scorn, confident that false sentiment, assumptions, and illogical reasoning cannot, in the long run, retard the progress of light. It does not appear either that restrictive legislation has lessened the sum total of cruelty, or that physiologists have altered their methods under its compulsion. It will always be ineffective, because there will continue to be communities not overpowered with "genuine British narrowness," where biologists can labor unimpeded in the name of truth, science, and humanity. The extent to which legislators should interfere with vivisection is very limited, unless they choose to incur the responsibility Darwin speaks of that "he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind." Physiologists themselves assent to the principles laid down by Sir Thomas Watson: that experiments must not be performed at random to see what will happen; that they must have some object in view, a question to settle or a doubt to remove, and with a reasonable hope of resulting benefit; that operators have the skill, judgment, and intelligence, and previous knowledge to make experiments successful and instructive; that they guard against everything that would enhance pain, and do nothing out of mere curiosity. Looking at the whole question from the distance of a few years, and in the light of the results that have been attained since then, it is clear that the outcry against vivisection has been the result of a popular delusion that cruelty and vivisection were synonymous, that the experiments were useless and unnecessary, and that the same knowledge might have been gained in some other way. But the present exposition of facts shows that vivisection is not of necessity cruel, and should not be interfered with, since: 1. It has tended to correct and extend our knowledge of the functions of the human body. 2. It has aided in obtaining exact knowledge of the processes of disease. 3. It has tested the remedies by which diseases are to be controlled. 4. By it the means have been ascertained of checking contagion and preventing epidemics both in man and beast. 5. Poison can be detected. 6. All this information could have been obtained in no other way. 7. There is no moral wrong involved in the operations either to animals, to operators, or to spectators. While physiologists and physicians know it as a fact that the road to a more perfect medical science lies through experiment, it may be painful experiment, they can afford to resist the clamor of those whom they would serve, believing, by the added experience of two centuries, with Harvey of immortal name, who, in speaking of this same subject, declared that skill and knowledge could be arrived at "non ex libris sed ex dissectionibus." During the past seventeen years very little has been heard of the controversy in the United States, and interest in it has largely passed away. No new legislation has been created upon the subject in any country. In all countries, save England, the practice of vivisection is without legal restriction. In Germany, on March 27, 1906, two petitions were presented to the Reichstag, praying that the matter be dealt with; but Professor Von Bergmann having explained that vivisection was based on a purely humanitarian purpose, "the House passed on the Order of the day." All sensible persons are now agreed that medicine as we have it to-day, and as we will have it in the future, is based upon experiments on animals, and that the practice is in no way bound up with cruelty. Those few persons who allege to the contrary have deceived themselves and are striving to mislead others. Their mistatements lie on every page of their writings. They have been convicted before the Courts and they have publicly withdrawn their allegations. These opponents are few in number and most of them are well-meaning, but they proceed upon the assumption that experimenters are cruel. Indeed, the late Miss Cobbe brought forward the awful charge that they were instigated by lust; and Professor Haliburton, speaking in London on May 16, 1907, was interrupted by the cry, "Lord Lister is a brute." I admit that they are sincere in their desire to lessen cruelty. The medical profession is equally sincere. Nearly forty years ago a committee of the British Medical Association reported that, in their opinion, anæsthetics should be used wherever possible; that no painful experiments should be performed for illustrating laws of facts already demonstrated; that all painful experiments should be performed by skilled persons with sufficient instruments and assistants, and in laboratories under proper regulations; and that, in veterinary work, operations should not be performed for the purpose of acquiring manual dexterity. In closing his evidence before the Royal Commission now sitting in London, the representative of the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians said, on the part of the whole medical profession, that "we have no less regard and sympathy for suffering animals than others, nor any less urgent desire to spare them so far as is compatible with the larger claims of humanity." Mr. W. P. Byrne, of the Home Office, which has to do with the enforcement of the Act of 1876, expressed the belief that the chief protection which animals had was the desire of experimenters to exercise all possible humanity, a feeling which he was sure was in the mind. of every experimenter. The public opinion of the other men working in the laboratory, another witness said, was adequate safeguard. The violence of these agitators has wrought evil to all humanitarian effort. They take their stand upon what they call "moral ground" and endeavor to reinforce their position by publications which they are forced to withdraw, untruths which they are obliged to correct, and slanders for which