Again the influence of the laboratory was effective in preventing the Legislature from granting the investigation desired.
Some of the most scholarly editorials which have appeared in the newspaper press in favour of inquiry have been those of Hon. St. Clair McKelway, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the State of New York and editor of the Brooklyn Eagle, the leading evening newspaper in the United States. Referring to one of the Bills introduced by the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation, Dr. McKelway said:
"The Bill ought to be pa.s.sed. It would secure an unpaid representative Commission to investigate animal vivisection, protecting it from abuses, and allowing it to be properly pursued within safeguards of necessity and mercy.... The regulation of vivisection is not the abolition of it, but the civilization of it.
Such of the medical profession as are a Trade Union on a large scale, as afraid of one another as they are deaf to the voices of humanity and to public opinion, should be forced by the State to courses that should long ago have been volunteered by themselves. The beginning of the end of licensed cruelty has come. The struggle may still take time, but the time will be well spent and the result is as certain as the triumph of every other benign movement for the Kingdom of G.o.d in the hearts of men and in the laws of the State."
Of another bill introduced by this society, Chancellor McKelway wrote:
"The Society for the Prevention of Abuse in Animal Experimentation necessarily has an awkwardly long name; necessarily, to state just what the Society is, and to show just what it is not. It is not to prevent animal experimentation, but only to prevent the abuse of it.
It is not an antivivisection body, ut it is a body to control the work of vivisection within the confines of actual necessity, and to bring the work under accountability to law as affected by a relation to reason, to humanity, and to the mercy which is mightiest in the mighty, and which becomes a State more than its sovereignty, and a monarch more than his crown.
"The Legislature again has before it a Bill to bring animal experimentation, or the infliction of pain on animals, in the interest of the treatment of human beings, within law and under responsibility to law. Not for the first time is this Bill brought. It will be brought again and again until the Bill becomes law. The instinct of mercy and justice backs this measure and annually augments its supporters. That instinct will not become extinct until G.o.d abdicates or creation reverts to chaos. The movement is on the gaining hand.
Doubt of its eventual and nearing success is unthinkable, for in its favour are all the forces that maintain and advance justice and mercy in the hearts of men and in the action of States.
"State-regulated vivisection should be differentiated from antivivisection or from no vivisection, just as civilized and necessary war should be from the impossible abolition of all war.
Between reulation and prohibition is a difference. Between responsibility and wantonness is a difference. Yet regulated vivisection has been confounded with antivivisection by the union of zany cranks and trade-unionized men of medicine, who have not refrained from the coercion of patients, from the deception of the public, from the inoculation of legislators with mendacity, capsuled in sophistry, and from the direct or indirect corruption or intimidation of not a few public journals. The discovery of the ways and means and men is bringing the evil to an end.
"That discovery coincides with the arousal of the public conscience against political corruption, party corruption, and interparty as well as intraparty bribery and tyranny. There is accord between all the forces for betterment. Barbarism and cruelty toward the brute creation are as certainly doomed as polygamy and human slavery were.
The needs of surgery will be preserved from wanton slaughter in the name of surgery, in times past, and now wrought by men called doctors and by cub-boys called students. The statesmen in politics are realizing this. The demagogues and opportunists in Legislatures are, too. So are the men of mercy, conscience, and vision in medicine itself. The impact of banded pretension in trade-unionized medical schools and societies is resented and resisted by teachers and pract.i.tioners, who are becoming ashamed not to be free, and who are abetting those who would free them.
"There is a good time coming around the whole circle of uplift. The time will not be long coming; but when it shall come, its duration will have no end, and its progress will be perpetual."[1]
[1] Editorial, Brooklyn Eagle, April 4, 1910.
It is an interesting fact that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, founded by Henry Bergh, the first organization of its kind in America, joined in the demand for further investigation. Under the heading, "The Facts Demanded," the editor of its periodical makes known its position regarding vivisection:
"The above caption defines the att.i.tude of the Society to-day toward the practice of "animal experimentation." In the common phrase, "we want to know," and we are not to be deterred from what we believe to be a duty by being told from sources more or less reputable that it is none of our business. For many years this Society has been the chief representative in this country and in this city of that large cla.s.s among our people who feel and cherish an interest in and a sense of humanity for what are called the "dumb animals." One great life--that of the founder, Henry Bergh--was spent in this service, and prematurely sacrificed in his devotion to these interests. With faults and failures to reach his ideal, with stumbles and falls, freely admitted, but with a persistent purpose to attain it in the end, this Society has never faltered in its effort to follow the path where he had blazed the way. It has never been seriously accused of acting from fear or favour or from other than altruistic motives, and by so doing it has gained and kept the confidence and respect of a great part of what is best in our community. It is far too late in the day for any newspaper or anay group of citizens, no matter how influential in the one case or highly respected in the other, to say to this Society: "You shall not do the work for which you were chartered, and which for forty-five years you have performed in this community."
