Final report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vivisection (1906)
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Final report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    150/158 (page 138)
    School of Medicine for Women by the late Sir Henry Butlin, Ex-President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and published in the Lancet of October 7th, 1911. It is well known that Sir Henry Butlin had perhaps as wide an experience of cancer, and had operated on as many cases as any other living surgeon of the day, and this is what he said :— “T have never engaged, personally, in experimental investigation on account of the difficulty of doing;so thirty years ago. But I have been associated with the Imperial Cancer Research, and in touch with its staff from the foundation of the Research and have been a member of the Publication Committee of all its scientific reports. It has done nothing on the lines in which observation has been so useful. It has not unfolded the life-history of a single variety of cancer so that we can base our operations on the information. It has not even discovered whether spontaneous cancer of a particular part of the body in the rat or mouse runs a similar course to spontaneous cancer of the same part of the body in the human subject. These problems are not suited for experimental investigation: they are determined by observation.” The above authoritative statement may, I venture to think, fitly conclude my dissentient and somewhat discursive, survey of the beneficial results from experiments on animals, which were so strenuously claimed by the many distinguished experts and medical men who appeared before us. 3. The Appointment of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.—As reference was made to the work of this Commission when evidence was taken, I have already dealt with it under the heading ot Tuberculosis in man. Conclusions. Under this last heading (Paragraph 74), I may briefly submit that agree unreservedly with the statement that the “ weight of medical and scientific authority is against the opponents of vivisection.” I agree also that useful knowledge has been acquired by experi- ments on animals with regard to the vital functions, and in other directions. But while paying due respect to the weight of professional opinion, I feel bound to associate myself largely with the evidence of the comparatively few medical, and other, witnesses who questioned the utility of many of these experiments, and more especially in respect » to the etiology, and prophylaxis or cure, of diseases associated with a so-called spécific microbe or bactertum. I admit further that experiments on animals may still be of limited use in assisting in the diagnosis of disease, and in certain branches of test-work, as well as in ‘other directions. But I still contend, and have endeavoured to prove, that the useful results which have been claimed, or may still be claimed, have been enormously over- estimated. I can therefore subscribe to the carefully drawn up conclusions which end this most important section of the Report, but feel bound to qualify them with certain reserva- tions which are printed in italics. The conclusions of the Commission, together with my ~ reservations, are as follows, and I lay special emphasis on No. 1, because, in my opinion, it ‘dominates and largely discounts all the others :— | 1. That certain results, claimed from time to time to have been proved by experiments upon living animals and alleged to have been beneficial in preventing or curing disease, have, on further investigation and experience, been found to be fallacious or useless ; indeed the fallacies and failures are in my opinion far more conspicuous than the successful results. 2. That, notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge has been acquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of disease, and that some methods for the prevention, cure and treatment of certain diseases, other than bacterial, have re- sulted from experimental investigations upon living animals. 3. That, as far as we can judge, itis highly improbable that without experiments made on animals, mankind would by now have been in possession of such knowledge. 4. That, in so far as disease has been successfully prevented or its mortality re- ‘duced, suffering has been diminished in man and in lower animals. __5. That there is ground for believing that similar methods of investigation if pursued in the future will be attended with similar results ;—/ailures plentiful enough still, but suc- cessful results fewer and fewer, as the field of legitimate research must become gradually more and more restricted. Concluding Remarks. I have not presumed to deal with the moral or ethical side of the subject ; indeed, I think it is a matter for regret that the question of morality should ever be intro- duced into vivisection controversies or discussions, because it can only bear a per- sonal, or relative, significance. I can quite understand the position of those who maintain that it is morally wrong to experiment on animals, because, in their opinion, we have no right to exact this kind of/vicarious sacrifice ; but I can also understand the position of those who contend that it is morally right, for the reason, as they believe, that such experi- ments have contributed to the relief of a suffering, and the prevention or cure of » ™ Des.