilled men in way of original research. 1 8 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 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 authori- ties 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 distin- guished 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 experi- mentation. The reader of Dr. Markham's essay will not find it difficult to com- prehend the cause of this significant silence. Although the essay was in no way sympathetic with anti-vivisection, it represented the Anglo-Saxon ideal, in marked distinction from the doctrines which then prevailed in the labora- tories 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 unjusti- fiable. 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 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 19 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 in France and elsewhere, where demonstrations of this kind are delivered." * "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 instruc- tion 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 per- formance 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." . . .f "Thus, then, we have seen, that in the case of experiments legitimately performed on living animals, . . . such experiments must always, from their nature, be con- paratively 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 physio- logical 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- systematic 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 systematic 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 * Experiments and Surgical Operations on Living Animals : One of two Prize Essays. London. Robert Hardwick, 1866. t Op. cit., p. 102. t Op. cit., p. 106. §pp. 106-107. 20 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 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, during 1869, again referred to the subject: "Vivisection. The subject of vivisection has been again brought on the tapis, owing to some remarks made by Prof. (Claude) Bernard ... at the College 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) Bernard 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." * At the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which convened in September, 1870, a significant resolution was offered. It authorized the appointment of a committee who were requested "to consider from time to time, whether any steps can be taken by them, or by this Association, which will tend to reduce to its minimum the suffering entailed by legitimate physiological inquiries ; or any which will have the effect of employing the influence of this Association in the discouragement of experiments which are not clearly legitimate, on living animals." f * London Lancet (Editorial), April 3, 1869. + The Medical Times and Gazette, London, Sept. 24, 1870. THE RISE OF THE J 7 VI SECTION CONTROVERSY. 2 1 The resolution was carried "by a large majority." It undoubtedly was presented by some one aware of the extent to which the practice was secretly increasing in Great Britain. One may question, nevertheless, whether it prevented a single experiment, "not clearly legitimate," which any physiolo- gist desired to perform. For the hour was approaching when all England was to be aroused, not as before, with indignation concerning atrocities in Paris or Alfort, but with well-founded fear of the introduction of Continental vivisection on British soil. On January 7, 1871, — the first week of the new decade, — a leading medical journal began the report of a course of lectures delivered " in the Physiological Laboratory of University College" in London, and illustrated by the vivisection of animals. During one of these discourses, the lecturer, a professor of physiology, Dr. J. Burdon Sanderson, 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 member 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." * The lecturer contended that no experiment should be performed by an unskilled person with insufficient instruments, and argued, therefore, in favor 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. "f 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 Kings College * Medical Times and Gazette, Feb. 25, 1871. t Medical Times and Gazette, June 17, 1871. 22 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 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."* On the other hand, at University College, the Con- tinental method of teaching was to be found. "Students perform experi- ments on animals. Frogs, curarized or chloroformed, are given them, and the experiment which has been fully explained and demonstrated by the pro- fessor, is performed by them as far as practicable. "f 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. 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 main- taining 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 them- selves auxiliary to it except as other sciences, — for instance, chemistry and botany — may be considered auxiliary to it, but to win a place in 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 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 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 physio- logical 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. If we go beyond these we get into the domain of practical medicine. 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 * Medical Times and Gazette, July 20, 1872. t Medical Times and Gazette, July 27, 1872. THE RISE OF THE V TV 7 SECTION CONTROVERSY. 23 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."* Early the next year (1873), was published the "Hand-book 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 practiced abroad. So atrocious was one of the experi- ments thus described in this hand-book for students, that Prof. 