Vivisection, scientifically and ethically considered / in prize essays by James Macaulay, Rev. Brewin Grant, and Abiathar Wall.

  • James Macaulay
Date:
1881
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Vivisection, scientifically and ethically considered / in prize essays by James Macaulay, Rev. Brewin Grant, and Abiathar Wall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by University of Bristol Library. The original may be consulted at University of Bristol Library.

    44/350 page 28
    Discoveries wrongly claimed by Vivisectors. Shaw tells me that Sir Charles invariably spoke of his dis- covery as due to anatomical investigation; that his experi- ments were performed with the utmost reluctance, and were considered by him unnecessary; and that he often referred to the uselessness and cruelty of experiments on living- animals. This is quite in accordance with the humane spirit that appears in all the writings of Sir Charles Bell. The use of anaesthetics is also often cited as an instance of the benefit of experiments on animals. Surely any amount of suffering that the case might have required might have been legitimately inflicted upon the lower animals, to secure such an inestimable boon to humanity. These are the words of Dr. Carpenter, a humane man as well as a distinguished physiologist, and who, when a lecturer on physiology, never exhibited experiments on living animals to his pupils. Dr. Carpenter, it will be observed, puts the case hypothetically—might have been legitimately inflicted. He knew that ether, and chloro- form, and the anaesthetic uses of them, were not discovered by experimenting on living animals, in the sense that vivisectors wish the statement to be understood. The fact is, that the use of chloroform was the result of an ex- periment, and rather a perilous one, tried by Sir James Simpson upon himself, and by his assistant, Dr. Keith, as they have graphically narrated. The previous use of ether as an anaesthetic was also the result of experiments upon himself by an American dentist. Many experiments have since been performed on animals; but the reference to anaesthetics, as an argument for vivisection, is an unworthy appeal to popular ignorance of the real state of the case. Not less futile is the claim made as to the discovery of vaccination being due to experiments on living animals. It is well known that the discovery was made by Dr. Jenner from observation. He observed that many of the people in the dairy district of Gloucester enjoyed a remarkable im-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3