"Now, what is that work in the present instance? Expressed in its simplest terms, it is a demand that the practice of animal experimentation shall be investigated by the State to determine what is actually being done, and that thereafter legislation shall be had that shall place it under such supervision and restriction as shall insure differentiation between scientific investigation performed for wise and adequate ends and purposes on the one hand, and on the other acts of a painful and brutal character performed from unworthy motives, with no adequate benefit possible as a resultant, and which clearly come within the cla.s.sification of cruelty.
"We submit that this is an eminently fair proposal, and one that should not be opposed by any friend of scientific work, and least of all by the physicians of this city. Yet what do we find? The att.i.tude of that profession is clearly shown by the letter of Mr. Bergh, which we reproduce in our columns, and which will unquestionably receive credence from its frankness and from the eminent name attached to it, now borne by a worthy and devoted descendant of our first president.
"The att.i.tude of the medical profession on this subject is this: "We know what we are about." "We practice vivisection for wise purposes."
"We surround it with as humane conditions as the object sought will permit." "We have made great and beneficial discoveries by its means."
"We a.s.sert that we con trol it within the above limits." "But we will not state what we do, or how." "We will not permit our a.s.sertions to be verified if we can help it." "We will oppose any movement in the Press or the Legislature looking to this end." "And we will encourage the Press to defeat such an effort, not only by ridicule and irony but by a definite misrepresentation of the motives and views of the Society that seeks "to know.""
"We do not at this moment question the truth of the a.s.sertions as to the practice and control which we have put (accurately, we think) into the mouths of the medical profession; but it is startlingly evident that these a.s.sertions can only apply TO THAT PART OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION WHICH THEY PRACTICE OR CONTROL. What of the other part? Will those who champion unrestricted, uninvestigated, unsuperintended vivisection a.s.sert that they will guarantee to the people of this city that no act of cruelty or wantonness is or ever shall be committed here by a medical pract.i.tioner under the guise of scientific investigation? Will they guarantee that such acts are not, and never shall be, committed in this State? Will they guarantee the humanity and the practice of the thousands of medical students who annually graduate from the colleges? Will they enter into bonds to the community for the acts of those who, from time to time, they expel, for cause from the medical societies? Will they place their own great reputations and highly esteemed characters behind, and as vouchers for, many a pract.i.tioner with whom they would not meet in consultation, and whom they would not allow to practice or malpractice in the house of a friend or a patient? We think not--we KNOW they would not, for such endors.e.m.e.nts and guarantees would be impossible of fulfilment. And if they will not and cannot, they wshould cease to stand between the society that seeks "to know" and the evils it seeks to expose and eliminate.
"Gentlemen of the medical profession, understand once for all that this Society does not seek to abolish vivisection. It recognizes the good, the great good, that has and that may come to the human race from its careful, humane, and scientific use. But it aims to abolish its ABUSES, and in that aim it is ent.i.tled to your advice and co-operation."
Enough has been given to indicate the purpose of the present movement for vivisection reform. It is not the same as antivivisection, and although it has been persistently misrepresented as such by the advocates of unrestricted freedom in the physiological laboratory, perhaps we have no reason to expect from that quarter any other course. Yet in expressing appreciation both of purpose and accomplishment, it may perhaps be well to suggest a single caution.
