Now, one of these experiments lasted over three hours, and many of
them over an hour. How many of the 148 animals died because the
anaesthesia was TOO DEEP?

On this point the admissions of the experimenter seem especially
significant. "OVER-ANAESTHESIA rendered the animals subject to early
collapse, and decidedly less capable of enduring a protracted
experiment." During certain experiments, "CONSIDERABLE CARE was
necessary to prevent excessive inhalation of the anaesthetic by the
animal." And yet all that could happen to the unfortunate victim would
be a painless death; to prevent that would require, doubtless,
considerable care. "If the animals were allowed PARTIALLY TO RECOVER
FROM THE EFFECT OF THE ANAESTHETIC, care was necessary in reducing
them again to surgical anaesthesia, as an excess of the anaesthetic
was liable to be inhaled."[1] This admission is evidence complete,
that the insensibility was not always maintained from beginning to
end; the creatures were in some cases--how many we can never know--
"ALLOWED PARTIALLY TO RECOVER."

In the detailed accounts of these vivisections, we find more than one
proof of the sensibility of the animals. Take the following:

EXPERIMENT 126. "The animal did not take the anaesthetic well, and
part of the experiment was made under INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA." There
was noted, also, "contraction of the abdominal muscles, on account of
INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."

EXPERIMENT 133. "Bunsen's flame to the right paw.... In the control
experiments, as well as this, THE DOG WAS NOT UNDER FULL ANAESTHESIA
... THE ANIMAL STRUGGLED ON APPLICATION OF THE FLAME."

EXPERIMENT 5. "UNDER INCOMPLETE ANAESTHESIA, crushing of foot caused a
very sharp rise, followed by an equally sharp decline of pressure.
THIS WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES. Under full anaesthesia crushing of
paws caused rise again."

EXPERIMENT 4. "First, crushing of paw.... Second, crushed foot
extensively, JUST BEFORE CORNEAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED."

To the average reader the last few words convey no definite meaning,
but their significance is plain. Until the corneal reflex is
abolished, the surgeon does not begin to operate, for sensibility
remains. It is needless to quote further; even a single instance of
incomplete anaesthesia, admitted by the vivisector himself, suffices
to overturn the claim that the insensibility was complete in every
case. "Words," says Bishop Butler, "mean what they do mean, and not
other things