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.

You, perhaps, will have gone forward to take your places in active life, to a.s.sume the real burdens of the medical profession. To those succeeding years of thought, reflection and usefulness, let me appeal, respecting the absolute necessity of all cla.s.s demonstrations and laboratory work involving pain. Postpone if you please, the ready decision which, fresh from your cla.s.s-room, you are perhaps only too willing to give me to-day; I do not wish it. But some time in the future, after years have gone by, remembering all you have seen and aided in the doing, tell us if you can, exactly wherein you received, in added potency for helping human suffering and for the treatment of human ills, the equivalent of that awful expenditure of pain which you are now demanding, and which by unprotesting acquiescence, you are _to-day_ helping to inflict.

BOSTON, Ma.s.s., _March, 1889_.

[_From_ SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY, _July, 1880_.]

DOES VIVISECTION PAY?

The question of vivisection is again pushing itself to the front. A distinguished American physiologist has lately come forward in defense of the French experimenter, Magendie, and, parenthetically, of his methods of investigation in the study of vital phenomena. On the other hand, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made an unsuccessful attempt, in the New York Legislature last winter, to secure the pa.s.sage of a law which would entirely abolish the practice as now in vogue in our medical schools, or cause it to be secretly carried on, in defiance of legal enactments. In support of this bill it was claimed that physiologists, for the sake of "demonstrating to medical students certain physiological phenomena connected with the functions of life, are constantly and habitually in the practice of cutting up alive, torturing and tormenting divers of the unoffending brute creation to ill.u.s.trate their theories and lectures, but without any practical or beneficial result either to themselves or to the students, which practice is demoralizing to both and engenders in the future medical pract.i.tioners a want of humanity and sympathy for physical pain and suffering." How far these statements are true will be hereafter discussed; but one a.s.sertion is so evidently erroneous that it may be at once indicated. _No_ experiment, however atrocious, cruel and, therefore, on the whole, unjustifiable, if performed to ill.u.s.trate some scientific point, was ever without "any beneficial result." The benefit may have been infinitesimal, but every scientific fact is of some value. To a.s.sert the contrary is to weaken one's case by overstatement.

Leaving out the brute creation, there are three parties interested in this discussion. In the first place, there are the professors and teachers of physiology in the medical colleges. Naturally, these desire no interference with either their work or their methods. They claim that were the knowledge acquired by experiments upon living organisms swept out of existence, in many respects the science of physiology would be little more than guesswork to-day. The subject of vivisection, they declare, is one which does not concern the general public, but belongs exclusively to scientists and especially to physiologists. That the present century should permit sentimentalists to interfere with scientific investigations is preposterous.

Behind these stand the majority of men belonging to the medical profession. Holding, as they do, the most important and intimate relations to society, it is manifestly desirable that they should enjoy the best facilities for the acquirement of knowledge necessary to their art. To most, the question is merely one of professional privilege against sentiment, and they cannot hesitate which side to prefer. In this, as in other professions or trades, the feeling of _esprit de corps_ is exceedingly strong; and no cla.s.s of men likes interference on the part of outsiders. To most physicians it is wholly a scientific question. It is a matter, they think, with which the public has no concern; if society can trust to the profession its sick and dying, they surely can leave to its feeling of humanity a few worthless brutes.

The opinion of the general public is therefore, divided and confused.

On the one hand, it is profoundly desirous to make systematic and needless cruelty impossible; yet, on the other, it cannot but hesitate to take any step which shall hinder medical education, impede scientific discovery, or restrict search for new methods of treating disease. What are the sufferings of an animal, however acute or prolonged, compared with the gain to humanity which would result from the knowledge thereby acquired of a single curative agent? Public opinion hesitates. A leading newspaper, commenting on the introduction of the Bergh bill, doubtless expressed the sentiment of most people when it deprecated prevention of experiments "by which original investigators seek to establish or verify conclusions which may be of priceless value to the preservation of life and health among human beings."

