EXPERIMENT 110. "Application of Bunsen's flame PRODUCED A SHARP RISE...."

EXPERIMENT 113. "Bunsen's flame applied to the posterior and anterior extremities PRODUCED A MARKED RISE IN PRESSURE.... BUNSEN'S FLAME OVER REGION OF THE HEART PRODUCED A GRADUAL RISE."

EXPERIMENT 131. "Bunsen's flame to the right hind-foot was followed by A RATHER MARKED RISE IN CENTRAL BLOOD-PRESSURE."

EXPERIMENT 132. "BUNSEN'S FLAME TO THE NOSE CAUSED A GENERAL RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE."

In the year 1900 the same vivisector published an account of certain experiments on the respiratory system, 102 in all. We have the usual a.s.surances of anaesthesia, which, of course, can only be regarded as the operator's opinion. Fire is an element of some of these experiments. We are told that "a large blow-flame burner used for gla.s.s-blowing supplied a flame that could be adjusted to a very great range of intensity." Of this statemnet one can have no doubt upon reading some of the experiments described. Upon "a healthy little poodle," weighing only ten pounds, with a blood-pressure of 120 millimetres, the following experiment was made:

"The mouth was held wide open, and THE BLOW-FLAME DIRECTED INTO THE PHARYNX AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. The immediate effect upon the blood- pressure was A TEMPORARY RISE. Again the flame was applied; THE BLOOD-PRESSURE ROSE TO 204 MILLIMETRES, CONTINUING AT THIS HIGH RATE FOR SOME TIME."

Probably this little creature was the pet of some child. From whose door, one day, did it wander, to be s.n.a.t.c.hed up by some thief, sold to a laboratory, and sent to a death like this?

In another experiment a Newfoundland dog "CONTINUOUSLY BREATHED THE FLAME FOR TWELVE MINUTES." In a similar experiment that followed, "the results were practically identical. In this case THE FLAME WAS SO INTENSE AS TO MELT THE ADIPOSE TISSUE AROUND THE TRACHEA." The animal was broiled alive.

During the first year of the twentieth century the same writer presented the public an account of an "Experimental and Clinical Research into Certain Problems," a work containing a considerable number of experiments of a nature similar to those before published.

We are again told that in all cases "the animals were anaesthetized, usually by ether, occasionally by chloroform," alone or combined with other substances, although, in a few cases, "CURARE and morphine were used"--neither of which is an anaesthetic. A curious statement seems to imply a confession that all these experiments were not absolutely painless, for the writer says:

"Every precaution was taken to inflict AS LITTLE PAIN OR DISTRESS AS POSSIBLE."

Is not this an admission that in some experiments there was pain? How senseless is such statement! When Ridley and Latimer were burnt alive at Oxford, the executioner might have protested with equal a.s.surance that "every precaution was taken to burn the condemned with as little pain and distress as possible."

Between the experiments recorded in this volume and those which have been reviewed, there is no very great difference. There is a rise of blood-pressure after any mutilation or stimulation calculated to cause pain, except in the few cases where a sufficiency of the anaesthetic appears to have been given; to these attention will be called. A new procedure seems to have been the use of the injection of a hot salt solution into the blood. Some of the results of experiments were as follows:

EXPERIMENT 12. "Burning right hind-foot caused a slight RISE IN BLOOD- PRESSURE.

"Ten minims (drops) of chloroform on inhaler produced a DECIDED FALL in blood-pressure."

EXPERIMENT 56. "Dog. Hind-foot burned, FOLLOWED BY A RISE IN BLOOD- PRESSURE.... Burning the nose caused A VERY MARKED RISE in blood-pressure. The animal, after the injection of cocaine, WAS NOT UNDER FULL ETHER ANAESTHESIA, CUNJUNCTIVAL REFLEX BEING PRESENT."

EXPERIMENT 27. "Dog. Ether anaesthesia. Hind-foot was burned, producing A SHARP RISE in the blood-pressure.

"Right paw again burned, and ARTERIAL PRESSURE ROSE.... Animal subjected to FURTHER BURNING, which was followed by ADDITIONAL SLIGHT RISE IN PRESSURE."

A considerable number of experiments involved the adding of hot salt solution to the blood.

EXPERIMENT 34. Dog, in good condition. Saline solution in jugular vein.... In this and in preceding experiments with the hot saline, the animal, THOUGH UNDER SURGICAL ANAESTHESIA, STRUGGLED.

That shows the worth of the "surgical anaesthesia." When Professor Starling was asked how he might know that the anaesthesia was pa.s.sing off, he told the Royal Commission that it was by noting the SLIGHT MOVEMNET of the the animal, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RISE OF BLOOD- PRESSURE.[1] Scalding water in the blood seems to have given both of these signs:

[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 4,054.

EXPERIMENT 11. At 3.35 saline at 64 degrees C. (this is 147 degrees F.). THE DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT. The blood-pressure ROSE MARKEDLY.

3.45. Saline in jugular vein. Slight fall, then a quite ABRUPT RISE in blood-pressure.... THE DOG AGAIN STRUGGLED VIGOROUSLY.

3.48. Saline at 60 degrees C. (140 degrees F.). Slight RISE in blood-pressure. DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT.

3.54. Saline at 60 degrees C. An immediate RISE in blood-pressure.

4.12. One-half drachm of chloroform on inhaler.

4.13. MARKED FALL in blood-pressure.

4.13. CHLOROFORM TAKEN AWAY. BLOOD-PRESSURE IMMEDIATELY AROSE to previous level.

EXPERIMENT 32. A few drops of chloroform were given instead of ether, the BLOOD-PRESSURE FALLING immediately.... After a few minutes, several drops of chloroform were again administered, a marked FALL (of blood-pressure) following.

