Evening star., 1923-02-23
DenOunces Vivisection.
To the Editor ~ Tho s+,r

To the Editor Of The Star:
TO my mind, the press Is the great
est medium for educating the public.
Grave are Its responsibilities when
untruths are set forth, as has been
done innocently by some editors. who
relied upon the statements of yiyi
sectors Since no two human beings
are alike, greater is the difference be-
tween the human and subhuman lives.
ana when we realize that nature is
true In that we reap that which we
| have sown." then Mercy begets
mercy" and cruelty begets sorrow,
suffering and death. hence the pub
appreciated.
Any searcher after truth who reads
in its original technical terms. pos
slbly with the aid of a medical die
tionary, an account of a vivisectional
experiment s described by its author
in some medical journal. cannot fail
to notice how successfully the true
nature of the performance is oh
scured not only by the technical terms
used. but by what we may term the
tmpassivity of the performer He
may be describing a deed which, if
done in the open street, because of it's
cruelty, would arouse the utmost in
dignation, yet he exhibits no more
feeling than as If he were writing
of the saving or cutting of wood or
stone. Few laymen read these tech
nical descriptions of what is done in
physiological laboratories. They are
not written for laymen, but for the
profession; they are not in the least
attractive to the ordinary reader, nor
are they very accessible. All this
constitutes the real reason why such
statements as those made by q Law
advocate of vivisection concerning
, what he has been told by doctors and
what he has been allowed to see in
laboratories can induce women's
clubs and others to vote in favor of
vivisection. They think they have
been fully informed. They have not
They hear about anesthesia, but moth
Ing about days, weeks and months of
subsequent suffering of the victims
shut in uncomfortable cages, nor Of
the kind Of experiments in which the
use of anesthetics is impossible They
In experiment than any other animal,
but they are not told that as real
ancsthetics are quickly fatal to dogs
other substances are used which only
stupefy, or which render them inca
pable of motion without in the least
affecting sensation. Sometimes moth
ing is given. the animal being SO
bound that he can neither move nor
cry.
In a recent article this layman
charged Observation-Disclosures with
willful Misrepresentation. He is ex-
was futile, as he could not support it
by proof. Is it likely that people
whose moral sense has impelled them
to spend years of self-sacrifice in an
unpopular cause would Willfully mis-
represent? Neither is there any
temptation to misrepresent or exag
gerate when there is ample docu-
mentary evidence of the truth of their
contention. They can rejoice that the
cause is growing more unpopular,
and. besides that, all reforms must
begin with rinoritieS.
DiscourteouS personalities cannot in
any case support argument. In man
uals of parliamentary law it is laid
down as a rule that while a measure
may be reprohated in strong terms, to
arraign the motives of those who
propose or advocate it is a personal
| ity and against order.
This can properly apply to all ar
guments. and, therefore, here and
now, while omitting the expression
of any opinion concerning the mo-
tives OF conduct of those who sup
port vivisection, we denounce the
| thing itself as detekably cruel, un-
scientific in any true sense, miSlead-
| ing and worthy of universal repro ba-
| tion and of the extinction which will
be it's ultimate fate; for day by. day
| the signs of its unpopularity are
| growing.
| Awaiting your courtesy in the pub
| lication Of the above. ] am, with ap-
Ipreciation. NJ r. LOWELL