1884.] 
The Potassium Nitrite Outcry. 29 
acquit Drs. Ringer and Murrell of grave indiscretion; On 
the principle of the trapper who seeks to secure himself 
against a prairie-fire by raising a back fire, it adds It is 
with the view, if possible, of forestalling the outcry of the 
Anti-ViviseCtionists and counteracting the effects of this 
terribly false step, that we have felt ourselves compelled 
reluctantly to enter this protest against it.” 
The “Medical Press and Circular ” takes a more dis- 
passionate and judicial view. It holds that “to educated 
medical men there can be no question either of the value of 
the observations detailed or of the bona fides of the intention 
with which they were carried out.” It adds that “ the aim 
of the authors was to extend the limits of our therapeutic 
resources by laying before the profession an account of the 
action exerted upon the human system by a certain drug, 
and every addition to the agents with which the physician 
is enabled to combat disease is so far a distinct gain to hu- 
manity that the most complete reports in this regard are in 
the highest degree valuable and acceptable.” It adds, very 
justly, “ If it should chance that we have in it a means of 
combatting certain affections with success, then to omit the 
measures necessary for proving in what manner and propor- 
tions it requires to be administered would be to criminally 
negledt the imperative duty of Medicine towards humanity. 
Until Nature’s fertile resources against illness are completely 
explored, and each secret she can yield to therapeutics is 
laid bare to the hands of every practitioner, the search after 
new remedies must perforce be continued if we would not 
be diverted from the path of conquest over sickness.” 
Unfortunately the discussion has not been confined to 
professional organs. A Mr. Ernest Bell, M.A., writes to the 
“ Standard ” on the question, making large quotations from 
the original paper of Drs. Ringer and Murrell, bringing 
grave charges against hospital physicians, and displaying — 
if we misunderstand him not — an intense hostility against 
the organic sciences. Who this Mr. Bell, M.A., may be 
we are utterly ignorant. We do not know that he is a 
member of any of the Bestiarian societies ; but he sufficiently 
characterises himself when he speaks of a “ mania fortesting 
everything and anything on all sorts of animals.” Without 
we test “ everything and anything ” we must remain in ig- 
norance about animals no less than about plants or inor- 
ganic matter. To this “ mania ” we owe our physics and 
our chemistry. If animals are to be exempted from research, 
the organic sciences, with their practical applications, can 
never be fully constituted. 
