Part 1 (1/2)

Vivisection.

by Albert Leffingwell.

PREFACE.

To the CENTURY COMPANY of New York, in the pages of whose magazine, then known as ”_Scribner's Monthly_,” the first of the following essays originally appeared in July, 1880, the thanks of the writer are due for permission to re-publish in the present form. For a like courtesy on the part of the proprietors of LIPPINCOTT'S MAGAZINE, in which the second paper was first published [Aug., 1884], the writer desires to make due acknowledgment.

INTRODUCTION.

The first of the Essays following appeared in ”SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY,”

in July, 1880; and immediately became honored by the attention of the Medical Press throughout the country. The aggressive t.i.tle of the paper, justified, in great measure, perhaps, the vigor of the criticism bestowed. Again and again the point was raised by reviewers that the problem presented by the t.i.tle, was not solved or answered by the article itself.

At this day, it perhaps may be mentioned that the question--”Does Vivisection Pay?” was never raised by the writer, who selected as his t.i.tle the single word ”Vivisection.” The more taking headline was affixed by the editor of the magazine as more apt to arrest attention and arouse professional pugnacity. That in this latter respect it was eminently successful, the author had the best reason to remember. With this explanation--which is made simply to prevent future criticism on the same point--the old t.i.tle is retained. If the present reader continues the inquiry here presented, he will learn wherein the writer believes in the utility of vivisection, and on the other hand, in what respects and under what conditions he very seriously questions whether any gains can possibly compensate the infinitely great cost.

”What do you hope for or expect as the result of agitation in regard to vivisection?” recently inquired a friend; ”its legal abolition?”

”Certainly not,” was the reply.

”Would you then expect its restriction during the present century?”

”Hardly even so soon as that. It will take longer than a dozen years to awaken recognition of any evil which touches neither the purse nor personal comfort of an American citizen. All that can be hoped in the immediate future is education. Action will perhaps follow when its necessity is recognized generally; but not before.”

For myself, I believe no permanent or effective reform of present practices is probable until the Medical Profession generally concede as dangerous and unnecessary that freedom of unlimited experimentation in pain, which is claimed and practiced to-day. That legislative reform is otherwise unattainable, one would hesitate to affirm; but it a.s.suredly would be vastly less effective. You must convince men of the justice and reasonableness of a law before you can secure a willing obedience. Yielding to none in loyalty to the science, and enthusiasm for the Art of Healing, what standpoint may be taken by those of the Medical Profession who desire to reform evils which confessedly exist?

I. We need not seek the total abolition of all experiments upon living animals. I do not forget that just such abolition is energetically demanded by a large number of earnest men and women, who have lost all faith in the possibility of restricting an abuse, if it be favored by scientific enthusiasm. ”Let us take,” they say, ”the upright and conscientious ground of refusing all compromise with sin and evil, and maintaining our position unflinchingly, leave the rest to G.o.d.”[A]

This is almost precisely the ground taken by the Prohibitionists in national politics; it is the only ground one can occupy, provided the taking of a gla.s.s of wine, or the performance of any experiment,--painless or otherwise,--is of itself an ”evil and a sin.”

There are those, however, who believe it possible to oppose and restrain intemperance by other methods than legislative prohibition.

So with the prohibition of vivisection. Admitting the abuses of the practice, I cannot yet see that they are so intrinsic and essential as to make necessary the entire abolition of all physiological experiments whatsoever.

[A] Report of American Anti-Vivisection Society, Jan'y 30, 1888.

II. We may advocate (and I believe we should advocate)--_the total abolition, by law, of all mutilating or destructive experiments upon lower animals, involving pain, when such experiments are made for the purpose of public or private demonstration of already known and accepted physiological facts_.