The question nevertheless confronts society,--and in such shape, too, that society cannot escape, even if it would, the responsibility of a decision. Either by action or inaction the State must decide whether the practice of vivisection shall be wholly abolished, as desired by some; whether it shall be restricted by law within certain limits and for certain definite objects, as in Great Britain; or whether we are to continue in this country to follow the example of France and Germany, in permitting the practice of physiological experimentation to any extent devised or desired by the experimentalist himself. Any information tending to indicate which of these courses is best cannot be inopportune. Having witnessed experiments by some of the most distinguished European physiologists, such as Claude Bernard (the successor of Magendie), Milne-Edwards and Brown-Sequard; and, still better (or worse, as the reader may think), having performed some experiments in this direction for purposes of investigation and for the instruction of others, the present writer believes himself justified in holding and stating a p.r.o.nounced opinion on this subject, even if it be to some extent, opposed to the one prevailing in the profession. Suppose, therefore, we review briefly the arguments to be adduced both in favor of the practice and against it.

Two princ.i.p.al arguments may be advanced in its favor.

I. It is undeniable that to the practice of vivisection we are indebted for very much of our present knowledge of physiology. This is the fortress of the advocates of vivisection, and a certain refuge when other arguments are of no avail.

II. As a means of teaching physiological facts, vivisection is unsurpa.s.sed. No teacher of science needs to be told the vast superiority of demonstration over affirmation. Take for instance, the circulation of the blood. The student who displays but a languid interest in statements of fact, or even in the best delineations and charts obtainable, will be thoroughly aroused by seeing the process actually before his eyes. A week's study upon the book will less certainly be retained in his memory than a single view of the opened thorax of a frog or dog. There before him is the throbbing heart; he sees its relations to adjoining structures, and marks, with a wonder he never before knew, that mystery of life by which the heart, even though excised from the body, does not cease for a time its rhythmic beat. To imagine, then, that teachers of physiology find mere amus.e.m.e.nt in these operations is the greatest of ignorant mistakes.

They deem it desirable that certain facts be accurately fixed in memory, and they know that no system of mnemonics equals for such purpose the demonstration of the function itself.

Just here, however, arises a very important question. Admitting the benefit of the demonstration of scientific facts, _how far may one justifiably subject an animal to pain for the purpose of ill.u.s.trating a point already known_? It is merely a question of cost. For instance, it is an undisputed statement in physical science that the diamond is nothing more than a form of crystallized carbon, and, like other forms of carbon, under certain conditions, may be made to burn. Now most of us are entirely willing to accept this, as we do the majority of truths, upon the testimony of scientific men, without making demonstration a requisite of a.s.sent. In a certain private school, however, it has long been the custom once a year, to burn in oxygen a small diamond, worth perhaps $30, so as actually to prove to the pupils the a.s.sertion of their text-books. The experiment is a brilliant one; no one can doubt its entire success. Nevertheless, we do not furnish diamonds to our public schools for this purpose.

Exactly similar to this is one aspect of vivisection--it is a question of cost. Granting all the advantages which follow demonstration of certain physiological facts, the cost is pain--pain sometimes amounting to prolonged and excruciating torture. Is the gain worth this?

Let me mention an instance. Not long ago, in a certain medical college in the State of New York, I saw what Doctor Sharpey, for thirty years the professor of physiology in the University Medical College, London, once characterized by ant.i.thesis as "Magendie's _infamous_ experiment," it having been first performed by that eminent physiologist. It was designed to prove that the stomach, although supplied with muscular coats, is during the act of vomiting for the most part pa.s.sive; and that expulsion of its contents is due to the action of the diaphragm and the larger abdominal muscles. The professor to whom I refer did not propose to have even Magendie's word accepted as an authority on the subject: the fact should be demonstrated again. So an incision in the abdomen of a dog was made; its stomach was cut out; a pig's bladder containing colored water was inserted in its place, an emetic was injected into the veins,--and vomiting ensued. Long before the conclusion of the experiment the animal became conscious, and its cries of suffering were exceedingly painful to hear. Now, granting that this experiment impressed an abstract scientific fact upon the memories of all who saw it, nevertheless it remains significantly true that the fact thus demonstrated had no conceivable relation to the treatment of disease.

It is not to-day regarded as conclusive of the theory which, after nearly two hundred repet.i.tions of his experiment, was doubtless considered by Magendie as established beyond question. Doctor Sharpey, a strong advocate of vivisection, by the way, condemned it as a perfectly unjustifiable experiment, since "besides its atrocity, it was really purposeless." Was this repet.i.tion of the experiment which I have described worth its cost? Was the gain worth the pain?

Let me instance another and more recent case. Being in Paris a year ago, I went one morning to the College de France, to hear Brown-Sequard, the most eminent experimenter in vivisection now living--one who, Doctor Carpenter tells us, has probably inflicted more animal suffering than any other man in his time. The lecturer stated that injury to certain nervous centers near the base of the brain would produce peculiar and curious phenomena in the animal operated upon, causing it, for example, to keep turning to one side in a circular manner, instead of walking in a straightforward direction.

