England, desires to see vivisection totally
abolished by law; but, meanwhile, it will strive for and accept any
measures that have for their object the amelioration of the condition
of vivisected animals. On the other hand, the British Union for the
Total Abolition of Vivisection will accept nothing less than the legal
condemnation of every phase of such experiments. "Vivisection," the
secretary of this society writes, "is a system, and not a number of
isolated acts to be considered separately. Owing to its intricate and
interdependent character and the international competition involved,
USE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM ABUSE." In other words, every conceivable
phase of scientific experimentation upon living creatures, even if
absolutely painless, should be made a legal offence.
But we are not driven to accept one or the other of these definitions
of animal experimentation. A third view of vivisection exists, which
differs widely from either of these opposing ideals. Instead of
taking the position of the antivivisectionist that ALL scientific
investigations involving the use of animals, should be legally
prohibited, it maintains that distinctions may, and should, be drawn,
and that only the abuses of vivisection should be condemned by law.
It asks society neither to approve of everything, nor to condemn
everything, but to draw a line between experiments that, by reason of
utility and painlessness, are entirely permissible, and others which
ought assuredly to be condemned. It makes no protest against
experimentation involving the death of an animal where it is certain
that consciousness of pain has been abolished by anaesthetics; but it
condemns absolutely the exhibition of agony as an easy method of
teaching well-known facts. The utility of certain experiments it does
not question; but even increase of knowledge may sometimes be
purchased at too high a price. From a statement of this position
regarding vivisection, drawn some years since, the following sentences
may be of interest:
"Vivisection is a practice of such variety and complexity, that, like
warfare between nations, one can neither condemn it nor approve it,
unless some careful distinctions be first laid down.... Within certain
limitations, we regard vivisection to be so justified by utility as to
be legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond these boundaries, it is
cruel, monstrous, and wrong.... We believe, therefore, that the common
interests of human
|