An Ethical Problem | Page 9

a quotation "attributed to the editor of the Lancet,
which, AFTER SPECIAL INQUIRY, I HAVE REASON FOR
DOUBTING." Concerning a reference to some of Dr. Sydney Ringer's
experiments upon patients in a London hospital, he is even more
confident that they could never have occurred, and indignantly rejoins,
"I unhesitatingly declare SUCH ABOMINABLE ACCUSATIONS TO
BE FALSE."
[1] See p. 73 for this Lancet editorial.
Now, all this indignant scepticism was rather creditable to the writer's
heart. That an English medical journal like the Lancet should denounce
vivisection cruelties, or that a reputable London physician should
experiment on his patients with various poisons, seemed to Dr. Myers
beyond the bounds of belief. But it is always a serious thing positively
to deny any historical reference simply because of personal ignorance
of its truth. It was quite easy to refer the sceptic not only to the editorial
which he thought he "HAD REASON FOR DOUBTING," but also to
the experiments on human beings concerning which his indignation
rose so high. To be ignorant of Dr. Ringer's experiments on his patients

is to be ignorant of the history of modern medicine. The Medical Times
(London) in its issue of November 10, 1883, thus editorially
commented upon certain of these experiments:
"...In publishing, and, indeed, in instituting their reckless experiments
on the effect of nitrite of sodium on the human subject, Professor
Ringer and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false move.... It is
impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet without distress. Of
the EIGHTEEN adults to whom Drs Ringer and Murrill administered
the drug in 10-grain doses, all but one averred that they would expect to
drop down dead if they ever took another dose.... Whatever credit may
be given to Drs. Ringer and Murrill for scientific enthusiasm, it is
impossible to acquit them of grave indiscretion. There will be a howl
throughout the country IF IT COMES OUT THAT THE OFFICERS
OF A PUBLIC CHARITY ARE IN THE HABIT OF TRYING SUCH
USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS ON THE PATIENTS
COMMITTED TO THEIR CARE."[1]
[1] In all quotations, here and elsewhere throughout this volume, the
italics have been supplied.
What but ignorance of the history of medicine during the last fifty years
could lead any one to deny the occurrence of experiments, the proofs of
which rest on statements in medical journals, and in the published
works of the experimenters themselves?
One of the most singular statements concerning vivisection that ever
appeared in print was given out not many years ago by one of the
professors of physiology in Harvard Medical School.[2] The accuracy
of this manifesto--which purported to be "a plain statement of the
whole truth"--received the endorsement of five of the leading teachers
of science in the same institution, men whose scientific reputation
would naturally give great weight to their affirmations regarding any
question of fact. So impressed was the editor of the Boston Transcript
with the apparent weight of this testimony, that he declared in its
columns that "the character and standing of the men whose names are
given as responsible for this explanation to the Boston public, FORBID
ANY QUESTIONING OF ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS." What is

the value of authority in matters of science, if assertions so fortified by
illustrious names are to be received with doubt?
[2] See "The Vivisection Question," pp. 114-133 and 253.
The inaccuracy which characterized this "statement of the whole truth"
was demonstrated at the time it appeared; but to one paragraph
attention may be recalled. The manifesto touches the question of past
cruelties in animal experimentation, not merely without the slightest
criticism or condemnation, but, on the contrary, with what would seem
to be a definite denial that anything reprehensible had ever occurred. It
contemptuously referred to evidence of abuses, as "these reiterated
charges of cruelty, THESE LONG LISTS OF ATROCITIES THAT
NEVER EXISTED." What other meaning could the average reader
obtain than the suggestion that the cruelties of Spallanzani, of
Magendie, of Mantegazza, of Brown-Se'quard, of Brachet, and a host
of others, existed only in the imagination, AND HAD NO BASIS OF
FACT? For this astounding suggestion, what explanation is possible?
That there was a deliberate purpose to mislead the public by an
affirmation that cruel and unjustifiable experiments were a myth, the
creation of imagination, is an hypothesis we must reject. But there must
have been a stupendous ignorance concerning the past history of animal
experimentation. Simply because of their utter lack of knowledge
regarding history, distinguished scientists became responsible for
suggesting to the public that the story of the past cruelty of vivisection
was a myth, and unworthy of belief.
While illustrations of this singular ignorance of the past might be
almost indefinitely multiplied, another example must for the present
suffice. It is afforded by the evidence