they are induced to apologize. Thus all ethical questions are brought into disrepute. Many of these persons are consistent and will not employ animals for food; but the sum of their contribution to human knowledge is that a vegetarian diet does not conduce to truthfulness or sweetness of temper. Such self-abnegation is worthy of all respect if it proceeds from a spirit of humaneness and not from recalcitration. This violent conduct is peculiar to England, where a large section of the public is always sacrificing itself; the males going to gaol rather than pay taxes, and the females because they want to vote. Such extremists find it difficult to be moderate in speech. They are easily led away from the truth, and they do not seem to see the distinction between what is true and what is not true. This makes us sorry, for they are in other respects good people. It will be useful to set down a few examples of their unwisdom, so that humane persons who retain their sanity may be induced to remonstrate with them. There is a peculiarly flagrant case in the London Daily Mirror, November 6, 1906, in which it is stated that deeds which are alleged by a nameless writer to have been done in France seventy years ago are done in England to-day. In the London Tribune, November 8, 1906, a story of horrible cruelty to a cat was published as part of the evidence given before the Commission now sitting. The following day the paper acknowledged that it "had been victimized" and apologized "very frankly." Yet the fabrication was repeated in The Christian, April 4, 1907, although it was characterized formally before the Commission as "absolutely false," Q. 3673. Three newspapers in London habitually publish untruths about the Commission. They say it is conducting its enquiry behind closed doors, and that the revelations are "too terrible to mention." (To be continued.) Protective Association THE ORGANIZED AT WINNIPEG, 1901 Under the Auspices of the Canadian Medical Association HE objects of this Association are to unite the profession of the Dominion for mutual help and protection against unjust, improper or harassing cases of malpractice brought against a member who is not guilty of wrong-doing, and who frequently suffers owing to want of assistance at the right time; and rather than submit to exposure in the courts, and thus gain unenviable notoriety, he is forced to endure black mailing. The Association affords a ready channel where even those who feel that they are perfectly safe (which no one is) can for a small fee enroll themselves and so assist a professional brother in distress. Experience has abundantly shown how useful the Association has been since its organization. The Association has not lost a single case that it has agreed to defend. The annual fee is only $3.00 at present, payable in January of each year. The Association expects and hopes for the united support of the profession. We have a bright and useful future if the profession will unite and join our ranks. EXECUTIVE. President-R. W. POWELL, M.D., Ottawa. SOLICITOR, F. H. CHRYSLER, K.C., Ottawa. Send fees to the Secretary-Treasurer by Express Order, Money Order, Postal Note or Registered letter. If cheques are sent please add commission. PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVES. ONTARIO-E. E. King, Toronto; I. Olmsted, Hamilton; D. H. Arnott, London: J. C. Connell, Kingston; J. D. Courtenay, Ottawa. QUEBEC-H. S. Birkett, Montreal: E. P. Lachapelle, Montreal; J. E. Dube, Montreal: H. R. Ross, Quebec; Russell Thomas, Lennoxville. NEW BRUNSWICK-T. D. Walker, St. John; A. B. Atherton, Fredericton; Murray MacLaren, St. John. NOVA SCOTIA-John Stewart, Halifax; J. W. T. Patton, Truro; H. Kendall, Sydney. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-S. R. Jenkins, Charlottetown. MANITOBA-Harvey Smith, Winnipeg; J. A. MacArthur, Winnipeg; J. Hardy, Morden. NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES-J. D. Lafferty, Calgary; M. Seymour, Regina. BRITISH COLUMBIA-S. J. Tunstall, Vancouver; O. M. Jones, Victoria; Dr. King. Cranbrooke. Published on the 15th of each month. Address all Communications and make all Cheques, Post Offic Orders and Postal Notes payable to the Publisher, GEORGE ELLIOTT, 203 Beverley St., Toronto, Canada VOL. XXX. TORONTO, FEBRUARY, 1908. No. 2. COMMENT FROM MONTH TO MONTH. Progress in Medical Science in 1907.-The tendency to immediate operation in all cases of appendicitis has been on the wane. Surgeons have demonstrated that the operation in the quescent interval is practically void of any danger. Immediate operation is only called for in acute fulminating cases and abscesses; this class of case is in the minority. Unusual articles have been reported found in the appendix during the last year, in one instance a clove, well preserved; eleven small stones in one, which on chemical analysis were found to consist of cholesterin and bile pigment; in another case four small faceted stones chiefly of calcium phosphate. The Association of Appendicitis to Typhoid Fever, we drew attention to many years ago in these pages, citing an instance where a young lady had been sent into one of our Toronto hospitals, with all the symptoms of acute appendicitis. The surgeon refused to operate, stating the case was not one of appendicitis. A consulting physician stated as positively it was not enteric fever. A week or ten days later there was no doubt of it being typhoid. During the past year attention has been again called to the association of these two diseases, and it has been stated the congestion of the ileo-cæcal portion of the bowel occurring in typhoid fever predisposed to inflammation in the appendix. Cases have been quoted where the two diseases co-existed. No doubt true typhoid inflammation may be present in the appendix itself. |