NA TURK 



537 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1883 



PHYSIOLOGICAL CRUELTY 



Physiological Cruelty, or Fact versus Fancy; an Inquiry 

 into the Vivisection Question. By Philanthropes. 

 (London : Tinsley Brothers, 1883.) 



Wh desire to draw the most marked attention to this 

 little book. The author says that his " aim has 

 been to place in the hands both of professional and un- 

 professional readers a sort of compendium of the principal 

 facts and most obvious reasonings on the question of 

 experiment on living animals.'' Such being his "aim,'' 

 he has hit his mark with singular force and precision. 

 For our own part, after having read the literature on both 

 sides of the vivisection question ad nauseam, we feel that 

 no essay which has yet appeared upon the subject is better 

 worthy of perusal both by lay and professional readers, 

 and therefore we can have no doubt that, again to quote 

 the words of its preface, " such a work may prove useful 

 to medical men who have not time to consult books of 

 reference, and examine into the details of the subject for 

 themselves, without its being too technical to interest 

 those of the general public who are willing to give thought 

 and attention to a most important matter." 



Whoever " Philanthropos" maybe, he is clearly a nnn 

 having an accurate and extensive knowledge of physio- 

 logy, combined with a sound and careful judgment, re- 

 markable literary ability, and a wise moderation of speech. 

 His conclusions are everywhere reasoned conclusions, 

 and being well equipped with the armour of fact, both on 

 the right hand and on the left — ethics and physiology — 

 we do not know a more hopeless engagement than it 

 would be for any one who has arrived at different conclu- 

 sions to meet this writer with these weapons of un- 

 deniable fact and dispassionate reason. But with all this 

 he is something more (and may we not add, something 

 better ?) than a man of science and a logician. He is 

 clearly a man of large and generous heart, of finely strung 

 feelings, and a lover of animals as well as " a lover of 

 men." " Philanthropos," indeed/while giving us step by 

 step the reason of the faith that is in him, shows us by 

 many indications that he is not a man to have joined sides 

 with the physiologists merely from his love of science 

 (supposing, as we feel entitled to suppose, that he is a 

 working physiologist), but has been led to do so chiefly on 

 the grounds, in its largest sense, of humanitarianism. 



The treatise begins with an introductory chapter on the 

 " Duty of Unprejudiced Investigation," and then goes on 

 to consider in successive chapters, "What is Pain?" 

 "What is Cruelty?" "Our Rights over Animals;" 

 " What is Vivisection ?" 



Thus far it may be said that the writer is concerned 

 with questions of definition, but in the vivisection contro- 

 versy so much turns upon these questions that it is most 

 desirable to begin with a clear exposition of all the above- 

 mentioned points. In our opinion this exposition is the 

 best that has so far been published. It only covers fifty 

 pages, but these are so well packed that, while they read 

 like the simple flowing of common sense, it is evident that 

 they must have consumed a large amount of thought and 

 labour in their production. 



Vol. xxviii.— No. 727 



The work proceeds to consider " The Relation of Ex- 

 periment to Physiology " and " The Relation of Medicine 

 to Experiment." These are admirable chapters, full of 

 clear and competent teaching, which it is most desirable 

 that every one who ventures to express an opinion upon 

 either side of the vivisection controversy should have 

 assimilated. Next follows an important chapter on 

 "Legislation, Past, Present, and Possible," which con- 

 tains many judicious remarks on the administration of the 

 present Act. A list of the more important researches 

 which have been already prevented by the Home Office 

 is given, and it is then urged : "The defenders of medical 

 research ask for no such sweeping measure on their side. 

 They have not demanded the repeal of the Act 39 and 40 

 Vict. ch. 77, whose short and insulting title is 'The 

 Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.' They would be content 

 if it were administered in a spirit which takes for granted 

 more humanity in experimenters, less omniscience in 

 Home Secretaries, and more trustworthiness in their 

 advisers. ... It is surely absurd that an unqualified 

 person should have the power of going behind the 

 opinions of these high authorities, and contradicting them 

 upon their own ground. On the contrary, the Home 

 Secretary's professional advisers ought to be, like the 

 Queen's, responsible for all technical points. . . . The 

 Act is at present worked upon the principle that medical 

 men are not to be trusted, their leaders' certificates not to 

 be depended upon, and that cruelty would be the rule if 

 it were not made impossible. But the profession was 

 tried for cruelty before the Royal Commission and was 

 acquitted. It would only be fair, therefore, to act on the 

 basis of that acquittal, and admit that the abuse of their 

 very restricted liberty is to be looked for as the exception, 

 and not the rule. Therefore let the determination of who 

 is to be licensed, and for what, rest [as was intended by 

 the Royal Commissioners] with those who understand the 

 subject matter of the decision. They are the best judges 

 of the value of what is proposed to be done ; and the 

 sense of responsibility to the nation, and the public 

 opinion of their own profession, will be amply sufficient 

 safeguards against too great laxity. Probably the members 

 of the ' anti-vivisectionist ' societies do not believe that 

 there is any such professional public opinion ; but there isi 

 and it is an effectual though quiet check on the few who 

 need it. But if any influence from without could injure 

 it, it would be the constant ignoring and denying of its 

 existence" 



After a concluding chapter there are several very in- 

 teresting appendices. Of these we have only space to 

 notice the one on "The Medical Minority." Here it is 

 first pointed out that of the forty-seven skilled witnesses 

 who were examined before the Royal Commission only 

 two were of the opinion that experiments are not neces- 

 sary for original research in physiology. These are Mr. 

 George Macilmain, M.R.C.S., 181S (retired from prac- 

 tice), and Dr. W. B. A. Scott. " If persons of repute 

 existed in the ranks of the medical profession willing to 

 give adverse evidence, we may fairly suppose that they 

 were called for on that occasion." But " a third excep- 

 tion to the unanimity of medical men is furnished by the 

 author of a pamphlet which has lately been widely circu- 

 lated by an anti-vivisectionist society." This pamphlet is 

 on the " Uselessness of Vivisection upon Animals as a 



A A 



