FRIEND OF MAN

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 142, 20 June 1927, Page 3

FRIEND OF MAN

ANTI-VIVISECTION BILL IN THE COMMONS s (From "The Post's' Representative.) LONDON, 4th May. In. moving the second reading of the Protection of Dogs' Bill, Sir B. Gower said that it provided that it should be unlawful to perform any experiment of a nature calculated.to give pain or disease to any dog for any purpose whatsoever, either with or without anaesthetics, and no person or place should be' licensed for the purpose of performing any such experiments. This was not the first time that this Bill had* been before the House. On three occasions it had secured a second reading, and on two occasions without a division. Had it not been for an unfortunate accident it would have secured a third reading.and been on the Statute Book to-day. The Bill was not brought forward with any desire or intention to obstruct or hamper legitimate surgical or medical research. The general question of the vivisection of auimals did not arise, because the Bill applied to one animal only—namely, the dog. He did not think that he would have any difficulty in satisfying the House that the Bill would not impede legitimate scientific research or cause humanity to suffer. • Since the Bill was presented to the House, rather an acute controversy had arisen in the "Times," and two eminent, medical men, Sir Charles Ballance and Mr. Walter Spencer, had sent to that newspaper a manifesto in opposition to the Bill. In reply to that manifesto a letter had appeared from Dr Fielding Ould, whp, it would be admitted, was one of the most eminent members of the medical profession. Dr. Fielding Ould in the course of his letter said they could not find any justification for the continued use of cats and dogs in research. That letter was a definite challenge, not only to Sir Charles Ballanec and Mr. Spencer, but to the,medical profession at large. Dr Fielding Ould stated in definite terms that no^ proof whatever existed of the necessity for experiments being performed on dogs, and one would have imagined, that those who were opposing this Bill would immediately have accepted,the challenge which was laid down and have provided the proof which had been asked for". GREAT SUFFERING INVOLVED. Sir Charles Ballance and Mr. Spencer made no attempt at all effectively to rebut the statements made by Dr Fielding Ould. They gave as their chief reason for objecting to the Bill that it was the thin edge of the wedge, the object being to stop all research by vivisection in this country. He did not think that any hon. member who was a member of the medical profession would dispute that in many cases very great suffering was involved to the untortunate animal which was the subiect of experiment. It was, quite clear from the report of the Commission and from the evidence which was given by the Home Office expert that a great deal of suffering was involved. In 1898 Dr. George Watson, in his presidential address to the British Medical Association at Portsmouth, referring to vivisection, said: "I accuse my profession of misleading the public as to the cruelties and horrors which are perpetrated on animal life." Lieut.-Colonel Moore (Ayr Burghs, U.), m seconding the motion, said he was not an anti-vivisectionist. He fully believed that vivisection was necessary for the perfection and extension of human life, but ho -was not satisfied that dogs, as such, were necessary for the results of' those experiments, and that vivisection on dogs would naturally result in- the •saving or the prolongation of human life. There was a growing body of-opinion outside that House which resetted and looked upon with horror vivisection on dogs, and regarded it as a blot on their highlydeveloped, civilisation. It was a practice that was degrading to them, and to what they stood, for as Christians and as civilised people. . PETITION FROM MEDICAL MEN. Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle (U., St. Albans) presented a petition, signed by all the leading members of the medical profession concerned in medical education, including 1497 medical members of university staffs, medical schools and teaching hospitals in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, praying that the House would not support any Bill wh^ch had for- its object tho further restriction of experimental work upon dogs or other animals. The signatories believed that the withdrawal or curtailment of the powers at present granted under license would hinder medical research, to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of the community. The signatories further asked that- the House should endeavour to secure such alterations in the existing law as would permit, under proper provision, for the prevention of pain and efficient inspection and control, the use for purposes of research of some of the numerous stray and unowned dogs now taken up by the police. (Some dissent and ironical Lab.-Soc. cheers.) Sir W. Joynson-Hicks (Home Secretary), in reply to Colonel Day, said that two inspectors.were employed by his department under the Cruelty to Animals Acts; an inspector was:not always present at demonstrations before classes of students where experiments wero performed under anaesthetics upon animals.' Tho last occasion on which an inspector ordered an' animal to be killed to prevent i ' tfrom suffering pain was on 25th March, 1926. He had no reason to doubt that the work under the Acts was being properly carried out. . ,