One-half drachm of chloroform given, PRODUCING A GRADUAL FALL IN BLOOD-PRESSURE. On removing the chloroform, the blood-pressure recovered.

At 5.30, saline stopped. Eye reflex not gone. At 5.36 THE ANAESTHESIA REMOVED. SLIGHT RISE in blood-pressure. REFLEXES NOT ABOLISHED.

Does all this seem obscure to the reader? At all events, he can see that the effect of even a "few drops of chloroform" is a fall of the blood-pressure, and that when the "anaesthesia is removed" there comes the rise which is so constantly a.s.sociated with sensibility.

Some of the experiments related to the effect of cocaine in "blocking"

sensation. These effects have long been known; the necessity of all this burning of flesh is not apparent.

In another experiment, a large dog was reduced to "surgicla anaesthesia," and both sciatic nerves exposed. In one nerve cocaine was inject, in the other salt solution.

The cocaine paw was subjected to burning by a Bunsen flame, UNTIL THE PAW WAS CHARRED. There was no effect on the blood-pressure. But on applying the Bunsen flame to the other paw, "THERE WAS A DELIBERATE DRAWING UP OF THE LEG, AS IF TO REMOVE THE PAW FROM THE FLAME." The writer tells us elsewhere that "under general anaesthesia--no matter how deep--if the paw of an animal is subjected to the flame of a Bunsen's burner, after the lapse of a short time, the leg is drawn up ... in a deliberate but rather forceful manner, removing the foot from the flame." When cocain is injected into a nerve trunk, we are told that an effectual physiologic "block" is produced. The difference is manifest. Yet the vivisector would have us believe that in all cases of his "anaesthesia" the dog is unconscious. May it not be rather that there are phases of agony so great that the anaesthesia of the laboratory does not suppress them? Is this a matter of uncertainty?

Then why not permit the vivisected dog to have the benefit of the doubt?

Here is a most significant experiment:

EXPERIMENT 17. "... The animal was allowed to come out of the influence of the general anaesthesic sufficient (sic) to make a slight struggle.... THE FEET WERE BURNED just previous to the application of cocaine, and ... BLOOD-PRESSURE WAS INCREASED. More cocaine was then applied; THE ANIMAL BECAME TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, THE CORNEAL REFLEXES WERE ABOLISHED, and on applying a Bunsen flame to the paws, NO EFFECT WAS PRODUCED."

Here we have an instance of a dog allowed to come out of the influence of the anaesthetic and to struggle; the feet burned; and finally, such a degree of total anaesthetization as to prevent the usual phenomena.

But why are we told that "the animal became TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, and that the corneal reflexes were abolished"? Is it a confession that in other experiments such a state of deep insensibility was not invariably produced?

What is the necessity for all this burning? The smell of scorched and charred living flesh may have hung as heavily in the laboratory of the hospital as before the altars of Baal; it could hardly have been an attractive savour. Here are other instances:

EXPERIMENT 62. "Dog, in good condition; fox-terrier. As a control, THE RIGHT HIND-FOOT WAS BURNED BEFORE THE CONJUNCTIVAL REFLEX WAS ABOLISHED. There was RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE."

Here, then, was sensation; the eye responded to the touch.

EXPERIMENT 72. Dog; weight 12 pounds. (Spinal) cord exposed.

5.5. Burning foot was followed BY RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE.

5.10. BURNING FOOT. "A RISE IN BLOOD-PRESSURE FOLLOWED."

Cocaine was then injected, and burning of paws "produced no effect."

There was a difference in the phenomena produced.

In the year 1909 the same vivisector published stll another volume recording experiments upon haemorrhage and the transfusion of blood.

To many of these experiments we should take no exception on the ground of inutility or excessive production of pain. Others, however, are to be criticized, particularly when studied in connection with the claim put forth of complete absence of animal sensation. In his introduction the experimenter seems to a.s.sert in the most distinct and emphatic way the complete unconsciousness of each victim. He says:

"No experiment was performed in which the particular animal used was not reduced to complete insensibility by means of ether, or some other equally efficient anaesthetic. If the statement is made that the anaesthetic was stopped during an experiment, it does not mean that the animal could suffer pain, but that death was threatened from too much anaesthetic, more being given as soon as signs of revival were shown. In every experiment in which necessary mutilation was performed, the animal was killed before coming out of the anaesthetic; therefore absolutely no suffering was undergone. Very few recovery experiments were performed, no more than were necessary to prove a given fact."

What is the scientific value of this a.s.surance--that "absolutely no suffering was undergone"?

It can have no value, except as an opinion on the part of one extremely interested in the maintenance of a particular view. So far from being a series of painless experiments, we do not hesitate to suggest that IF RISE OF BLOOD-PRESSURE BE A SIGN OF PAIN, then, in all probability many of them involed torments as exquisite as it is possible to imagine.

Take, for example, the folloowing vivisections:

EXPERIMENT 10. The subject was a dog, said to be in a good condition. From time to time blood was abstracted from the body.

4.26. ON BURNING A PAW UNDER LIGHT ANAESTHESIA, THERE WAS A RISE OF PRESSURE OF 16 MILLIMETRES.

10.16. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE.

11.13. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of 13 millimetres.

1.42. On burning a paw, there was A RISE OF PRESSURE of 13 millimetres.