In a number of succeeding volumes, the same a.s.sertion has been put forth; and as understood by the average reader, it has tended to dispel doubts regarding the character of the experiments. It seems worth while to examine the account of these investigations a little closely. The question for us is not whether anaesthetics were employed, but to what extent we may find ourselves a.s.sured regarding their efficiency in abolishing sensibility in every case.
The experiments in question were of a peculiar kind. They differ in certain respects from anything to be found in the records of American vivisection. The number of dogs sacrificed--148--was far greater than seems necessary to establish any working hypothesis. It would appear that the methods of vivisection selected were generally designed for the purpose of making the strongest possible impression, and, if consciousness was present, the sharpest pangs that human ingenuity could invent were repeatedly inflicted. The most sensitive parts of the body were crushed in various ways. The lungs were stabbed, or shot through; the intestines were lifted from the body, and burned or placed in boiling water; the nerves were exposed and sc.r.a.ped; loops of intestines were manipulated or crushed; the ear was penetrated; the jaws were opened as far as "the maximal normal separation," and then by extraordinary force separated still more; the paws were crushed, and sometimes burnt by the application of a Bunsen"s flame; the stomach was dilated by pumping air and water into it till the stomach burst; one animal was subjected to "all kinds of operations for a period of three hours more," including the cutting out of kidneys and double hip-joint amputations; another suffered the opening of the abdomen, the crushing of the kidneys, "severe manipulation of the eye," "severe manipulation of the tongue, puncture, crushing," etc., and lastly, a "stimulation of the sciatic nerve"; in one case, the paw "was placed in boiling water for a considerable time"; in another, "boiling water was poured into the abdominal cavity"; in yet another, flame was applied over the heart. I am not quoting all this from memory; the work describing all these experiments lies open before me as I write. No Iroquois savage, no Spanish inquisitor, no professional tormentor of any age ever devised more exquisite torments, more excruciating agonies, more lengthened tortures than these 148 vivisections imply--UNLESS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT THE COMPLETE INSENSIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS WAS SECURED BY RECOGNIZED ANAESTHETICS, BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT.
Such a.s.surance as this it is now impossible for anyone to give with scientific certainty. The absolute insensibility of each and every animal thus vivisected cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, there are reasons which compel belief that, in many instances, these vivisections implied the most horrible and prolonged torments that the practice of animal experimentation has ever been permitted to evoke.
What are some of these reasons?
FIRST. In the work describing these experiments, the author has nowhere a.s.serted that EACH ANIMAL SUBJECTED TO EXPERIMENT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END SO DEEPLY AND PROFOUNDLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ETHER OR CHLOROFORM AS TO BE TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS OF PAIN.
Now, the omission of this statement is peculiarly significant. If it had been possible, we may be quite sure that such a statement would have been made. Suppose, for example, that in place of vague generalities the experimenter had said:
"Before the commencement of each experiment, the animal was deeply anaesthetized by the inhalation of chloroform or ether, or both; and the insensibility thus induced before the experiment began was maintained until the death of the animal. Curare was never used. In no instance and at no time during any experiment was the anaesthesia otherwise than profound; the corneal reflex was never to be obtained, nor was any other sign of sensibility to pain ever to be noted."
A statement like this would have been definite. But with due regard for truth, it could not have been made. Instead of an explicit statement, we have merely the a.s.sertion--so easily misunderstood-- that "in all cases the animals were anaesthetized." And this statement may mean nothing whatever, so far as concerns the painlessness of these vivisections.
SECOND. GREAT CARE WAS APPARENTLY TAKEN IN SOME CASES TO PREVENT DEEP ANAESTHESIA.
It is a well-known fact that dogs are peculiarly susceptible to chloroform, and very likely to die while under its influence. The president of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, a teacher of science for many years, Sir Thornley Stoker, stated in his testimony that a dog"s heart is very weak and irregular. "I fear that in the case of dogs, anaesthesia is not always pushed to a sufficient extent, as these animals often die from the effects of the anaesthetic if given to a full extent.... THE ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE, if the dog lives as long as is necessary for some of these experiments."[1]
[1] Testimony before Royal Commission, Questions 761, 836.
