CURRENT LITERATURE.
Plea for Mercy to Animals. By James Macaulay, A.M., M.D., Edin- burgh (Editor of the Leisure flour). London : The Religious Tract Society.)—This little book is an admirable one, and deserves a large circulation. It dwells with simplicity and power on "the claims of the lower animals to humane treatment from men ;" on the too many "various forms of needless suffering inflicted by man ;", on the "Means of prevention, legal and educational ;" and lastly, on "Vivisection and other experiments on living animals." Dr. Macaulay is an M.D. of Edinburgh, and has had, therefore, the training to understand the physiological discussion in relation to the chim made on behalf of Vivisection as a scientific method that it has produced great results. What he tells us,—and not on his own authority alone, but on great authorities like those of Sir Charles Bell and Professor Owen, and Dr. Barclay,—will make a great many people doubt the accuracy of the very strong assertions which have been recently made on the other side of the question. We quote a passage or two on this subject from
Idatutulay's admirable book, just to show the care he has taken to
embody the real opinions of the most eminent men in the profession, and even of those who have used the very method in discussion with the best effect, though with the greatest reluctance and with far less effect than is commonly supposed. The subject referred to is the discovery of the double functions of the spinal nerves by Sir Charles Bell :— " Sir Charles Bell has left on record an express declaration that his great discovery was due, not to experiment, but to observation, and a few experiments were afterwards made, not for his own conviction, but for the satisfaction of others. It was necessary,' he says, 'to know whether the phenomena exhibited on injuring the separate roots of the spinal nerves correspond with what was suggested by their anatomy.' Some experiments were performed 'after delaying long, on account of the unpleasant nature of the operation.' And he adds, These experi- ments satisfied me that the different roots, and the different columns from whence these roots arose, were devoted to distinct offices, and that the notions drawn from the anatomy were correct.' Professor Owen, commenting on this statement, remarks that, 'he alone discovers who proves, who converts a speculation into a positive conclusion.' But Sir Charles Bell himself repudiated this as the ground of his claim as a dis- coverer. 'In a foreign review of my former papers,' he says, the results have been considered as in favour of experimenting on living animals. They are, on the contrary, deductions from anatomy, and I have had re- course to experiments, not to form my opinions, but to impress them on others. It must be my apology that my utmost powers of persuasion were lost while I urged my statements on the ground of anatomy alone: And again, 'Experiments have never been the means of discovery, and the survey of what has been attempted of late years will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error, than to en- force the just views taken from anatomy and the natural sciences.' ....- Professor Owen says : 'It is to be regretted that Sir Charles Bell should have committed himself to the statement that experiments on the lower animals have never been the means of discovery. They have certainly been the means of rectifying such residuum of error as, among his most valuable additions to truth, he bequeathed to the world.' This is a very cautions and qualified criticism of Sir Charles Bell's statement. But other physiologists, not on grounds of sentiment or humanity, but purely on review of scientific results, have expressed themselves with clear decision as to the inutility of vivisection. The following passage occurs. in the late Dr. Barclay's work on the muscular motions : 'In making experiments on live animals, even where the species of respiration is the same as our own, anatomists must often witness phenomena that can be phenomena only of rare occurrence. After considering that the actions of the diaphragm, in ordinary cases, are different from its actions in sneezing and coughing, and these again different from its actions in laughing and hiccup; after considering that our breathing is varied by heat and cold, by pleasure and pain, by every strong mental emotion:, by the different states of health and disease, by different attitudes, ancl different exertions,—we can hardly suppose that an animal under the influence of horror ; placed in a forced and unnatural attitude; its. viscera exposed to the stimulus of air ; its blood flowing out ; many of its muscles divided by the knife ; and its nervous system driven to. violent desultory action from excruciating pain, would exhibit the phenomena of ordinary respiration. In that situation, its muscles must produce many effects, not only of violent, but irregular action ; and not only the muscles usually employed in performing the function, but also the muscles that occasionally are required to act as auxiliaries. if different anatomists, after seeing different species of animals, or differ- ent individuals of the same species respiring under different experi- ments of torture, were each to conclude that the phenomena produced in these cases were analogous to those of ordinary respiration, their differences of opinion as to motions or ordinary respiration would be immense.' What is here said with regard to respiration will apply to. almost every subject that has been investigated in a similar manner.
Previous page
