VIVISECTION IN FRANCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 583, 30 October 1863, Page 5

VIVISECTION IN FRANCE.

(From The Times.) Any of our readers who perused our Paris correspondence on Monday last must have been astounded at its revelations. If they hal simply been informed that in a country which claims to be the most civilised 'of Europe it was acommoa custom for the most dis-' tinguished men of science to cut op;n live dogs aril' horse 3 for.the sole gratification of seeing the operations Which go on withiu them, they would probably have treated the story as a mere canard, as it deserves to be. They would not believe that a practice for which any boy at a public school would be, and would deserve to be, publicly expelled, could bs a part of the regular and ordinary instruction of French student 3in medicine aud veterinary surgery. Yet thtre can bs no doubt that such is the."fact. Our correspondent's remarks are merely a resume of some ar icles in a leading Paris journal, and the facts he ■ detailed are a weakened repitition of practices vouched for by some of tl:e leading medical men and veterinary surgeous of France. It is simple truth th.it it is still the practice in that country, to a considerable extent, to ' lay hold of horses, cats, and even dogs, to tie ihem on public operating tables,* and. there, in the presence of young students, to perform on them operations of excruciating agony,, for the sole puipose of "demonstrating," or, in piain English, showing certain facts of anatomy which are perfectly well known by'other means. The practice is called " ■vivisection." ** It is a happy name, for few persons know or realise what it meauF. It is a great thing to get a iong name-especially a L'.itin or Greek name—for practices which would be scouted m plain language. Out; puzzled intellects may be led to imagine, in the language of these experimentalists, that "vivisection is demanded in the interests'of physiology." But we aye quite sure that if Englishmen or Frenchmen were told in plain words that ib was thought necessary and was customary for their future doctors and veterinary surgeons to witness and to practise the cutting open of live dogs aud horses, and the infliction on tiiern of the most cruel and intolerable sufferings,1 they would indignantly repudiate the necessity, and refuse t;> purchase a iitiie extra immunity by such, selfish and unmanly practices. j* JWe are confident, we repeat, in asserting, in the honour of this country aud of France, taat men and women would not be found generally willing to buy relief from some suffering—for they cannot at any price buy relief from death—at the price of inflicting intolerable agonies upon thousands of sensitive atiimals whom they prize and cherish from feelings of pride and almost of affection. ,But it is not- necessary even to take this natural .and .unforced position. Personal honour would shrink from accepting a benefit on conditions so cruel.toother crauures, but a general interest in the diminution of human suifeing might induce many to overlook the means employed. But it appears hardly maintained even by the defenders of these tortures that any discoveries of importance have been made by such practices, and some of the highest authorities combine to declare not only that no good results can be obtained by vivisection, but even that the isractice is positively misleading. It does, indeed, seem strange to imagine that examination of the parts of an animal suffering excruciating torture can afford any clue to the operations of the nature of a healthy and undisturbed human subject. But we are not left to conjecture; the highest French authorities, who, if any one is, are interested in the maintenance of the , practice, protest against it. and declare that no results have been, or are likely to be gained, by it at all commensurate with the misery it causes. No less an authority than the Director of the Imperial School of Alfort says, in a published document, "Is there one of the experiments I have described which has produced for humanity any advantage that can compensate for the suffering thsy have occasioned ?' I have no hesitation in replying in the negative." The French surgeons and students are in the daily practice of cruelties which are distinctly stated by some of their leading surgeons to be productive of no good result whatever to science or surgery. The infliction of suffering may be justifiable for the sake of undoubted and evident good. To maintain the justice and honour of nations we do not hesitate sometimes to embark in a war which will cause innumerable miseries to our own race; and men have submitted to infinite pain for the sake of some noble or necessary purpose. But such an excuse is so far from being available for these French tortures that some lea-ring surgeons declare the practice useless, and others denounce them as positively mischievous. But we can reduce the subject even to a bai'er and more obvious issue than this] It might be rash to assert on independent authority that no good results could be obtained from .«uch practices. We happen to have the distinct assertions of surgeons and physicians of eminence to that effect; but it is, we will confess, imnossible to say beforehand that an acute and practised eye might not discover some important fact of anatomy or physiology by similar operations. But this is. not-the point. The atrocity of the French practice consists in this, that live animals are constantly cut open, not to assist I,heTesearcnes of some extraordinary discoverer, but for no other purpose than to gratify the curiosity or satisfy the skill ot young and inexperienced students. It lias been allowed by humane and thoughtful men that inexperienced surgeons are fometimes justified, for the gain of undoubted benefits to mankind, in making pxpeiments of great cruelty on the inferior animals. If a man can be reasonably certain, as in some cases great surgeons or physicians perhaps may be, that unquestionable and permanent beuefits to mankind may be obtained by definite operations, it is hard to dunj that he may be justified in performing them. It has been, for example, a common and perhaps, a necessary practice to study the effects of poisons upon inferior animals. It is obvious, however, that such experiments ought only to be practised by experienced persons for definite purposes, and ought to be regulated so as to cause the least possible pain to the subjects. But the French, vivisection which we denounce cannot lay claim to the shadow of such an It is used, not to make discoveries which might alleviate the miseries of human nature, but, simply to exhibit discoveries already known. It is, practised, not by arreat surgeons in their private studies, but publicly before yoiingstudents iv ordinary lecture rooms. Matters are even ■worse than this. It is not merely publicly practised before young students for the sole purpose of demonstrating what is otherwise known, but these young and unskilful bands are positively encouraged to practise it themselves. It is exercised too, with all the refinements of cruelty. Teterinary students are allowed to perform a series of operations on a living horse*so graduated in. the intensity of their torture that no less than sixty or more can be performed on the same poor creature.; and the wretched animal with the heartlessness which such proceedings natul rally, engjpder, is often left to linger in its agonies after all this mutilation till the knacker comes in his oroinary rounds to put an end to its miseries. This atrocious practice has even gone so far that it vas quoted as a great relief when it was arranged that the operation of-removing the hoof "which causes frightful suffering." should be performed on the./living: animal only once by each student—namely, on the day of examination. That is the_ extent of the tender mercies of French vivisectors. It is obvious that such an operation could be of no use whatever, , A horse, one of whose hoofs was removed, could be of no possible use, and should certainly be shot before any such operation was performed. It is the mere extravacanre ff cruelty. After this it is no wonder if we read that " tens of millions" of innocent animals have been put to death in exaruciating agonies in France, sometimes to gratify the vanity of professors, and quite aa often to satiate the loose cruelty of students. We have already protested against such practices in the name of honor and humanity, and we now renew the protest. It is said that a commission is now qitting in France to investigate the subiect. \Ve do not really see that ifc stands in need of the labors of any commission. It would be difficult to show that the French surgeons have any advantage by means of these cruelties over their English brothers. But if vivisection must be allowed to French theorists, it ought at least to be restricted to the private operations of men of acknowledged standing and skill, It is monstrous that the torture of inofien-ive living animals should be a public exhibition and a daily practice among the youngest and most lieeiless students of Paris. It could only be justified in any case by the most imperious necessity, and it is a disgrace to Franco, and to modern civilization that it should be daily practised with impunity for the most trivial purposes. We are confident there could be no difficulty in putting it down. We cannot think so badly of Frenchmen as to suppr.se that they would not gladly hail any measures which could be taken to put clown a cruelty whi-h dishonours their name. If the Emperov does not enact and enforce some strong law? against the practice, the disgrace will rest upon M$ Government.