Northern Ohio journal. [volume] (Painesville, Ohio) 1872-1896, 1874-03-07

"The dissection of living animals for
scientific purposes, is at present the sub
Ject of warm debate in England. On
the one hand it is maintained that yivi-
section is not justified by any require
ment of science, and on the other, that
the reasonable hope of the smallest addi-
ton to our stock of physiological facts,
fully warrants even the most severe tor
ture inflicted upon helpless brutes.
Both these views are extreme when
mans convenience, health, or safety
Interfere. his rights and claims are para
mount, and must eXtinguish theirs
said the sensitive, sometimes morbidly
sensitive, Cowper. But to what extent
sman's rights and claims may Justify
him in infiicting pain upon lower ami
mails, is a question not always easy to
decide. That many of the important
acquisitions to physiological science,
could hardly have been achieved with
out experiments upon living animals, no
one will venture to deny, and that the
pain inflicted is, when the end to pe
attained bears reasonable proportion
to the brute agony inseperable from the
granted by all in whom sentimentalism
does not reach the degree of mental
weakness. But, while the investiga-
tlops of Harvey, Bichat, or Brown
Sequard. involving more or less animal
misery, ought not to be, and cannot be
reasonably condemned, it does not
follow that their experiments are to be
repeated by every student, or for the
edification of every class of students
who may find it necessary to be inform
ed of the facts which the leading
scientific investigators have broughtAo
light. A renewal of Harvey's expert
ments, for instance, is not necessary to
the understanding of the laws of the
circulation of the blood; neither would
a promiscuOus slashing and mutilating
either with the hope Of stumbling upon
some new fact, or merely for the DurLose
of Witnessing at first hand phenomena
already known and described, be any
thing more or less than diabolical
cruelty. In short, there is no well-de-
fined dividing line between what is
allowable and disailowable here, more
than in the treatment of animals in their
general use by man. The only correct
criterion is the motive which actuates
the man in his treatment of the animal,
If the act, whatever it may be, taken in
connection with its attendant circum-
stances. indicates 4 pleasure i'm the
infliction of pain, or even an indiffer-
ence to the suffering of any living thing
it betrays character which is eXecra-
BILE. But, on the other hand, a hyper
sentimentalism which would place the
lower animals nearly on a level with
man, and condemn any pain or even Il
discomfort to them, no matter what
human interests may be at stake, is an
extreme equally to be avoided. The
castration of male animals, and, to some
extent, the spaying OF the female. and
the cutting off of the tails of lambs
operations of constant and universal
occurrence, can hardly be regarded as
less painful than most of the yiyisec-
tions-probably very much more pain
ful than some-have never been very
extensively condemned. The only
question is, are we enough benefited by
the result to justify the inf1iction of the
pain? Stripped of the sanctions of Gus
tom, and regarded i'm its true light.
there is more genuine barbarism i'm the
chase of poor hunted hare, and reared
for this express purpose, by pack of
hounds and troop of English hunters,
than in all the yivisectiOEs that have
ever been performed. Let vivisections
be performed humanely, that is, only
with a view of ascertaining facts not
otherwise accessible, and by persons
who will seek to deprive them of pain,
so far as consistent with the nature Of
the investigation. Such experiments
are not pleasant to contemplate even in
Imagination; but the knowledge gained
by them results in the general amelior-
alton of the condition of both man and
beast. and on this account alone are
they allowable