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."^ A professor of physiology, Dr. Gamgee, about the same time refers to the physiological laboratories of Edinburgh, Cam- bridge and London, and the part they sustained "in what I may call — the Revival of the study of experimental physiology in England. "% Emboldened by continuing success, the advocates of Continental vivi- section 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 pub- lic 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 experi- ments would not be of the smallest possible benefit."§ The magistrates * Medical Times and Gazette (Editorial), September 7, 1872. t Medical Times and Gazette, London, March 29, 1873. X Medical Times and Gazette, London, October 18, 1873. § British Medical Journal, Dec. 12, 1874. 24 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. decided that while the case was a very proper one to prosecute, yet the gen- tlemen 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. 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. Three parties opposed one another : first, the anti-vivisectionists, who called for the total suppression by law of all animal experimentation; second, the physiological enthusiasts, few in number, but favorable 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 defense ; and editorial space once filled with denunciation of vivisection in France was now given over to criticism of the anti-vivisectionists of England. Yet, even at this period, there appeared no repudiation of those humane principles, so long professed by English medical men. One lead- ing journal, the Medical Times and Gazette, thus suggests that very over- sight of vivisection which President Eliot of Harvard University tells us cannot be done : "Just as the law demands that a teacher of anatomy should take out a license, and be responsible for the bodies entrusted to him, so a teacher of physiology might be required to take out some such license 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 favor 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 practiced by incompetent students. This was nothing but wanton and unright- eous 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' THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 25 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 pre- vent repeated operations with the same object. Nothing in any of these proposals, urged Dr. Walker, could interfere with the progress of science ; they would simply stop the abuses which existed." * 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 demon- strating established doctrines. . . . We believe an attempt might be made to institute something in the way of regulation and supervision. It would not be diffi- cult, 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." f A month later the Lancet devotes its leading editorial to a discussion of the ethics of vivisection. After criticising the position taken by the anti- vivisectionists, the writer says : "On 'the other side, the discussion has been conducted as if it concerned physio- logists 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 insti- tute 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 chemi- cal 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 knowl- edge 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 ♦Medical Times and Gazette, London (Editorial), June 27, 1874. t The Lancet, London (Editorial), Jan. 2, 1875. 26 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. present in the one case and not in the other, carries a responsibility with it. We con- tend 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!' * 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, Pro- fessor 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 unneces- sary 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: DR. LYON PLAYFAIR'S VIVISECTION BILL. "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 follow- ing 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 licenses 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 Colleges of Physicians in London, Edinburgh or Dublin, and also by a recognized professor of physiology, medicine or anatomy."f *The London Lancet, Feb. 6, 1875. tThe Lancet, May 15, 1875. It is evident, however from Prof. Huxle3 r 's letters, that he did not approve the clause of this bill confining vivisection solely to original research, but favored also painless demonstrations. THE RISE OF THE VII'ISECTION CONTROVERSY. 27 The bill, though introduced in Parliament, was not pressed. Another, and more stringent measure for the regulation of vivisection had been intro- duced 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 as by silence and secrecy. At the annual meeting of the British Medical Asso- ciation, therefore, Prof. William Rutherford delivered an address, wherein for the second time an English physiologist openly advocated the vivisec- tion 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." * 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 hare his own definition of the word. We hope Sir William Thompson was not justified in stating that revolting cruelties are sometimes practiced in this country, in the name of Vivisection, although we may concur with him in reprehending the per- formance of experiments on animals in illustration of truths already ascertained. . . . When the Cardinal (Manning) laid it down as the expression of a great moral obliga- tion 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." f 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 Lancet, London (Editorial), Aug. 21, 1875. tThe Lancet, London (Editorial), March 25, 1S76. 28 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. The testimony given before the Royal Commission was of the 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 experimen- tation. 