Moral Aspect of Vivisection
Defined literally the word vivisection signifies the dissection of
living creatures; ordinarily it means any scientific experiment on
animals involving the use of the scalpel; incorrectly it is used
for any experimental observations of animals under abnormal
conditions. The literal dissection of living animals is practised
nowhere, as it is much more convenient to study the structure of
man's body in the cadaver. According to Aulus Cornelius Celsus,
who lived in the reign of Tiberius, and Tertullian (about 160-240)
living criminals were dismembered at Alexandria in the reigns of
Ptolemy II (285-247 B.C.) and Ptolemy III (247-221 B.C.). The same
act was maliciously attributed to Jacobus Berengarius, Andreas
Vesalius, and Gabriel Fallopius, celebrated anatomists of the
sixteenth century. The history of scientific observation of and
experimentation upon animals, both bloodless and bloody, began at
the moment when it was perceived that the processes of nature
could be discovered only by the exact observation of nature and
not by philosophical methods. For physiological and pathological
research experimentation with animals is an indispensable aid,
while for medical science it is of much value. It gives a view of
the working processes of the living organism, permits us to
produce diseases artificially, and to investigate the organic
changes produced by these diseases in each stage of their course.
Before William Harvey (1578-1657) could announce his discovery of
the circulation of the blood he was obliged, as he confesses, to
make for years innumerable vivisections of animals of all kinds,
for he could investigate the mechanism of the circulation only in
the living animal. He was thus able to reach the conclusion that
the arteries which are empty in the corpse are filled with blood
during life and not with air, as was believed until then. The
Jesuit Jaspar Schott (1608-66), professor of mathematics and
physics at W�rzburg, put animals into an enclosure where the air
was rarefied and described the phenomena of death by suffocation
on the basis of his experiments. He injected solutions of drugs
into the veins of dogs, and proved that medicines administered in
this manner produce effects more quickly than when taken into the
stomach. Christopher Wren made similar experiments at Oxford in
1656. Thomas Willis (1622-75) propounded, after numerous
experiments, the theory of the localization of the different
faculties in the several parts of the brain, and all our knowledge
as to the functions of the brain has been acquired almost entirely
in the same way. Albrecht von Haller (1708-77), the founder of
modern physiology, repeatedly emphasizes in his works the
importance of experiments on animals. Observation and reflection
led Alexander Walker to the conclusion that the nerves arising
from the anterior spinal ganglion serve to convey sensation, and
those from the posterior convey motor impulses. Charles Bell
(1774-1842) proved the opposite to be the fact by simply cutting
through the anterior roots. The experiments made on animals by
Claude Bernard (1813-78) yielded information concerning the use of
the pancreas in the digestion of fats, concerning the morbid
process of forming glucose or sugar in the liver, the origin of
diabetes, etc. Our knowledge concerning assimilation and
digestion, the appearance of emboli or obstructions in blood-
vessels, the effects of poisons, and of modern drugs is derived
from similar sources. The treatment of hydrophobia and the whole
of serum therapeutics rest on almost endless and laborious
experiments on animals. It was proved by feeding animals with
trichiniferous meat that parts of the body are first and
preferably attacked by trichinae. The experiments led to the
establishment of careful inspection of meat by which thousands of
people have been preserved from the danger of trichinosis. Before
the attempt could be made to excise a degenerated thyroid gland
the larynx, or a kidney in human beings, the operation had to be
made on innumerable mammals and the processes of the cure
observed. How can a surgeon make a practical test of a
theoretically established new method of sewing up a wound if not
on animals? There is no branch of medical science that cannot be
essentially benefited by experiments on animals. In the last
instance the results of the experiments do good to humanity.
Consequently it appears inadmissible to declare vivisection a
means morally forbidden and to characterize experiments on animals
as the torture of animals.
