An Ethical Problem | Page 6

useful, however severe or
however slight, vivisection is a practice so linked with cruelty and so
pernicious in tendency, THAT ANY REFORM IS IMPOSSIBLE, and
it should be absolutely prohibited by law for any purpose."
This is antivivisection. It is a view of the practice which has seemed

reasonable to large numbers of earnest men and women whose lives in
various directions have been devoted to the prevention of all kinds of
cruelty, and to the promotion of the best interests of the race. When this
view is maintained by men and women who oppose the killing of
animals for purposes of food or raiment or adornment, or their
exploitation in any way which demands extinction of life, it is entirely
consistent with high ideals. It is against this view that the arguments of
those who contend for vivisection, without restriction or restraint, are
always directed.
But even among antivivisectionists there are, naturally, differences of
opinion. For instance, the National Antivivisection Society, the
principal organization of England, desires to see vivisection totally
abolished by law; but, meanwhile, it will strive for and accept any
measures that have for their object the amelioration of the condition of
vivisected animals. On the other hand, the British Union for the Total
Abolition of Vivisection will accept nothing less than the legal
condemnation of every phase of such experiments. "Vivisection," the
secretary of this society writes, "is a system, and not a number of
isolated acts to be considered separately. Owing to its intricate and
interdependent character and the international competition involved,
USE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM ABUSE." In other words,
every conceivable phase of scientific experimentation upon living
creatures, even if absolutely painless, should be made a legal offence.
But we are not driven to accept one or the other of these definitions of
animal experimentation. A third view of vivisection exists, which
differs widely from either of these opposing ideals. Instead of taking
the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific investigations
involving the use of animals, should be legally prohibited, it maintains
that distinctions may, and should, be drawn, and that only the abuses of
vivisection should be condemned by law. It asks society neither to
approve of everything, nor to condemn everything, but to draw a line
between experiments that, by reason of utility and painlessness, are
entirely permissible, and others which ought assuredly to be
condemned. It makes no protest against experimentation involving the
death of an animal where it is certain that consciousness of pain has

been abolished by anaesthetics; but it condemns absolutely the
exhibition of agony as an easy method of teaching well-known facts.
The utility of certain experiments it does not question; but even
increase of knowledge may sometimes be purchased at too high a price.
From a statement of this position regarding vivisection, drawn some
years since, the following sentences may be of interest:
"Vivisection is a practice of such variety and complexity, that, like
warfare between nations, one can neither condemn it nor approve it,
unless some careful distinctions be first laid down.... Within certain
limitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to be
legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond these boundaries, it is cruel,
monstrous, and wrong.... We believe, therefore, that the common
interests of humanity and science demand that vivisection, like the
study of human anatomy in the dissecting-room, should be brought
under the direct supervision and control of the State. The practice,
whether in public or in private, should be restricted by law to certain
definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard against
license or abuse."
This is a statement of what is meant by vivisection reform. Every
unprejudiced mind can see at once that it is not the same as
antivivisection. Is it the enemy of science? The leading name affixed to
this declaration of principles was that of the late Herbert Spencer, the
chief apostle of modern science. Is it against the interests of education?
It was signed by eleven presidents of American universities and
colleges, and by a large number of men closely connected with
institutions of learning. Is it antagonistic to medical science and art?
The statement received the endorsement of twice as many physicians
and surgeons as were favourable to experimentation upon animals
without any restriction or restraint; and among these physicians
favourable to reform were men of national reputation. No one should
expect that men whose sole profession is experimentation of this
character would approve of any limitations to their activity in any
direction; but they constitute only a small fraction of human society.
Outside their ranks we may be confident that there are very few, at all
acquainted with the subject, who will not concede that in the past many

things have been done in this exploitation of animal life which are