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, and made him forever famous in the history of the vivisection-controversy. It is hardly accurate to say that no cruelty was uncovered by the Royal Com- mission. Everything depends on the meaning of words ; but the evidence of Dr. Klein, who to-day is 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 Dr. Klein's evidence was regarded at the time, is clearly shown in an extract from a confidential letter of Prof. Huxley to Mr. Darwin, dated Oct. 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 may 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." f The result of the Commission's report was the introduction by the Government of a bill placing animal experimentation in Great 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, Aug. 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 * For an extract from Dr. Klein's testimony, see page 7. + Huxley's Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 473. This characterization of Dr. Klein 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 mightily suggestive. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. 2 9 could no longer serve any purpose of delay. The British Medical Journal of Aug. 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 com- petent persons, while it protects animals from the cruelty which might be inflicted by ignorant and unskillful 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."* 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." Nor did further experience with the working of the Act appear greatly to disturb this favorable impression. For instance, after the law had been in operation nearly three years, the London Lancet 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 fulfils its purpose." f There can be no doubt, however, that the law has always been regarded with marked disfavor 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 Bernard, Magendie and Brown-Sequard, they saw between them and the absolute power they had craved and dreamed of obtaining, — the majesty of English law. Among American representa- tives of the same school, — the strenuous opponents of all legal supervis- ion, — 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 the graduates from American schools ; nor has the freedom of unlimited vivisection in all the laboratories of the United States during the past thirty years, yet resulted in a single discovery of generally admitted value in the treatment of disease. A typical instance of the loose and inaccurate statements frequently put forth by men who oppose any regulation of vivisection, may be found in * December 30, 1876. t The Lancet, July 19, 1879. 30 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. the letter recently addressed by Dr. W. W. Keen to Senator Gallinger, and telegraphed to the newspaper press throughout the United States. Dr. Keen says therein : "If the laws which j^ou and your friends advocate were in force, the conditions for scientific investigation in medicine in this country would be quite as deplorable as those in England. For example, when Lord Lister, who has revolutionized modern surgery, largely as a result of such experiments, wished to discover possibly some still better way of operating by further experiments, he was obliged to go to Toulouse to carry them out, as the vexatious restrictions of the law in England practically made it impossible for him to continue there these preeminently humane experiments."* This statement was sent broadcast over the country. No authority is given ; it rests solely upon the word of Dr. Keen. We cannot suspect him of intentional misstatement; and yet the story is wholly untrue so far as it refers to the operation of the law. It is not true that Lord Lister was compelled to go out of England to perform the experiments in question. He, himself, entertained no doubt but that he might have obtained a license to do them in England. But they had to be on large animals ; the Veterinary College in which he might have had opportunity given him for the investiga- tions, was at some distance from his residence, and the journey to Toulouse was merely a matter of convenience. Who could have been Dr. Keen's authority for this singular fiction? Certainly, it was not Lord Lister, for he has never given any account of the circumstance for publication. Dr. Keen continues : "Again, when Sir T. Lauder Brunton, in London, started a series of experiments on animals to discover an antidote for the cobra and other snake poisons of India, where every year 20,000 human lives are sacrificed by snake bites, these beneficent researches were stopped by the stringent British laws to protect animals. Meanwhile, half a million of human beings have hopelessly perished." (Italics ours.) Is it possible that Dr. Keen can imagine this paragraph a true and precise statement of the facts? Did he not know that Dr. Brunton "started a series of experiments" with snake-poison, years before the passage of the Act of 1876, regulating vivisections ;y and that although these investigations were interrupted for a year or two (owing to doubts as to the construction of the law regarding anaesthetics), the experiments in question were resumed by Dr. Brunton in 1878, — fully twenty-five years ago? Surely Dr. Keen cannot be ignorant of the fact that Dr. Brunton contributed accounts of these ♦Philadelphia Medical Journal, Dec. 13, 1902, p. 903. t See the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Feb. 1875, for Dr. Brunton's account of experiments made in 1874, with references to earlier investigations. THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY 31 later researches with snake-poison both to the British Medical Journal and to The Royal Society?