A Guinea-pig was produced--a little creature, about the size of a half-grown kitten--and the operation was effected, accompanied by a series of piercing little squeaks. As foretold, the creature thus injured did immediately perform a "circular" movement. A rabbit was then operated upon with similar results. Lastly, an unfortunate poodle was introduced, its muzzle tied with stout whip-cord, wound round and round so tightly that it must necessarily have caused severe pain. It was forced to walk back and forth on the long table, during which it cast looks on every side, as though seeking a possible avenue of escape. Being fastened in the operating trough, an incision was made to the bone, flaps turned back, an opening made in the skull, and enlarged by breaking away some portions with forceps. During these various processes no attempt whatever was made to cause unconsciousness by means of anaesthetics, and the half-articulate, half-smothered cries of the creature in its agony were terrible to hear, even to one not unaccustomed to vivisections. The experiment was a "success"; the animal after its mutilation _did_ describe certain circular movements. But I cannot help questioning in regard to these demonstrations, _did they pay_? This experiment had not the slightest relation whatever to the cure of disease. More than this: it teaches us little or nothing in physiology. The most eminent physiologist in this country, Doctor Austin Flint, Jr., admits that experiments of this kind "do not seem to have advanced our positive knowledge of the functions of the nerve centers," and that similar experiments "have been very indefinite in their results." On this occasion, therefore, three animals were subjected to torture to demonstrate an abstract fact, which probably not a single one of the two dozen spectators would have hesitated to take for granted on the word of so great a pathologist as Doctor Brown-Sequard. Was the gain worth the cost?

This, then, is the great question that must eventually be decided by the public. Do humanity and science here indicate diverging roads? On the contrary, I believe it to be an undeniable fact that _the highest scientific and medical opinion is against the repet.i.tion of painful experiments for cla.s.s teaching_. In 1875, a Royal Commission was appointed in Great Britain to investigate the subject of vivisection, with a view to subsequent legislation. The interests of science were represented by the appointment of Professor Huxley as a member of this commission. Its meetings continued over several months, and the report const.i.tutes a large volume of valuable testimony. The opinions of many of these witnesses are worthy of special attention, from the eminent position to the men who hold them. The physician to the Queen, Sir Thomas Watson, with whose "Lectures on Physic" every medical pract.i.tioner in this country is familiar, says: "I hold that no teacher or man of science who by his own previous experiments, * * *

has thoroughly satisfied himself of the solution of any physiological problem, is justified in repeating the experiments, however mercifully, to appease the natural curiosity of a cla.s.s of students or of scientific friends." Sir George Burroughs, President of the Royal College of Physicians, says: "I do not think that an experiment should be repeated over and over again in our medical schools to ill.u.s.trate what is already established."[A] Sir James Paget, Surgeon Extraordinary to the Queen, said before the commission that "experiments for the purpose of repeating anything already ascertained ought never to be shown to cla.s.ses." [363.] Sir William Fergusson, F.

R. S., also Surgeon to her Majesty, a.s.serted that "sufferings incidental to such operations are protracted in a very shocking manner"; that of such experiments there is "useless repet.i.tion," and that "when once a fact which involves cruelty to animals has been fairly recognized and accepted, there is no necessity for a continued repet.i.tion." [1019.] Even physiologists--some of them practical experimenters in vivisection--join in condemning these cla.s.s demonstrations. Dr. William Sharpey, before referred to as a teacher of physiology for over thirty years in University College, says: "Once such facts fully established, I do not think it justifiable to repeat experiments causing pain to animals." [405.] Dr. Rolleston, Professor of Physiology at Oxford, said that "for cla.s.s demonstrations limitations should undoubtedly be imposed, and _those limitations should render illegal painful experiments before cla.s.ses_." [1291.]

Charles Darwin, the greatest of living naturalists, stated that he had never either directly or indirectly experimented on animals, and that he regarded a painful experiment without anaesthetics which might be made with anaesthetics as deserving "detestation and abhorrence."

[4672.] And finally the report of this commission, to which is attached the name of Professor Huxley, says: "With respect to medical schools, we accept the resolution of the British a.s.sociation in 1871, that experimentation without the use of anaesthetics is not a fitting exhibition for teaching purposes."