Now, one of these experiments lasted over three hours, and many of them over an hour. How many of the 148 animals died because the anaesthesia was TOO DEEP?
On this point the admissions of the experimenter seem especially significant. "OVER-ANAESTHESIA rendered the animals subject to early collapse, and decidedly less capable of enduring a protracted experiment." During certain experiments, "CONSIDERABLE CARE was necessary to prevent excessive inhalation of the anaesthetic by the animal." And yet all that could happen to the unfortunate victim would be a painless death; to prevent that would require, doubtless, considerable care. "If the animals were allowed PARTIALLY TO RECOVER FROM THE EFFECT OF THE ANAESTHETIC, care was necessary in reducing them again to surgical anaesthesia, as an excess of the anaesthetic was liable to be inhaled."[1] This admission is evidence complete, that the insensibility was not always maintained from beginning to end; the creatures were in some cases--how many we can never know-- "ALLOWED PARTIALLY TO RECOVER."
In the detailed accounts of these vivisections, we find more than one proof of the sensibility of the animals. Take the following:
EXPERIMENT 126. "The animal did not take the anaesthetic well, and part of the experiment was made under INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." There was noted, also, "contraction of the abdominal muscles, on account of INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."
EXPERIMENT 133. "Bunsen"s flame to the right paw.... In the control experiments, as well as this, THE DOG WAS NOT UNDER FULL ANAESTHESIA ... THE ANIMAL STRUGGLED ON APPLICATION OF THE FLAME."
EXPERIMENT 5. "UNDER INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA, crushing of foot caused a very sharp rise, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure.
THIS WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES. Under full anaesthesia crushing of paws caused rise again."
EXPERIMENT 4. "First, crushing of paw.... Second, crushed foot extensively, JUST BEFORE CORNEAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED."
To the average reader the last few words convey no definite meaning, but their significance is plain. Until the corneal reflex is abolished, the surgeon does not begin to operate, for sensibility remains. It is needless to quote further; even a single instance of incomplete anaesthesia, admitted by the vivisector himself, suffices to overturn the claim that the insensibility was complete in every case. "Words," says Bishop Butler, "mean what they do mean, and not other things"; and no amount of literary juggling can prove that whether the insensibility is complete or incomplete, the pain is precisely the same.
THIRD. CURARE AND MORPHIA, NEITHER OF WHICH IS AN ANAESTHETIC, WERE SOMETIMES USED IN THESE EXPERIMENTS, APPARENTLY TO PREVENT THE ANIMALS UNDERGOING VIVISECTION FROM MAKING ANY MOVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT DISTURB THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED.
The use of CURARE rests upon the admission of the vivisector himself.
After mentioning the employment of chloroform and ether, as before quoted, he adds: "In a few cases, CURARE and MORPHIA were used." Now, these drugs are not anaesthetics, and curare especially is only used when it is desired to keep the vivisected creature incapable of any movement--no matter what degree of torment it may be suffering. In his textbook on physiology, Professor Holmgren calls curare the "most cruel of poisons," because an animal under its influence "it changes instantly into a living corpse which hears and sees, and knows everything, but is unable to move a single muscle; and under its influence no creature can give the faintest indication of its hopeless condition." Dr. Starling, the professor of physiology at University College, London, states that when an animal has had an anaesthetic administered and also a dose of CURARE, if the anaesthetic pa.s.sed off, the animal would be unable to move, or to show any sign of suffering.
Nor is morphia an anaesthetic. "So far from suppressing sensibility completely," says Claude Be"rnard in his lectures, "morphine sometimes seems to exaggerate it." An animal under its influence "FEELS THE PAIN, BUT HAS LOST THE IDEA OF DEFENDING HIMSELF."
We should have been very glad if the author had stated in his book the precise experiments in which curare and morphia were employed. We are told that the number was "few." But in comparison with the total number--146--how many may that phrase signify? Were there twenty?