* To put forth the suggestion that "stringent British laws to protect animals" had made certain investigations legally impossible, when — on the contrary, — these very experiments have been carried on under its sanction, and in accord with its provisions for a quarter of a century, — really, is this scientific accuracy? Was not Dr. Keen aware of the fact that experiments with snake-poison were by no means a novel procedure ; that they have been carried on by a host of other experimenters, — by Fayrer of Calcutta, by Vulpian of Paris, by Halford of Australia, by Lacerda of South America, by Martin, Sewell, Muella, Wall, Wolfenden, Foster, — and more especially by his friend Dr. S. Weir Mitchell of Philadelphia, whose investigations of this kind began over forty years ago?f For the purpose of exciting prejudice against the legal regulation of vivisection in this country, was it right for Dr. Keen to give forth the impression to the American public, that in India, "half a million of human beings have hopelessly perished," just because twenty-five years ago, Dr. Brunton's experiments were inter- rupted for a short time, although they have been carried on, at his pleasure, ever since ? And if a perfect antidote to the venom of serpents in India and elsewhere is within reach, why did not Weir Mitchell continue his experi- ments till such antidote were found? There was no restrictive law in his way. If somebody were to charge that brilliant romance-writer with cruel indifference to human suffering, because he discontinued his experiments with snake-poison for the pursuit of literary eminence, with the result that "meanwhile, half a million of human beings have hopelessly perished" — it would be quite as sensible and pertinent as Dr. Keen's remark to the same effect, made to excite American prejudice against the English law. But it was not only among the advocates of Continental freedom that the English law found determined enemies ; by the anti-vivisection party in Great Britain the passage of the bill was viewed with distrust, and now for more than a quarter of a century, these opponents have strenuously and consistently worked for its amendment or repeal. Their aim has not been realized ; and yet by fixing public attention upon its defects, — upon the lax and inadequate supervision of laboratories, for example, or the ease with which the legal requirements concerning use of anaesthetics may be evaded by unscrupulous men, — they have performed a service of great value in the promotion of reform. No one claims that the bill is a perfect measure. Possibly, along certain lines, and in non-essential details, it might, without * See British Medical Journal of Jan. 3, 1891 ; Proceedings 0/ The Royal Society, 1878, page 465. tSee Smithsonian Contributions, i860, p. qj, for Dr. Weir Mitchell's "Researches on the Venom of the Rattlesnake;" and The New York Medical Journal of Jan., 1868, and The American Journal 0/ the Medical Sciences for April, 1870, for account of similar experiments. 32 THE RISE OF THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. detriment, be more liberally construed in the interests of science ; on the other hand, it seems certain that in other directions, the law needs far more careful administration in the interests of the sentient beings it aims to protect. But whatever be its defects, it cannot be doubted that the Act of 1876, legally regulating the practice of vivisection, constitutes a vast improvement upon the unbridled license which elsewhere prevails in Europe and America ; that it acts as a check to the indifferent and the cruel, that it stands on the statute-book, a monument to the humane sentiment of the English people. It is true that the advocates of Continental vivisection have gained ground during the past quarter of a century. The Continental ideal of scientific irresponsibility is probably held to-day, by a large majority of the younger members of the present generation of scientific teachers. Is it, then, to be the final conclusion of the English-speaking world? We do not believe it. A change will come. To the medical profession, humanity owes the first exposure of the horrors of animal vivisection, the first protest against their atrocity. If the old ideals seem now, to be forgotten, we know that they are not dead ; and we believe that some day they will awaken to inspire the world. CORRESPONDENCE. Dr. Keen's misstatement regarding the English law regulating vivisection is quite inexcusable in a scientific man. At the cost of a postage stamp, he might have learned that the English law, to which he so coolly charges the death of "half a million human beings," does not prohibit the researches to which he alludes. The following reply to a note of inquiry addressed to the Home Secretary places the ques- tion beyond dispute. Secretary of State, Home Department. Whitehall, (London,) 15th June, 1903. Sir: — With reference to your letter of the 14th ultimo, enquiring whether a British subject, holding a license to make experiments upon living animals in England, can obtain a certificate permitting him to inoculate a number of animals with the venom of the cobra and of other serpents of India, and immediately thereafter, at varying periods, to administer certain antidotes, with a view of discovering something that may be adapted to human beings suffering from snake-bite, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that the reply is in the affirmative. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, Henry Cunyngham. Single copies of this pamphlet, ten cents. Per dozen copies, seventy-five cents. Sent, postage paid, on receipt of price. Address: SPECIAL COMMITTEE, P. 0. Box 215, Providence, R. I. THE T. , M. & T. PRESS HUB S3&3? HJ|^