About 1870 the societies for the protection of animals, especially
those in England, began a violent agitation against vivisection,
which led in 1876 to a bill entitled "Cruelty to Animals Act." In
this way vivisection was essentially restricted. The agitation
spread later to Germany and Austria and in 1885 led in both
countries to legislation which permitted vivisection under
conditions that did not prevent experiments for research. The
opponents of vivisection claim that experiments on animals have no
direct value for medical science, that it is an aimless torture,
brutalizing the mind, and that distinguished scholars have
denounced it. Compassion for the defenseless animal plays a large
part in the opposition. It is just at this point, however, that an
incongruity becomes evident between the feeling for the human
being and for the animal, as the instances cited above show that
experiments on animals are undertaken for the benefit of suffering
humanity. Rudolf von Ihering remarks very appositely: "The
sympathy with the animal that is shown in each attack is in
reality disregard of man, a confusion of moral feeling that
sacrifices the human being in order to protect the animal" ("Zweck
im Recht", II, 141). Windthorst, the leader of the Centre party,
said in the German Reichstag on 23 January, 1882: "There is
absolutely no doubt that we should not try to prevent what is
really necessary for science. I am certainly of the opinion that
an animal can in no way be placed on an equality with man; it is
created to serve him, and when necessary it must serve him in this
manner." It is unjust to accuse vivisectors of cruelty, for in
operations causing blood every investigator, to avoid being
disturbed while at his work, uses narcotics if possible. It has
also been asserted that the customary curare, which is an arrow-
poison, paralyzes only the motor nerves and not those of
sensation. Besides curare, however, other poisons are used, as
ether, chloroform, and morphine. Far more painful and morally
impeachable are those operations on animals which spring from a
perverted taste or fashion, as the castration of mammals and
birds, the scaling of living fishes, the cooking of live
crustacea, and the clipping of the tails and ears of pet dogs.
There may be a few physicians among the opponents of vivisection,
yet these are always men who have no interest in scientific
investigation and who are often not able to comprehend an
investigator's method of thinking. Even were there among the
opponents of vivisection actual scientific investigators, the
judgment of so small a number should not be taken into
consideration in view of the numberless declarations made by all
the medical faculties of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, as
well as by large numbers of medical societies throughout the
civilized world, that experiments on animals are absolutely
essential for investigation, and cannot be replaced by any other
method. The celebrated anatomist of Vienna, Josef Hyrtl, was
frequently called an opponent of vivisection. This error arose
from quoting as proof sentences torn from their context. Hyrtl was
only an enemy of excesses, and made many experiments on animals
himself. He wrote: "Every thoughtful physician will acknowledge
that the science of medicine owes great and important discoveries
to vivisection. But for it, what would we know of the lacteals, of
the functions of the nervous system, of fecundation and
embryological development?" The objection that experimentation on
animals is inadmissible as a means of instruction, because the
pupil ought to believe the teacher, is just as false as if it were
asserted that physics could be taught without experiments. It is
certain, however, that limitations are possible for the lecture
room. A legislative body exceeds its authority when it wishes to
prescribe to the investigator the methods and means to be used in
investigation. But it may have the right to prescribe certain
conditions. Thus, in the nineteenth century, Austria adopted the
following rational regulations: Experiments on living animals can
be made only in government institutions, only by the heads of the
institutions or instructors, or under their supervision by other
persons. They were also permitted in exceptional cases for
purposes of instruction. When possible, the animals were to be
thoroughly anaesthetized. Higher animals were to be used only when
it is absolutely necessary. In England an Act relating to
vivisection was passed in 1876. It placed various restrictions
upon the practice of experiments on animals. A license was
required, besides one or more certificates setting forth the
conditions under which the experiment was to be made. The Home-
Secretary was empowered by the Act to issue such additional
regulations as he saw fit. (See also CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.)
LEOPOLD SENFELDEB
Transcribed by Tomas Hancil and Joseph P. Thomas
http://www.knight.org/advent
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
