Appendix to Third report of the Commissioners : minutes of evidence, April to July, 1907.
- Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vivisection (1906)
- Date:
- 1907
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Appendix to Third report of the Commissioners : minutes of evidence, April to July, 1907. Source: Wellcome Collection.
270/272 page 264
![Moulton. 24 July 1907. 264 -ould only be dealt with *when vouched for in a 1“ which dae yuets unexceptionable. So that, gener- ally, you would have the security of university recog- nition that the applicant was properly qualified. 12770. Do you think that the existing certifying authorities, which are mainly medical authorities, under the Act, would be able to deal with the case of the people you refer to without medical qualification ? —I think so. 12771. Or ought the advising body to be enlarged ? —Those who examine up at the Universities usually possess medical degrees, and a great many of them possess also science degrees. I do not know whether Sir Michael Foster had a medical degree. 12772. (Dr. Gaskell.) Yes, he had, -and practised ?—] did not know that. But you can easily imagine that there may be some who have not. 12773. (Dr. Wilson.) Pasteur had not; he was a chemist 2—No, Pasteur had not; that is a good ex- ample. 12774. And Metchnikoff was a chemist ?—Yes. 12775. (Sir Mackenzie Chalmers.) Then I should like to ask your opinion upon this. It has been suggested te us by Mr. Coleridge, whose evidence, perhaps, you have not seen ?—I have. not. 12776. It has ‘been suggested that a certificate of humaneness should ‘be required before a licence was given. What is your ovinion on that? He suggested, I think, that:a certificate should be given by one Jus- tice of the Peace and one minister of religion. Per- haps you would rather not express an opinion ?—It is not enough to say that it is unnecessary. It would be an absolute insult to the people whom you would be consulting. The suggestion that the heads of the medical profession are not judges of humanity, of humaneness, I ought to say, is a piece of the most in- tolerable insolence. It is shocking when you consider the way in which, as a rule, medical men disregard their own comfort, and put themselves to any amount of trouble and discomfort for the purpose of helping people who are sick, very often when it does not bring to them the slightest kudos or the slightest pecuniary return. To suggest that such people do not know what humaneness is and are not moved by suffering is intolerable. 12777. I think the suggestion rather was from the evidence that. we have had, that the present certifying authorities regard only scientific ends and qualifica- tions, and do not consider as within their province the question of humanity ?—So far as Englishmen are con- cerned (of whom I can alone speak from personal ex- perience) the question as to whether they are likely to use power properly from the point of view of regard for suffering is from my knowledge of the people who are likely to take out licences practically settled before the application is made. But the certifying authorities have to advise that licences should be granted to the applicants, and if they think that par exception they are people who have not got any care for suffering, and will make a recklessly painful use of their powers, they are bound to say that they are not fit persons to receive licences. 12778. Do you think that ought to be expressed in the Act or the rules in any way ?—I should say “ fit and proper.” 12779. You think that would cover it?—I think that would cover it. _ 12780. Now, coming to the ethical side of the ques- tion; may I rightly sum up your statement in this way—lI want to know if I have understood it—that all pain is an evil, perhaps the supreme er?! ?— Ves, 12781. And that we are justified in tne present in- fliction of a lesser evil when there is a reasonable prospect in the future of avoiding a very much greater evil ?—Yes, quite so. ‘ ‘ 12782. That would be the test and the touchstone which we should apply to all animal experiments ?— Yes, that is the touchstone. And in applying that touchstone we must conscientiously use the whole of the teaching that the history of science and the history of medicine have given us. The -particulars I have given were in order to show that where there is serious research there is an overwhelming probability that the answer will be in the affirmative. 12783. Of course, as you kno w, by other ethical wit- nesses, we have had other tests Citra en in- I must say it did not convey very much information to my mind ?—It conveys none to my mind. I feel satis- fied that that is an extremely bad definition. “ Con- science” is too often used where the true expression: should be “emotion.” Emotion may be a good motive is a very great deal of force in the phrase which some- body has used: “If you want to do good in a par- ticular way, and want to know how you can do it: chance.” The only thing that can safely guide you is your reason. Your emotions may give you a motive just as I say that the motive which should dominate the whole of this quesion is the desire for the sup- pression of pain. When you have got that motive and desire to obey it, it is your reasoning power which ought to tell what you ought to do, 12784. What is pressed upon us continually is this: Admitted that pain is an evil, you have no right to inflict a definite voluntary amount of pain when the do you say to that argument ?—It is simply because the people have not studied the question that they talk about its being absolutely problematical. What you have to do in life is to act on probabilities. It Is quite impossible to prophesy exactly what will happen in the future, but when you see from the teaching which the past has given us that there is pening you are bound to act upon that probability. Would a person refuse to take a medicine because it had net always cured people ? It would be a doctor’s do so: to the secondary principles, if I have understood your to prevent experiment for the purpose of increasing knowledge and controlling pain and disease while we allow the infliction of death and pain in sport for the purpose of providing food for mankind and for . than those—cases in which, as I have said, you inflict pain for the purpose of preventing pecuniary loss. If you have a valuable dog you see it through the dis- temper. If it is not valuable you kill it to begin with. Yet you might be perfectly willing to sell that dog in any case. That is simply permitting suffering for the purpose of avoiding pecuniary loss. Other- wise, I really do not understand why people consider it right to kill beetles. Beetles will only destroy a certain amount of their food, and yet they extirpate them, just as they extirpate mice and they extirpate rats, and consider that they are justified in doing so, because they say thatesuch animals do harm. That harm is really pecuniary harm. 12786. Perhaps the fairest way of putting some of these ethical points that have been put before us is to call your attention to a little publication I have just received from Mr. John Page Hopps, who has given evidence here. May I ask. you to lock at the second paragraph on page 3, beginning with the word “ But.” May I divide it into paragraphs and ask you whether you have any comments to make upon it. May I read the first words that I want to ask you about: “But when all is said on the score of restiits, and the ‘artist in vivisection has done his best to convince us that he is the apostle of mercy, many grave considerations ‘give us pause.’ For instance, what law of God or Natures justifies this treatment of our poor relations ? Who gave to this amazing enthusiast the right to say off-hand that he was at liberty to exploit ‘the lower animals’ for experiments ?”—May I point out what 1t is that gives the whole force of that to the people he is talking to? It is the use of the word “ experi- ments.” They do not know what it means: they do not know its importance. Supposing I was to put, instead of “experiments” “saving life or stopping suffering,” the whole appeal would fall to the ground. Experiment” to an uneducated person does not con- note what it does to persons who are acquainted with the nature and results of research. If you read it in that, way: “Who gave to this amazing enthusiast the tight to say off-hand that he was at liberty to exploit ‘the lower animals’ for saving human life ?” the answer would be “ Why not ?”.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32182181_0270.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
