Misstatements of antivivisectionists : correspondence with American humane association / [by] W.W. Keen.

  • William Williams Keen
Date:
[1901]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Misstatements of antivivisectionists : correspondence with American humane association / [by] W.W. Keen. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    10/32 page 4
    that I have a little leisuie, 1 can answer your letter anil furnish you in detail the proofs for which you ask. There are two pamphlets, both entitled Human Vivisection. First, one of thirty pages, printed for the American Humane Association, 1899; the other of seven pages, published by the Humane Society, Washington, D. C, without date, but from its contents published a little later, as it is chiefly a synopsis of the same instances reported more fully in the larger pamphlet. Hereafter when I speak of the pamphlet'' I mean the larger one, unless I specifically mention the smaller one. This larger pamphlet consists of two parts: first, (pp. 3-12) a reprint of a portion of Senate Document No. 7S and the rest of it of various quotations, translations and comments. No name is attached to either part to indicate who is respon- sible for the accuracy of the references, the translations or the quotations. As the whole is preceded by an open letter signed by the president and secretary of the American Humane Association, and as you refer to the pamphlet as ours,' I presume the association holds itself responsible for such accur- acy, especially as you as its new president challenge me for proof. The pamphlet purports to furnish a reprint of a portion of Senate Document No. 78, and refers to this document in a way that would lead uninformed readers to suppose that this is a document expressing the sentiments of the United States Senate. It is, therefore, important to call your attention to the fact that Senate Document No. 78 is simply a collection of statements and papers by various persons, printed by order of the Senate, but in no sense expressing the opinions or convic- tions of that body. The last paper in this document is one on Human Vivisection, by A. Tracy. In two respects A. Tracy has a right to complain that the reprint is inaccurate: First, it omits to print the name of the author A. Tracy. Surely he—or she(?)—should receive whatever credit there is attaching to his work. Secondly, on page 30, line 8, of Senate Document No. 78, I read A. Tracy's comment. [This patient, therefore, was scientifically murdered.] This statement the reprint very wisely omits— but there are no indications of the omission. Of this, more hereafter. Your letter challenges the accuracy of my statements in three particulars: 1. I stated that many of the references in the pamphlet are vague and indefinite. 2. I said that some of the accounts of the experiments are garbled and inaccurate. 3. I stated that of the experiments narrated in the pamphlet only two were alleged to have been performed in America.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3