The time is probably coming when those who have most persistently opposed all appeals for more light concerning vivisection will announce willingness to accede to the public demnad, provided the vivisector may himself appoint the investigators, and define the limitations of the inquiry. It needs but little discernment to foresee that an inquiry so conducted may be no better than a farce, and conduce to no real change in the present obscurity. To be of any value the commission of inquiry regarding vivisection must be so intelligent regarding all phases of the practice that it shall know how to penetrate to hidden recesses, where things not desired to be revealed shall be concealed; capable, too, of distinguishing between the work of the expert scientist and that of the ignorant and careless student, untouched, it may be, by any sense of pity or compa.s.sion for the creature in its power. The greatest cruelties may yet be found, not in the laboratory of the investigator, but in that of the demonstrator of well-known facts. Perhaps no investigation of the practice of vivisection can be expected until public opinion shall have been educated to demand it, and then, in point of thoroughness, let us trust it may leave nothing to be desired. Meantime the work of agitation for reform must continue; no matter how slight the accomplishment, surely something is done. "All work," said Carlyle, "is as seed sown; it growns and spreads, AND SOWS ITSELF ANEW, and so in endless palingenesia lives and works."
CHAPTER XV
UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY
One phase of the vivisection controversy is of singular significance.
It is the peculiar tendency to unfairness which the advocates of unrestricted experimentation seem to display in every discussion regarding the practice. In all controversy there is something to be said on both sides of the question, yet it would seem to be impossible for anyone writing in advocacy of unlimited and unrestricted vivisection to state fairly the views to which he is opposed.
Statements, the inaccuracy of which may easily be ascertained, are again and again repeated, until it would almost seem that upon reiteration of error and untruth a certain degree of dependence has been placed for the creation of prejudice against reform.
To demonstrate the truth of such a charge would require a volume. Let it here suffice to mention a few instances of what may at least be termed an unfairness in controversy. Partly, of course, it is the result of ignorance, and of imperfect acquaintance with the past history of vivisection; partly it is due to that enthusiasm of youth which sometimes prefers a seeming victory to any close fidelity to truth. Other instances cannot be thus explained. Some of them are worth consideration as problems for which no solution is easily to be found.
In January, 1913, a Bill was introduced into the New York Legislature providing for an inquiry into the practice of animal experimentation.
There was no suggestion of any restriction of vivisection; it was simply an attempt to get at the real facts concerning the practice as now carried on. If it be a.s.sumed that no objectionable practices exist, it would seem difficult to oppose such inquiry upon any reasonable grounds. It might possibly have been expected that the Laboratory would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the general public that nothing deserving censure could be found to exist.
For reasons not difficult to understand, the proposal to investigate the laboratory and its methods has been resisted quite as strongly as if it had been an attempt to prohibit experiments altogether. To justify rejection of inquiry would not appear to be an easy task. To create a sentiment of approval of the policy of secrecy it doubtless seemed necessary to make an appeal to the general public by editorial utterances, in journals supposed to be impartial and of high standing in other directions. In a New York daily paper which claims to be conducted with special regard for respectability and avoidance of unseemly sensationalism, there appeared, therefore, an editorial opposing all inquiry on the part of the legislature into the methods of animal experimentation. It is worth while to see how matters of history were placed before its readers by one of the most reputable of New York journals:
"... An outcry was raised against the English doctors in the early seventies, and it was decided to investigate their laboratories. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1875 by Queen Victoria. The Commission took elaborate testimony, and found no material abuse; but owing to the inflamed state of the public mind, and the att.i.tude of many members of the medical profession, who at that early date did not appreciate the importance of the experimental method, a restrictive law was recommended, which resulted in the calamitous measure of 1876.
"Far from allaying the British agitation, as was expected, the investigation only served to stimulate it.... A demand was made in 1906 for a second full investigation of laboratory methods. Again a Royal Commission was created, which took testimony for a year and half. Its report, submitted in March last year, overwhelmingly disproved the charges that the medical experiments upon animals are immoral and unjustifiable.... THE DOCTORS OF ENGLAND HAVE FOR A GENERATION HAD TO FLEE TO THE CONTINENT to prosecture their necessary labours. Is the experience of Great Britain to be repeated in the United States at the hands of persons who have become deluded into insensibiity to human suffering?"[1]
[1] Editorial in New York Times, January 28, 1913.
Now, this editorial utterance is not exceptionally misleading. In scores of newspapers throughout the United States just as ignorant and as prejudiced statements find editorial expression every year. It aims to justify the closing of the laboratory to all investigations whatever, and it attempts to do this by misstatements regarding historical facts. It tells us of an "outcry raised against the English doctors in the early seventies," forgetting to mention the attacks made by the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, and other medical periodicals, against the terrible cruelties of the practice long before the "early seventies." The Royal Commission of 1875, we are told, "found no material abuse." What is meant by the qualifying adjective "material"? Let us see how the inquiry impressed an impartial observer, the Lord Chief Justice of England.
