The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-06-22

This Inhumnne Device for Breaking the Back.
of Animals Without killing Them the Purpose
OF E1permc ntnton Wns Used, 1t Is Claimed. nv
Certain Philadelphia Professors and Surgeons, and
Formed One OF the Principal Charges Upon Which
They Arc Now Awaiting Trial. Presiding
Judge Characterized 1t ms mn "Infernal Machine"
alone, and then only when anaesthesia would de-
feat the object Of the experiment. In such cases
an anaesthetic shall be used far as possible
and may be discontinued so long as Ia absolutely
essential for the necessary observations.
V. At the conclusion Of the experiment the anil
NAL shall be killed panlessly. Exceptions to the
rule will be made only when the continuance OF
the animals life Is necessary to determine the
result OF the experiment. In that case the same
aseptic precautions shall be observed during the
operation and so far as possible. the same care
Shall be taken to minimize discomforts during the
conyalescence as in hospital for human beings.
These rules, 1t has been claimed In public hear
ings before our Legislature, now posted in
practically all the large laboratories where legiti
mate scientific vivisecton Is performed It is also
claimed by the medical profession that every
effort is taken to enforce these regulations to pre-
vent cruelty This being the case the Society for
the Prevention OF Abuse In Animal Experimental
ton recently caused some Of these rules to be
framed In the form Of amendment to the penal
code, which was drawn in such way to make
the violation of these rules misdemeanor. pun
fshable by law However, the insincerity Of our
opponents to all laws suggesting the reasonable
regulation or restriction OF tho practice of vvi-
section was apparent when the representative OF
the Medical Society OF the State Of New York and
other organizations which are responsible for the
practice Of vivsecton united to oppose most siren
uously the enactment into law Of the very rules
above stated. which the medical association had
determined to be necessary to prevent cruelty and
had caused to be posted in all the laboratories
under their control.
If 1t be true. claimed by these learned gen.
tlemen Of the medical profession, that the
forcement of the above quoted rules In labora-
tories Is necessary to prevent cruelty then why
should these gentlemen object to having these
rules framed into law which could be enforced
by penalties of criminal punishment? Any oppo-
siton TO this form of legislation Is but another
indication of that nsincerty which. while deny
ing the existence of any cruelty wrong-dolng.
violently opposes either an investigation to verify
their statement that there Is cruelty, legis-
lation which while protecting Legitimate scientific
research would make punishable the abuse which
the existence of these rules comedies to exist
In legislative hearings concerning the practice
of vivisecton and in the public press for many
years attempt has been made to confuse the
issue. Each year lawmakers before whom these
bills have come have been told that there only
two sets of advocates represented: Vivisection-
lists and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. That statement Is
unqualiiedly false Do not be deceived by it.
There is n third party. 1t is composed OF
twelve thousand active citizens who thoroughly
believe in the value OF vivisection but insist that
its practice should be regulated by law. 1t Is this
party which has presented the bills In question.
Those who oppose bills need waste
breath in telling us that vivsecton is useful; we
believe it. Spend no time in dwelling on its sue
cesses; admit them Let them confne their
attention to few straight questions