Possibly. It would seem that in every case after the preliminary administration of anaesthetics--the dog"s throat was cut, so that artificial respiration could be easily maintained; "tracheotomy was performed," to use the scientific phraseology. This is done when curare is given, for then not the slightest movement of the tortured animal can disturb the delicate instruments which are attached to it.
We may therefore a.s.sume that every case wherein only curare and morphia were used--how many there were we do not know--implied torment for the wretched victims.
Human beings are not submitted on the surgeons" table to operations of this character, prolonged for hours. If, in the interest of Science, some experimenter would place himself in like condition to that of the animals upon which he worked; if, under anaesthesia--complete or incomplete--he would permit a hand to be "crushed," a nerve trunk "stimulated," his feet placed in boiling water "for a considerable time," and a Bunsen"s flame applied for two minutes to some part of his body--we might possibly learn whether the acutest pains inflicted could be absolutely suppressed. Perhaps he would survive to tell us; but the animal cannot speak. No a.s.surances suffice to clear our doubts; a.s.surances prove nothing. It may be, to use the words of a great surgeon, that "in this relation, there exists a case of cruelty to animals far transcending in its refinement and in its horror, anything that has been known in the history of nations."
Such are some of the reasons which induce doubt of the theory that all of the experiments of these vivisectors were conducted upon animals wholly insensible to painful impressions. To become the victim of the anaesthetic delusion regarding them is to justify; and to justify is to share responsibility. But this is not all. There would seem to be other evidence of the most convincing character, that some of the animals thus subjected for hours to the stimulation of nerves and to the most frightful mutilations were not at all times in such state of unconsciousness as to prevent the occurrence of one most significant indication of pain. It is proof to which the attention of the public, so far as known, has never yet been directed; and I propose to ill.u.s.trate somewhat at length what has been done in the name of free and unlimited vivisection, not only during the closing years of the past century, but down almost to the present time.
CHAPTER XII
VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY
If the reform of vivisection may only be hoped for, when the secrecy concerning it shall have been dispelled, the beginning of the present century is not propitious of any changes. Against all intrusion upon its rites, the physiological laboratory in England and America maintains as successful an opposition as ever characterized the Eleusinian mysteries of the pagan world. No laboratory--so far as known--dares to invite inspection at any hour, even from men of the highest personal character, and leave them free to reveal or to publicly criticize whatever in the experiments upon animals there conducted seems worthy of caution or reproof. Silence and concealment, so far as the outer world is concerned--these are yet the strange ideals of modern vivisection.
Within the realm of scientific literature, however, this reticence is not maintained. Experiments may be there described in terms so abstruse and technical, that, while clear enough to the professional reader, they convey little or no meaning to the man in the street.
There would seem to be a growing tendency to state certain facts in carefully shrouded phraseology, in complete confidence that the full meaning will not be discerned. Within the past few years, therefore, a large number of vivisections have been described in full-- vivisections which half a century ago would have aroused the horror and execration of the English-speaking world--without exciting any very general condemnation beyond the circle of those who ask for reform. Experimentation of this kind, exhibiting the practice as it is carried on to-day, seems worth of a somewhat careful examination.
It will not be necessary to go beyond the work of a single vivisector who has made his name a household word wherever experiments upon animals are discussed in England or America.
The princ.i.p.al point toward which inquiry must be directed is the question of pain. One reason why they have been partly condoned by the public is not difficult to discover. In language which seemed to have no element of ambiguity, the experimenter apparently affirmed the entire absence of sensation on the part of the dogs which he and his a.s.sistants subjected to operations of various kinds and of an extreme character. It is true that, as a general rule, this affirmation was not as explicit as might perhaps be desired. He was writing for professional men only, not for the general public, and it is quite unlikely that any physiologist or medical reader could have been at any time misled in the slightest degree. If the language used was capable of more than one interpretation, if possibilities of insensibility were exaggerated into definite a.s.sertions, nothing of the kind was apparent to the general reader. Glancing at the statement that "the animals were completely anaesthetized," his doubts were abolished. Indescribably disgusting and hideous as were some of the vivisections, if they were absolutely painless, their performance was a matter of taste. Can we criticize the humaneness of one who, at the butcher"s bench, mutilates the body from which life has gone?
