An Ethical Problem | Page 5

who declared that vivisection sometimes meant the
infliction of "the severest conceivable pain, of indefinite duration," and
that it was "a torture of helpless animals, more terrible, by reason of its
refinement, than burning at the stake." Is the above definition of
vivisection stronger than is implied by this assertion of Dr. Bigelow?
We need constantly to remember that vivisection is by no means a
simple act. It may indicate investigations that require no cutting
operation of any kind, and the infliction of no pain; or, on the other
hand, it may denote operations that involve complicated and severe

mutilations, and torments as prolonged and exquisite as human
imagination can conceive. Experiments may be made, in course of
researches, of very great interest and importance to medical science;
and, on the contrary, they may be performed merely to demonstrate
phenomena about which there is no doubt, or to impress on the memory
of a student some well-known fact. They may be performed by men
like Sir Charles Bell, who hesitated to confirm one of the greatest
physiological discoveries of the last century, merely because it would
imply a repetition of painful experiments; and they may be done by
men like Magendie, who declared of his mutilated and tormented
victims, that it was "DROLL to see them skip and jump about." It is
because of all these differences that the majority of men have an
indefinite conception of what they approve or condemn. The advocate
of unrestricted vivisection sometimes tells us that experimentation
implies no more pain than the prick of a pin, and that its results are of
great utility to the human race; the antivivisectionist, on the other hand,
may insist that such experimentation means inconceivable torment
without the slightest conceivable benefit to mankind. Both are right in
the occasional significance of the word. Both are wrong if one meaning
is to answer for all varieties of experimentation upon living things.
Some years ago the attempt was made to obtain the view of animal
experimentation held by certain classes of intelligent men and women.
One view of the practice is that which regards it merely as a method of
scientific research, with which morality has no more to do than it
would have in determining in what direction a telescope should be
pointed by an astronomer, or what rocks a geologist should not venture
to touch. A statement embodying the views of those who favour
unrestricted vivisection included affirmations like these:
"Vivisection, or experimentation upon living creatures, must be looked
at simply as a method of studying the phenomena of life. With it,
morality has nothing to do. It should be subject neither to criticism,
supervision, nor restrictions of any kind. It may be used to any extent
desired by any experimenter--no matter what degree of extreme or
prolonged pain it may involve--for demonstration before students of the
statements contained in their textbooks, as an aid to memory,....or for

any conceivable purpose of investigation into vital phenomena.... While
we claim many discoveries of value,....yet even these we regard as of
secondary importance to the freedom of unlimited research."
This is the meaning of free and unrestricted vivisection. Its plainness of
speech did not deter very distinguished physiologists and others from
signing it as the expression of their views. One can hardly doubt that it
represents the view of the physiological laboratory at the present day.
Sixty years ago this view of vivisection would have found but few
adherents in England or America; to-day it is probably the tacit opinion
of a majority of the medical profession in either land. One may
question whether any similar change of sentiment in a direction
contrary to reform has ever appeared since Civilization began. We shall
endeavor to show, hereafter, to what that change is due.
Absolutely opposed to this sentiment are the principles of what is
known as "antivivisection." According to this view, all vivisection is an
immoral infringement upon the rights of animals. The cruelties that
accompany research will always accompany it, until all scientific
experimentation upon animals is made a criminal offence. From a
statement of opinion giving expression to this view, the following
sentences are taken:
"All experimentation upon living animals we consider unnecessary,
unjustifiable, and morally wrong.... Even if utility could be proved,
man has no right to attempt to benefit himself at the cost of injury, pain,
or disease to the lower animals. The injury which the practice of
vivisection causes to the moral sense of the individual and to humanity
far outweighs any possible benefit that could be derived from it. Dr.
Henry J. Bigelow, Professor in the Medical School of Harvard
University, declared that `vivisection deadens the humanity of the
students.' Nothing which thus lowers morality can be a necessity to
progress.... Painless or painful, useless or