"Is, then, the present law reasonable? It is the result of a most careful inquiry, conducted by eminent men in 1875, men certainly neither weak sentimentalists nor ignorant and prejudiced humanitarians, men among whom are to be found Mr. Huxley and Mr. Erichsen, Mr. Hutton, and Sir John Karslake. There men unanimously recommended legislation, and legislation, in some important respects, more stringent than Parliament thought fit to pa.s.s. They recommend it on a body of evidence at once interesting and terrible. Interesting, indeed, it is from the frank apathy to the suffering of animals, however awful, avowed by some of the witnesses; for the n.o.ble humanity of some few; for the curious ingenuity with which others avoided the direct and verbal approval of horrbile cruelties which yet they refused to condemn.... Terrbile the evidence is for the details of torture, of mutilation, of life slowly destroyed in torment, or skilfully prolonged for the infliction of the same or diversified agonies, for days, for months, in some cases for more than a year."[1]
[1] Fortnightly Review, February, 1882.
This was the view of the Lord Chief Justice of England of that day; and yet the unknown scribe, writing in a New York newspaper, without adducing a particle of evidence, would have his readers to believe that the Commission of 1875 "FOUND NO MATERIAL ABUSE."
Equally unfair and inaccurate is the editorial reference to the report of the Royal Commission of 1906. The conclusions set forth in this report cannot possibly be stated in a single sentence without leaving essential matters unstated. The six princ.i.p.al recommendations of the Royal Commission were all in the direction of reform, AND OF REFORM THAT IMPLIED THE EXISTENCE OF ABUSES that requierd change. The subject has been treated in a previous chapter, and need not occupy attention again.
But the worst misstatement in this editorial intended to incite prejudice against any inquiry in the State of New York was that which referred to the effect of the English law governing the regulation of vivisection. It is now nearly forty years since this law came into force. The editor speaks of it as "the calamitous measure of 1876"; and after declaring that "the doctors of England have for a generation had to flee to the Continent to prosecute their necessary labours,"
asks his readers whether "the experience of Great Britain is to be repeeated in the United States?" If this a.s.sertion were true, then a.s.suredly the law would have been regarded with detestation and abhorrence by the medical profession of England, and by the teachers of medical science throughout the land.
Now, it so happens that the impression given is wholly false. It did not originate with the editorial writer; for many years the a.s.sumed evil results of the English law have been held up for our warning by those who desire a free hand in vivisection in America. But is it true that the law of 1876 is regarded in England as a calamitous measure, which Parliament should hasten to repeal? On the contrary, so far from being thus regarded, a large majority of the representatives of medical science in England are in favour of the law. Of course, every authority can suggest modifications for its betterment, but the principle which underlies the measure, of inspection of laboratories and the restriction of vivisection, they do not condemn. That it is a perfect measure, the leaders of the medical profession do not a.s.sert, but they evidently consider it as better than no law at all. It certainly is not considered, as the American editor calls it, "the calamitous measure of 1876."
The proofs of this att.i.tude of the English medical profession may be found in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Vivisection, the final report of which appeared in 1912. The misapprehension concerning the working of the English law is so widespread in America and is so sedulously cultivated by those who oppose any reform, that it seems worth while to show just how the law is regarded in the land to which it applies.
Sir Douglas Powell, President of the Royal College of Physicians, the physician to the King, and Senior Physician to Guy"s Hospital, was asked whether the laws at present governing vivisection "have been in any way noxious to Science?" "No, I do not think so," was his reply.
"I think, as administered at the present time, they have not interfered with the advance of Science." Sir Henry Morris, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, being asked substantially the same question, replied: "I think the present Act of 1876, under which vivisectional experiments are done, WAS AMPLY PROTECTIVE AGAINST CRUELTY, AND SUFFICIENTLY FREE AND LIBERAL FOR THE DUE PROSECUTION OF PROPER SCIENTIFIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INQUIRY." Considering their source, are not these remarkable testimonies concerning what is the fashion in America to designate as "the calamitous measure of 1876"?
What is the opinion of the law held by men engaged in teaching in the medical schols of England? Do they demand its repeal?