This is the ground of compromise--unacceptable, as yet, to either party. Nevertheless it is asking simply for those limitations and restrictions which have always been conceded as prudent and fair by the medical profession of Great Britain. Speaking of a certain experiment upon the spinal nerves, Dr. M. Foster, of Cambridge University, one of the leading physiological teachers of England, says: ”I have not performed it and have never seen it done,” partly because of horror at the pain necessary. And yet this experiment has been performed before cla.s.ses of young men and young women in the Medical Schools of this country! Absolutely no legal restriction here exists to the repet.i.tion, over and over again, of the most atrocious tortures of Mantegazza, Bert and Schiff.

This is the vivisection which does not ”pay,”--even if we dismiss altogether from our calculation the interests of the animals sacrificed to the demand for mnemonic aid. For the great and perilous outcome of such methods will be--finally--an atrophy of the sense of sympathy for human suffering. It is seen to-day in certain hospitals in Europe. Can other result be expected to follow the deliberate infliction of prolonged pain without other object than to see or demonstrate what will happen therefrom? Will any a.s.sistance to memory, counterweigh the annihilation or benumbing of the instinct of pity?

Upon this subject of utility of painful experiments in cla.s.s demonstrations or private study, I would like to appeal for judgment to the physician of the future, who then shall review the experience of the medical student of to-day. In his course of physiological training, he or she may be invited to see living animals cut and mutilated in various ways, eviscerated, poisoned, frozen, starved, and by ingenious devices of science subjected to the exhibition of pain.

On the first occasion such a scene generally induces in the young man or young woman a significant subjective phenomenon of physiological interest; an involuntary, creeping, tremulous sense of horror emerges into consciousness,--and is speedily repressed. ”This feeling,” he whispers to himself, ”is altogether unworthy the scientific spirit in which I am now to be educated; it needs to be subdued. The sight of this inarticulate agony, this prolonged anguish is not presented to me for amus.e.m.e.nt. I must steel myself to witness it, to a.s.sist in it, for the sake of the good I shall be helped thereby to accomplish, some day, for suffering humanity.”

Praiseworthy sentiments, these are, indeed. Are they founded in reality? No. The student who thus conquers ”squeamishness” will not see one fact thus demonstrated at the cost of pain which was unknown to science before; not one fact which he might not have been made to remember without this demonstrative ill.u.s.tration; _not one fact_--saddest truth of all--that is likely to be of the slightest practical service to him or to her in the multiplied and various duties of future professional life. Why, then, are they shown? To help him to remember his lesson! Admit the value to the student, but what of the cost?

In one of the great cities of China, I was shown, leaning against the high wall of the execution ground, a rude, wooden frame-work or cross, old, hacked, and smeared with recent blood-stains. It was used, I was told, in the punishment of extreme offenses; the criminal being bound thereto, and flayed and cut in every way human ingenuity could devise for inflicting torture before giving an immediately mortal wound. Only the week before, such an execution had taken place; the victim being a woman who had poisoned her husband. A young and enthusiastic physician whom I met, told me he had secured the privilege of being an eye witness to the awful tragedy, that he might verify a theory he had formed on the influence of pain; a theory perhaps like that which led to Mantegazza's crucifixion of pregnant rabbits with _dolori atrocissimi_.[A] Science here caught her profit from the punishment of crime, but the gain would have been the same had her interest alone been the object. There is _always_ gain, always some aid to memory;--_but what of the cost?_

[A] See Appendix, page 83.

It cannot be expected that any Medical College, of its own accord and without outside pressure, will restrict or hamper its freedom of action. As a condition of prosperity and success it cannot show less than is exhibited by other medical schools; it must keep abreast of ”advanced thought,” and do and demonstrate in every way what its rivals demonstrate and do. There can be no question but that there is to-day a strong public demand for continental methods of physiological instruction. Who make this demand? You, gentlemen, students of medicine, and they who follow in your pathway. This year it is you who silently request this aid to your memory of the physiological statements of your text books; another year, another cla.s.s of young men and young women, occupying the same benches, or filling the same laboratory, repeats the demand for the same series of ill.u.s.trations.