Abstract of the Report on vivisection / adopted by the American Humane Association, September 26, 1895.

  • American Humane Association.
Date:
[1895]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Abstract of the Report on vivisection / adopted by the American Humane Association, September 26, 1895. 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.

    7/24 (page 3)
    lowing tables we have indicated a number of opinions from clergymen, educators, presidents of universities and colleges, and those engaged in college work, etc : — Clergy- men, Educa- tors. Authors. Editors. etc. Per Cent. For Tivisection -n-ithout restriction . . . For vivisection when restricted by utility For vivisection when without pain . . . For the total prohibition of -slvisectiou . Obscure or evasive 0 189 116 1+4 6 34 84 49 52 16 4 63 26 30 2 4.7 41.3 23.5 27.7 2.9 Total 455 935 19- 100.0 _. It seems certain that the majority of those who represent enlightened public opinion in this country are not favorable to Vivisection unlimited and unrestrained. * * * One fact stands clearly out, that a majority of the class to whom we have appealed agree that vjherever Vivisection ap2:)roaches cruelty and uselessness^ it should he proMhited. and condemned by lav:. We cannot refrain from quoting here the opinion of one of the most distinguished physicians in this country, — Dr. Theophilus Parvin, LL. D., late president of the American Academy of Medicine, and professor in Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, as an illustration of what we believe to be the position of the majority of the medical profession in this country who have reached middle age : — It is wise for physicians interested in Vivisection to recognize tliat there is on the part of prominent women and men in the laity a strong sentiment of antagonism to experiment on animals; and therefore they sliould avoid all such work not promising certain benefit to man, and anaesthetics ought always to be employed. I sometimes fear that the anaesthesia is frequently nominal rather than real, else why so many and ingenious contrivances for confining the animal during operations.— con- trivances that are not made use of in surgical operations upon human beings, their immobility being secm-ed by profound anaesthesia. Should the law restrict the performance of Vivisection? I think it ought, chiefly as an expression of public sentiment, and for moral eftect. ... I cannot think that Vivisections done for teaching purposes, simply showing what has been proven time and again upon hundreds and thousands of victims, are justifiable unless anaesthesia is employed, to not merely mitigate, but to completely abolish suffering of the animals. Other- wise the influence of such experiments is injin-ious both to the operator and to the tvitnesses of the operation.^' [Italics are ours.]