Complete and perfect anaesthesia, maintained till death, is practically only premature death. Deprived of sensibility--a deprivation that is never to cease--a living creature is beyond the infliction of cruelty. But is it certain that all these various experiments, made upon nearly five hundred dogs were without pain?
Reasons for doubt concerning some of them have been given. Let us now look into the question so far as concerns vivisection in its relation to the pressure of the blood.
A little over two centuries ago the Rev. Stephen Hales, the rector of an obscure country parish in England, became interested in problems pertaining to the circulation of sap in plants, and blood in the higher animals. By various experiments he discovered that the blood of a living animal is subject to a definite pressure, and with some approach to accuracy he succeeded in measuring it. The subject seems to have attracted but little attention for over a century after the discovery of Hales; it was then again investigated by physiologists, and certain conclusions definitely reached. Without going into the subject at length, it suffices to state that this blood-pressure constantly varies slightly, being somewhat influenced by every disturbing condition, and probably by every physiological act. Any injury tending to lower the tone of the general system, or to induce the condition of shock, tends to cause the blood-pressure to fall. On the other hand, if the animal is sensible to pain, the stimulation of sensory nerves, or any sharp or sudden pang, TEND TO CAUSE A RISE IN THE PRESSURE OF THE BLOOD, unless the creature has become exhausted by the experimentation to which it has been subjected.
Upon this point the attention of the reader should be specially directed. What authorities support this conclusion? Only a few need be named, for there would appear to be no difference of opinion among physiologists regarding the fact.
Sir Thomas Lauder Brunton, one of the leading medical writers in England, in a contribution to the latest edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," tells us:
"IRRITATION OF SENSORY NERVES tends to cause contraction of the bloodvessels, AND TO RAISE THE BLOOD-PRESSURE."[1]
[1] Enc. Brit., Art. "Therapeutics," p. 800.
Dr. Isaac Ott, an American physiologist of distinction, states in a description of certain vivisections made by him:
"IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT IRRITATION OF A SENSORY NERVE causes an excitation of the vasomotor centre, WHICH IS INDEXED BY A RISE OF PRESSURE.... As indirect irritation ALWAYS PRODUCES A RISE OF PRESSURE, the sensory nerves and the conductors of their impressions up to the (spinal) cord are not paralyzed."[2]
[2] Ott, "On Physiological Action of Thebain," pp. 11-12.
Dr. Leonard Hill, in an article contributed to Schafer"s "Textbook of Physiology" upon the circulation of the blood, says:
"Arterial pressure is affected reflexly BY STIMULATION OF ANY SENSORY NERVE IN THE BODY.... The usual result of stimulating a sensory nerve is A REFLEX RISE OF ARTERIAL PRESSURE."[3]
[3] Schafer"s "Textbook of Physiology," vol. ii., pp. 166-167.
The writer goes on to explain that when the tone of the system in weakened "after prolonged experiment OR DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHLOROFORM AND CHLORAL," then a fall of pressure may occur.
This phenomenon was known to physiologists many years ago. For instance, Dr. J. C. Dalton, professor of physiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in his well-known textbook on physiology, says that the most frequent instance of reflex constriction of arteries is that "which follows irritation of the central extremity of a sensitive nerve."
"This effect has been observed by many experimenters, and is regarded as nearly invariable. Galvanization of the central extremity of the sciatic nerve causes general constriction of the bloodvessels throughout other parts of the body, INDICATED BY INCREASED ARTERIAL PRESSURE. A similar result is produced by the irritation of ... other sensitive nerves, or nerve roots."[1]
[1] Dalton"s "Physiology," pp. 507-508.
And, referring to another experimenter, Dr. Crile, puts the case clearly: