INFANTILE PARALYSIS

Otago Witness, Issue 3823, 21 June 1927, Page 5

INFANTILE PARALYSIS

RESEARCH WORK OF OTAGO MEDICAL SCHOOL. DISCUSSED BY S.P.C.A. COMMITTEE. A CLEAR-CUT STATEMENT. On the arrival of tho Sussex in Dunedin' a few weeks ago from the East, it was announced that the vessel had a shipment of monkeys on board for use at the Medical School in connection with research work. The belief that the animals would be sul> iected to vivisection brought forth some letters of protest in the local press, and the matter came before a meeting of the committee of the Otago Society for the Prevention of Cruelty -to Animals on Tuesday, when the chairman (Sir George Fenwick) made a clear-cut statement regarding the attitude of the society to vivisection..

The Chairman introduced the subject by stating that he had received a letter from Mr John Tapson. of Dunedin, on the question of vivisection. The writer (said the chairman) had stated that he had read parts of the correspondence in the Otago Daily Times on the matter with absolute disgust, and he had enclosed newspaper clippings of the letters with certain lines marked. He went on to state that he considered that under any circumstances vivisection was absolutely cruel in the extreme, and that to permit monkeys to be tortured alive by students with the excuse of research into infantile paralysis was savage. “These poor innocent creatures,” the letter went on, “cannot speak the agony they suffer, and no doubt their human looks and grimaces under torture would appear funny to these inhuman butchers—and that in a civilised country. .' .”

The Chairman said that he had replied to Mr Tapson, pointing out that Dr Hector and Dr Dereus had published an explanation in the Otago Daily Times as to the inoculation of the monkeys in connection with infantile paralysis research work, arid that the doctors haa stated that no students took part in the work. He had also informed Mr Tapson that he did not think the endeavour made by the local medical council ,to mitigate, and perhaps prevent, the pathetic course of in F antile paralysis ■among, their children should be deprecated, so long as the monkeys which were inoculated were not subjected to further treatment with the surgeon’s knife. They did not appear to be so treated. The Chairman continued that Mr Tapson had written again on May 24, that he quite ? agreed with him in regard to the ravages of infantile paralysis and that every endeavour should be made to mitigate them, and every idea of use should be cherished, and nothing left that could be done, without suffering. Still no man, medical or otherwise, if they had a hundred letters after their names, and with high degrees after their names, would ever make,, or try to make, him believe that pumping germs of this disease from a human being into a monkey, or any other animal, or any similar method of inoculation, would discover what it was pretended to try to discover, without causing pain to poor animals that could not protect f'-'m-selves. Do anything in research work. Mr lapson wrote, but when it came to cruelty however slight a degree, he would cry

„ The Chairman said that he had considered it would be advisable to let. the public know the attitude of the society on the question of vivisection, and that object in view he had made a personal investigation lhe question of vivisection, even in its applicability to the research work of the medical profession—work undertaken solely m the interests of the human race—was one on which there would always be a diversified opinion. The strength of public opinion on the subject should, in his judgment, remain, as he believed it unquestionably did at present, stronglv on the .-ide of the professional belief that the welfare of the race must be first considered. He was. well aware that the Anti Vivisection society in England was -well supported, and that it had been the means of arousing a strong public feeling against the practice, and of securing the parsing of restrictive legislation under which protection to a certain extent was afforded to the lower creation. He very heartily supported legisla lion of the kind as all lovers of animals — B3 .’ n, t°cd must everyone who abhorred the infliction of unnecessary pain on the dumb creation, ft was. desirable, therefore, that the public should know exactly where the society stood with resnect to the question, and espeoiallv in its relation to the research work that had for some I 1 PS 5 * , bee P carried on in their local Medical School. This work had involved the use of. monkeys and other animals m the experimental research work of the doctors who were engaged in this : m pqrtant. branch of medical and surr-ical science. On receipt of Mr Tapmn’s letter, he had asked the inspector to investigate and report on the methods adopted by the doctors who carried- out the experiments Mr Snowball had also been good enough to make the necessary inouiries. and to make their inquiries complete be had nersonallv interviewed one of the medical men. especially in relation to the treatment of the monkeys under their charge. The result of those inquiries confirmed the belief he had formerlv held that the treatment of the animals was of the most humane character. Thev were well housed, well fed, and under no circnmstanqes whatever was any operation -performed on them except under an ansesthetic—that was to say, thev were treated exactly as human beings were when operations "were necessary. Further, thev had the assurance that so carefully were the monkeys looked after when being operated on and afterwards that they were not infrequentlv to be found eating an orange or a banana half-a.n-hour after, the operation, with the additional reassuring circumstance that so little were the after-effects of their wounds felt, that they never interferred in the least with stitches or bandages. This °tatement, he trusted, would completelv dispose of any doubt that might have existed in the minds of the-public as to the treatment of .animals used for research work in the local; Medical School As to the importance of that work, there were few people in the community who would question it when it was known that it related to the causes

and effects of infantile paralysis, that dread affliction that had in many cases the effect of cruelly spoiling the lives of many of their children, and in all cases was more or less pathetic in its action. It was, perhaps, unnecessary that he should say anything further on the subject that day, beyond suggesting that they should pass a motion somewhat to the effect that the committee of the society, having investigated the methods of their medical men who were engaged in research -work that involved operative experiments on animals, was satisfied that anesthetics were invariably used when the animals were under operative treatment, and that they were otherwise humanely cared for. Mr W. F. Sligo said he thought their chairman had put the position of the society very well. Surely after reading it, Mr Forbes and others who had written to the press on tho question of ■ vivisection would be satisfied.

Mr W. D. Snowball: They are never satisfied.

Mr Sligo: Well, then we should not waste any more time over the matter. Mr Snowball: Exactly. Miss Porteous asked if they could see the monkeys. The Chairman said that there was no doubt, they could if they got the necessary permission.

Miss Porteous said that there was nothing to prevent anybody operating on animals without an anrnsthetic. She was, however, quite satisfied as regarded the treatment of the monkeys at the Medical School.

Tho Chairman said that his own belief was that no animals were operated on without an antesthetic.

Miss Porteous wanted to know about tho students. She had been told of a student who had an animal—a cat or a dog—and had tied it down on a table and operated on it without an anaesthetic. Did the chairman’s statement mean that they were in sympathy with vivisection? The Chairman: Certainly. Miss Porteous: Well, lam not. lam not in sympathy with vivisection unless under an aniesthetic. Her complaint was that she was referring to a particular case.

The Chairman said that was another matter entirely. They had had nothing hko Miss Porteous’s allegation before them. They had the assurance of the doctors at the Medical School that tho students never touched the animals. Miss Porteous reiterated she had heard of a case of vivisection without an anaesthetic.

Tho Chairman: This committee knows nothing about it.

Mr Sligo said he had never heard of such a thing as had been stated by Miss Porteous.

Miss Porteous: I mean private indi-

The Chairman: Excuse me. You were accusing students of operating without an anaesthetic.

Miss Porteous: A student, told- me. Mr Sligo: Well, you should have laid an information against him for cruelty to animals.

The' Chairman added that any person doing: what Miss Porteous had alleged could be prosecuted for cruelty. Miss Porteous asked the chairman if he remembered a previous case about cruelty to a collie dog. Th® Chairman said he did not, and added: A student had nothing to do with that. . • •

Miss Porteous said that the superintendent of police had told her that there was nothing in the Gazette to enable him to take action against the person who had acted cruelly to the collie dog, and theft the law would have to be revised supposing that an animal was operated on without an anaesthetic, if action were to be taken.

The Chairman said it seemed to him that all they were concerned about that day related to the treatment of the monkeys or other animals at the Medical School. He had the. assurance of the doctors that under no circumstances were animals operated on without an anesthetic. As regarded the allegation about students, who might, or might not, have broken the law, they could be brought to T? 0 -!,-- a cbar B e were laid against them. If Miss Porteous actually had knowledge of what she had stated, it was her duty to set the law in motion.

Mr Snowball then moved on the lines suggested by the chairman—that the committee was perfectly satisfied with the statements made by Drs Hector and Hercue as regarded the work they were carrying out. He added that he did not think the motion would stop any letter writing.

M^ r T. Elliott seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The Chariman (looking inquiringly at Miss Porteous) : Unanimously? Miss Porteous replied that she had no fault to find with the motion so far as it affected the Medical School.