Dr. Pembrey, the Lecturer on Physiology at Guy"s Hospital, London, does not like many of the restrictions; yet, being asked if he advocated the abolition of the Vivisection Act, replied: "No, I would not do that.... I think only people interested and people who are competent should be allowed to make vivisection experiments." The professor of physiology in the University of Cambridge, Dr. J. N. Langley, told the Commissioners: "I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE ACT THAN NO ACT. I think it would not be fair to the animals to allow anyone to experiment upon them without control." Dr. Francis Gotch, professor of physiology in the University of Oxford, being asked whether the law had restricted scientific research in experiments upon warm-blooded animals, answered: "No, I do not think it restricts it. I THINK IT HAS OPERATED WELL." Dr. Lorrain Smith, professor of pathology in the Univesity of Manchester, when asked if he had any objection to the present restrictions placed by law upon operations on living animals, answered, "No." Dr. E. H. Starling, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and professor of physiology at University College, London, declared that at the present time, the physiological school in England occupied a very high place in the world, "not inferior to that of any other nation"--surely a strange fact for a country suffering from what the American editor calls "the calamitous measure of 1876"!
Everywhere we find substantially the same testimony. Sir James Russell, being asked whether the law had operated in way of preventing legitimate research, replied in the negative, giving it as his opinion that "the Act has worked with substantial smoothness." Sir Victor Horsley, widely known as an experimenter and as a surgeon, criticized many of the details of the law, yet when asked whether or not he was opposed to the Act altogether, answered: "Oh, no. I look upon the Act as necessary in view of public opinion.... To the purpose of the Act, that experiments should only be done in registered places and only by persons who hold a licence from the Home Secretary, there can be no objection whatever; at least, I cannot see any." Sir John Rose Bradford, professor of medicine at University College Hospital in London, being asked if it might not be better if the Act were abolished altogether, replied: "No; I think experiments on animals should be regulated by an Act." Whether there were any alterations that might be valuable, was a subject to which he had given no thought during recent yeaars. Dr. Dixon, a professor in King"s College, declared that in his opinion "THE MEDICAL PROFESSION WOULD BE STRONGLY AGAINST THE ACT BEING REPEALED NOW." Dr. Thane, one of the Government inspectors, admits that science has not suffered materially by any restrictions, and has no recommendations to make. And Dr. Martin, a director of the Lister Inst.i.tute, being asked if English scientific men "are less advanced than their brethren on the Continent in consequence" of the regulation of vivisection, answered very promptly, "No."
It is impossible here to quote the evidence in full; to do that would require a volume. No one of these experts claimed that the law was perfect; each representative of English science was doubtless able to indicate some detail capable of improvement and pertaining to the better working of the law. But when it came to repealing the law altogether, not one of the distinguished men here quoted was in favour of it. The principle of State regulation, against the adoption of which in America every art of prevarication has been employed, that principle is fully accepted by the English medical profession to-day.
Was it fair for the editor of a leading journal to misstate so obvious a fact? Can one imagine that the leading representatives of medical science in England, the leading teachers and professors in medical colleges and schools, would have given the evidence just quoted if for thirty years the "doctors of England" had been flying to the Continent to escape the stringency of the law of 1876? Should we not have found some witness before the Royal Commission of 1906 making allusion to this flight of the doctors of England? It is quite possible that when the law went into operation, over thirty-five years ago, its working was less satisfactory than it is to-day. Was it fair to make these early criticisms annul the evidence given by a large body of representative men before this Commission of the twentieth century in favour of the regulation of vivisection by law? Of course such an editorial tended to strengthen prejudice against legal regulation in America. It did its work. But can success so achieved ever be worth of admiration?[1]
[1] The reader may ask why correction of so inaccurate a statement concerning the English law was not sent to the journal in question.
This was done. A synopsis of all the medical opinions here given and taken from the evidence given before the Royal Commission was sent to the editor of the periodical. So fafr as seen, it did not appear.
An editorial in a morning paper would hardly seem worth noticing.
Upon the opinions of its readers it makes its impress, and is quickly forgotten. But the same untrue a.s.sertions will be made again more than once in order to create prejudice against any legal regulation of vivisection in America. It has seemed worth while, therefore, to set forth the evidence of the absolute untruth of such statements, regarding the English law.[1]