The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1899-10-23
THE EVILS OF vIvIsEcTIoN.
Shall the System BE Modified or
AboIished.


Abolished.
To the Editor of The Times:
1t is frequently said that the great
trouble with the extreme" anti-vivisec-
tionist is that he opposes all forms of ex
Fermentation upon living animals, and
will not be satisfied with moderate re-
striction. II may not be out OF place,
therefore. TO as briefly as possible state
the position OF those who advocate prohi-
bition Of tails practice, especially as such
position is often misunderstood and mis-
judged. And, first, IL is necessary TO cor
rect an impression, held by many, that all
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. favor prohibition or
nothing" In England for twenty-three
years there has been restrictive law, and
in that country, at present. there is pow
erful anti-vivisection party which favors
lesser measures as alone promising i'm
mediate mitigation of existing cruelties.
In this country also. many (including
medical men of the highest standing) who
would like to see vivsection abolished, as
well as many who would uphold the prac-
tice if it could be properly and humanely
supervised, favor the restrictive bill, for
the further prevention Of cruelty to animals
in the District of Columbia" now pending
before Congress. All will allow that
common spirit of humanity may animate
these who differ as TO the best method OF
bringing some relief to the tortured vic
tins of viyisection. Our present purpose
is to consider the standpoint OF those who
would prohibit:
First, and most important, the abolition
lists affirm that a humane restrictive law
cannot be carried out. Since 1876 the Eng
lish restrictive law has been practically
ha baip
greater than ever. 1t is claimed that such
law is and always will be like playing
with gambler at his own game" When
a law sanctions doubtful practice, abuses
always flourish under il. The public would
be lulled by the idea that the animals were
being cared for, and that great protective
power-Dublic CDinion-would be with
drawn. The difficulties of supervision
would also be enormous, considering the
motives for evasion that would arise In
addition to the unreliability of all an
esthetics there would be a vast amount
of trouble encountered in administering
anesthetics up to the point OF uncon-
seriousness and al the same time not to the
point Of danger. In a large percentage OF
experiments anesthetics hinder accurate
observation las they say, vitiats the expert
menD and would be neglected. A spirit
able result vivisectors frequently assert
they should decidedly object to inspection
of any kind. These motives for evasion
would become formidable in a laboratory
where the proprietor has at command all
the resources for deceit, and in the course
OF time restriction would become simply
matter of empty form. In short, a law
which would properly protect the animal
would practically abolish the practice of
vivisection. Therefore. IL is asked why
the need of a cumbrous and expensive
system, when a prohibitory law, compare
lively simple and inexpensive. would ac-
complish the desired result? And 1t is claim
ed that such would assuredly be the fact.
for the reason that the viyisector depends
upon publicity, and when such publicity
becomes source of odium and danger, the
motive for the practice largely vanishes
Again, the abolitionist claims that it is
contrary TO principle and consistency to
compound with the defenders of the prac-
tice. He asserts that the injury done the
cause by assuming that under any condi-
lions whatever vivisection is justifiable
would more than equal any benefit done in
mitigating the sufferings of the animal His
motto is Stand for the right; it will be
longer coming, but, when it does come, il
will have been worth the while
The abolitionist, moreover, claims that
the necessity for prohibition is urgent The
acknowledged abuses of the practice are
many and terrible-as DR.. Leffingwell has
said, "a mountain of infamous cruelty"
No one claims that all experiments are
cruel; it is the system that is opposed-a
system that while unscientific in its ma
ture flor pathological experiments have to
be tried on a man before conclusions can
ha n nr
vivisector) and causing vast waste of
time and energy in Improbable channels,
leads naturally to cruelty, and thus to the
degradation of the moral nature. Should,
then, the attitude of the extreme anti
yivisectionist bescalled one of "unreason-
ing violence or "fanaticism?" 1t may be
impolitic. but is it ''unreasoning?'
As to the real motive of the opposition of
some medical men to the proposed re-
strictive law at Washington, D. c., it is
not so much spite against the anti-vivi-
sectionist as jealousy of the slightest super
vision of themselves. A remarkable docu-
ment bearing on this question is Senate
document No. IS. on vivisection, which
will be sent free to anyone on application to
one of the United States Senators from the
applicants State. In this document DIR. AL
bert Leffingwell (who, by the way is not
an enthusiastically gives absolute proof
Of numerous deliberate misstatements,
''evasions," ''equivocations," ''exaggera.
lions, false differences" 'concealment of
truth, made by prominent medical men
and medical societies Throughout the coun.
try in their endeavors to influence Congress
against this proposed restrictive law These
people demand, moreover, that the supreme
judge of the vivisector shall be the vivi-
sector himself.
In view of these facts, does it not seem
that the extremists" have some ground for
their desire to prohibit altogether practice
which accomplishes SO little good and, d.
rectly and indirectly, so much evil?
j. NJ. GREENE.
Boston, Mass, Oct 20.
Effects of War on Game.
(From the London Leader.)