The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-11
In Defence of vivisectIon.

To the Editor Of The Times:
In your editorial page OF this morning
March 81 I read the following four SEN
fences, under the heading, The Work of
the Scientist
! attending strictly TO his business. F" =.
| Would any mother knowingly allow viyisection-
ist TO take charge of her little child in case
OF serious illness ~ - Would she.-sfter
seeing him torture a hundred helpless rabbits, and
toss their still living bodies aside without even
having the humanity to put item OUT of their
pain, trust such a scientist with the care of a
( member of her farhilyi'' ut appears
that in Germany may stand well in the
medical profession, be eountensnced by the Emper
| or. and have practice among reputable people.
| and vet frankly admit that he has implanted the
| germs OF cancer in women who gnor-
sntly trusted him a irraler.''
Permit me TO suggest, as you say in the
| first sentence. that you cannot claim to De
attending strictly to your own business, in
| this case, for you are attacking the pion-
GERS in medical science, and attacking
them in manner and by charges utterly
beyond the facts.
The mother OF a daughter, the wife of.
one of our foremost statesmen, and the,
head of cultured home, has -ecently
taken her child to one of New Yorks most
| prominent vivisectionists for surgical
treatment. necessary to the continuance of
peaceful happy life, which his studies
through vivisection alone fitted him TO
perform. well-known vivisectionist of
Baltimore is making frequent calls at one
of our leading embassies, in the interests
of the health of a child, whose mother is
woman OF cultured Intelligence. who does
not rely on ''instinctt'- in selecting a suita-
: BILE medical adviser, as your editorial
seems to indicate is the habit with
your editorial writer to try again and ex-
plain what is meant by the instinct of an
intelligent mother" Why intelligent. or
why instinct IL intelligence is modifying
requirement?
Yes, intelligent mothers will go, and Will
in serious cases insist on going, 10 those
specialists who know by viviseetion, rather
than to the old grann;ss of the medical
profession who lazily guess from the
writings of others in really serious cases,
If they can afford it.
Your implied charge that vivisectionists
are in the habit of throwing animals aside.
to live on in needless suffering, is quite as
Just as 1t would be for me to charge that
you were in the habit Of preparing your
editorials with the aid of an opium pipe.
challenge you TO name one medical man
in whose laboratory operations on "a hun
bred helpless rabbits" "a years supply at
leasD may be witnessed and where one c
these will be tossed aside still living. This
implied statement is as false as the ectls
one regarding the state of affairs in siSi
many.
In the same column with this editorial
there appears a note in which you con-
graduate Washington on its immuni's
from danger from the bubonic plague, ard
use these words in explanation; "Shon
the bubonic scourge reach here, the Dis
trict Commissioners would make 1t wear
a muzzle. and then it would be harmless.
Setting aside the suitability OF the plague
as a subject for jest. banishing from our
vision the picture of the one who makes
it franticaliy rushing to the office of the
nearest competent specialist on tie
plaques near approach to our city Of filthy
back yards. in his quest of the pest-serum
inoculation, allow me TO submit the fact
that only by long-repeated yivisection ex-
RECOMMENDATION has medical science made
any Roadway whatever against the germ
of the Asiatic plague.
EUGENE MURRAY-AARON.
Washington March s.