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"
The fact IS that no man can say that he is
/ attending strictly to his own business. "
! Would any mother knowingly allow viviset ton
ist TO take charge Of her little child in case
Of serious illnessg' Would she after
seeing him torture hundred helpless rab6itss and
toss their still living bodies aside without even
] having the humanity to put item OUT -of their
Z pain, trust such scientist with the care Of a
member Of her iafhily;'' 1T appears
+. that in Germany may stand well in the
medical profession, be countenanced by the Emper-
I or. and have a practice among reputable people,
I and yet frankly admit that he has implanted the
/ germs OF cancer in women who gnOr-
sntly trusted him as d healer"
Permit me TO suggest. as you say, in the
first sentence. that you cannot claim to Dc
attending strictly TO your own business. In
this case. for you are attacking the pion-
GERS in medical science. and attacking
them in a 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 a cultured home, has recently
taken her child to one OF New Yorks most
i
treatment. necessary to the continuance OF
peaceful. happy life. which his studies
through vivisection alone fitted him 10
perform well-known vivisectonist OF
Baltimore is making frequent calls at one
of our leading embassies. in the interests
OF the health Of a child, whose mother is
a woman Of cultured intelligence. who does
not rely on INSTINCT in selecting a suita-
BILE medical adviser. as your editorial
Id Il he hahf
mothers. En- PEASANT could you induce
your editorial writer to try again and ex-
plain what is meant by the instinct Of an
intelligent mother" Why intelligent or
why instinct II intelligence is a modifying
requirement?
Yes. intelligent mothers will go, and will
in serious cases insist on going, TO those
specialists who know by vivisection. rather
than to the old grannies 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.
I challenge you to name one medical man
in whose laboratory operations on "a hun
dred helpless rabbits IA years supply at
leastl may be witnessed and where one Of
these will be tossed aside still living This
implied statement is as false as the actual
one regarding the state Of affairs in Ger
many.
In the same column with this editorial
there appears a note in which you con-
graduate Washington on its immunity
from danger from the bubOnic plague and
use these words in explanation; should
the bubonic scourge reach here. the Dis
trict Commissioners would make II wear
a muzzIe. and then il 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 frantically rushing to the office OF the
competent specialist on the
plaques near approach to our city OF filthy
back yards. in his quest Of the pest-serum
incubation. allow me to submit the fact
hat only by long repeated yivisection eN-
has medical science made
any Roadway whatever against the germ
Of the Asiatic plague
EUGENE MURRAY-AARON.
Washington March s.