Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/557

 VIVISECTION

495

VIVISECTION

of animals under abnormal conditions. The literal dissection of living animals is practised nowhere, as it is much more convenient to study the structure of man's body in the cadaver. According to Aulus Cor- nelius Celsus, who lived in the reign of Tiberius, and TertuUian (about 160-240) living criminals were dis- membered at Alexandria in the reigns of Ptolemy II (28.5-247 B. c.) and Ptolemy III (247-221 B. c). The same act was maliciously attributed to Jacobus Ber- engarius, Andreas Vesalius, and Gabriel Fallopius, celebrated anatomists of the sixteenth century. The history of scientific observation of and experimenta- tion upon animals, both bloodless and bloody, began at the moment when it was perceived that the processes of nature could be discovered only by the exact obsei'vation of nature and not by philosophical methods. For physiological and pathological re- search experimentation with animals is an indispen- sable aid, while for medical science it is of much value. It gives a view of the working processes of the living organism, permits us to produce diseases arti- ficially, and to investigate the organic changes pro- duced by these diseases in each stage of their course. Before \\'illiam Harvey (1578-1657) could an- nounce his discovery of the circulation of the blood he was obliged, as he confesses, to make for years in- numerable vivisections of animals of all kinds, for he could investigate the mechanism of the circulation only in the living animal. He was thus able to reach the conclusion that the arteries which are empty in the corpse are filled with blood during Ufe and not with air, as was beheved until then. The Jesuit Jaspar Schott (1608-66), professor of mathematics and physics at Wtirzburg, put animals into an en- closure where the air was rarefied and described the phenomena of death by suffocation on the basis of his experiments. He injected solutions of drugs into the veins of dogs, and proved that medicines adminis- tered in this manner produce effects more quickly than when taken into the stomach. Christopher Wren made similar experiments at Oxford in 1656. Thomas Willis (1622-75) propounded, after numerous experi- ments, the theorj' of the localization of the different faculties in the several parts of the brain, and all our knowledge as to the functions of the brain has been acquired almost entirely in the same way. Albrecht von Halkr (1708-77), "the founder of modern physi- ology, repeatedly emphasizes in his works the impor- tance of experiments on animals. Observation and reflection led .Alexander Walker to the conclusion that the nerves arising from the anterior spinal ganghon serve to convey sensation, and those from the pos- terior convey motor impulses. Charles BeU (1774- 1842) proved the opposite to be the fact by simply cutting through the anterior roots. The experiments made on animals by Claude Bernard (1813-78) yielded information concerning the use of the pancreas in the digestion of fats, concerning the morbid process of forming glucose or sugar in the liver, the origin of diabetes, etc. Our knowledge concerning assimilation and digestion, the appearance of emboli or obstruc- tions in blood-vessels, the effects of poisons, and of modern drugs is derived from similar sources. The treatment of hydrophobia and the whole of serum- therapeutics rest on almost endless and laborious experiments on animals. It was proved by feeding animals with trichiniferous meat that parts of the body are first and preferably attacked by trichinae. The ex]ieriments le<l to the establishment of careful inspection of meat by which thousands of people have been preserved from the danger of trichinosis. Before the attempt could be made to excise a degenerated thyroid gland, the larynx, or a kidney in human beings, the operation had to be made on innumerable mammals and the processes of the cure observed. How can a surgeon make a practical test of a theo- retically established new method of sewing up a

wound if not on animals? There is no branch of medi- cal science that cannot be essentially benefited by experiments on animals. In the last instance the results of the experiments do good to humanity. Consequently it appears inadmissible to declare vivi- section a means morally forbidden and to characterize experiments on animals as the torture of animals.

About 1S70 the societies for the protection of ani- mals, especially those in England, began a violent agitation against vivi.section, which led in 1876 to a bill entitled "Cruelty to Animals Act ". In *his way vivisection was essentially restricted. The agitation spread later to Germany and .\ustria and in 1885 led in both countries to legislation which permitted vivisection under conditions that did not prevent ex- periments for research. The opponents of vivisection claim that ex-periments on animals have no direct value for medical science, that it is an aimless torture, brutahzing the mind, and that distinguished scholars have denounced it. Compassion for the defenceless animal plays a large part in the opposition. It is just at this point, however, that an incongruity becomes evident between the feeling for the human being and for the animal, as the instances cited above show that experiments on animals areundertaken for the benefit of suffering humanity. Rudolf von Ihering remarks very appositely: "The sjTnpathy with the animal that is shown in each attack is in realitj- disregard of man, a confusion of moral feehng that sacrifices the human being in order to protect the animal" ("Zweck im Recht", II, 141). Windthorst, the leader of the Cen- tre party, said in the German Reichstag on 23 Jan., 1882: "There is absolutely no doubt that we should not try to prevent what is really necessary for science. I am certainly of the opinion that an animal can in no way be placed on an equality with man; it is created to serve him, and when necessary it must serve him in this manner." It is unjust to accuse viviscctors of cruelty, for in operations causing blood every investi- gator, to avoid being disturbed while at his work, uses narcotics if possible. It has also been asserted that the customary curare, which is an arrow-poison, par- alyzes only the motor nerves and not those of sensa- tion. Besides curare, however, other poisons are used, as ether, chloroform, and morphine. Far more painful and morally impeachable are those operations on ani- mals which spring from a perverted taste or fashion, as the castration of mammals and birds, the scaling of living fishes, the cooking of live Crustacea, and the clipping of the tails and ears of pet dogs.

There may be a few physicians among the opponents of vivisection, yet these are always men who have no interest in scientific investigation and who are often not able to comprehend an investigator's method of thinking. Even were there among the opponents of vivisection actual scientific investigators, the judg- ment of so small a number should not be taken into consideration in view of the numberless declarations made by all the medical faculties of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, as well as by large numbers of medi- cal societies throughout the civilized world, that ex- periments on animals are absolutely essential for in- vestigation, and cannot be replaced by any other method. The celebrated anatomist of Vienna, Josef Hyrtl, was frequently called an opponent of vivisec- tion. This error arose from quoting as proof sen- tences torn from their context. Hyrtl was only an enemy of excesses, and made many experiments on animals him.self. He wrote: "Every thoughtful phy- sician will acknowledge that the science of medicine owes great and important discoveries to vivisection. But for it, what would we know of the lacteals, of the functions of the nervous system, of fecundation and embryological development?". The objection that experimentation on animals is inadmissible a.s a means of instruction, becau.se the pui)il ought to believe the teacher, is just as false as if it were asserted that