Page 633 |
Previous | 504 of 717 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
Loading content ...
THE CHARLOTTE MEDICAL JOURNAL. <~ 633 Vivisection. George M. Gould, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., (American Medical Association, May 6). This paper opened by quoting from two physicians, not vivisectors, who were very pronounced in their advocacy of vivisection, which was to be used as a thesis against which was placed the antithesis of the fact of large and powerful societies devoted to the total abolition of vivisection. There is then the thesis of justification and practice of unlimited vivisection on the part of most scientific men and the antithesis of zealous and organized opposition to any and all vivisection which'must be kept clearly in mind. It is plain there must be extremism somewhere, and, as is well known, partisanship is not conducive either to learning or absolute truth, or to a convenient modus vivendi. There is a third party omitted in the enumeration composed both of physicians and laymen, who do not iavor the extremists on either side, the author confesses to a feeling akin to pitying disgust for both parties. And there seems to be a sorry tendency among good people to champion a cause with a meaningless name. To get at the truth and to avert error a calm, dispassionate discussion of the case is necessary. 1. What is the truth and strength of the antivivisection party? For if we wish to get at the truth in the matter, we must learn on all sides, no controversialist has all the truth or is wholly in error. It can scarcely be doubted that the first step of human progress from savagery was when man called to his service the wild beasts around him, directly by their help was one tribe able to conquer another. And through their aid and the study of them man progressed and learned that "Each is his brother's keeper, whether the 'brother' be the blade of grass, the bacillus, the cow, the savage, or the lawmaker." Civilizatian is just beginning to grow conscious of this, and that the weal or woe of vegetable life reflects upon the condition of prosperity or happiness of man. This truth is'already plain : "Conmensalism, cosmic commensalism, we may denominate the scientific aspect of the truth of what we have called the unity and interdependence of all the world's life." The antivivisectionists have first recognized this truth; they have recognized the fact that animals, all the world of living beings have rights per se. Utter and reckless use of any living thing for human selfishness, with complete indifference to the nature and rights of the living thing is as unscientific as impolitic. To have recognized even emotionally the fact of Life's commensalism is the ground and strength of the antivivisectionist cause, and upon this foundation they may safely build. 2. The weakness and errors of the antivivisectionists are many and patent, and may all be summed up in the one criticism that these good people have not intellectualized their emotions. They attack vivis-ection, while they let go unrebuked many other sources of cruelty to animals that inflict far greater suffering. Then they make the mistake of calling death vivisection. An animal that is killed for dissection purposes is not vivisected, and by the "total prohibition of vivisection" they mean and represent among other things the abolition of death in the laboratory. If this were the case then the slaughter house and the fish-boat must be taken into consideration and the controversy widens out into the greater problem of the use of the animal world as food.
Object Description
Rating | |
Fixed Title * | NCHH-21: Charlotte Medical Journal [1892-1921] |
Document Title | Charlotte Medical Journal [1892-1921] |
Subject Topical | Medicine -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical Other | Medicine -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Description | Absorbed Carolina medical journal in 1908 and continued its vol. numbering with v. 58. Vol. 4, no. 3 (Mar. 1894) misnumbered as v. 4, no. 5. |
Publisher | Charlotte, N.C. : Blakey Print. House, 1892-1921. |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1896 |
Identifier | NCHH-21-008 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 8 |
Health Discipline | Medicine |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-21/nchh-21-008.pdf |
Document Sort | all; group-e; nchh-21 |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-21-008 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-21 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb2666817 |
Revision History | keep |
Description
Fixed Title * | Page 633 |
Document Title | Charlotte Medical Journal [1892-1921] |
Subject Topical | Medicine -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical Other | Medicine -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Description | Absorbed Carolina medical journal in 1908 and continued its vol. numbering with v. 58. Vol. 4, no. 3 (Mar. 1894) misnumbered as v. 4, no. 5. |
Publisher | Charlotte, N.C. : Blakey Print. House, 1892-1921. |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1896 |
Identifier | NCHH-21-008-0509 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Page Type | all; report/review |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Filename | charlottemedical81896char_0509.jp2 |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 8 |
Issue Number | 5 |
Page Number | 633 |
Health Discipline | Medicine |
Full Text | THE CHARLOTTE MEDICAL JOURNAL. <~ 633 Vivisection. George M. Gould, M. D., Philadelphia, Pa., (American Medical Association, May 6). This paper opened by quoting from two physicians, not vivisectors, who were very pronounced in their advocacy of vivisection, which was to be used as a thesis against which was placed the antithesis of the fact of large and powerful societies devoted to the total abolition of vivisection. There is then the thesis of justification and practice of unlimited vivisection on the part of most scientific men and the antithesis of zealous and organized opposition to any and all vivisection which'must be kept clearly in mind. It is plain there must be extremism somewhere, and, as is well known, partisanship is not conducive either to learning or absolute truth, or to a convenient modus vivendi. There is a third party omitted in the enumeration composed both of physicians and laymen, who do not iavor the extremists on either side, the author confesses to a feeling akin to pitying disgust for both parties. And there seems to be a sorry tendency among good people to champion a cause with a meaningless name. To get at the truth and to avert error a calm, dispassionate discussion of the case is necessary. 1. What is the truth and strength of the antivivisection party? For if we wish to get at the truth in the matter, we must learn on all sides, no controversialist has all the truth or is wholly in error. It can scarcely be doubted that the first step of human progress from savagery was when man called to his service the wild beasts around him, directly by their help was one tribe able to conquer another. And through their aid and the study of them man progressed and learned that "Each is his brother's keeper, whether the 'brother' be the blade of grass, the bacillus, the cow, the savage, or the lawmaker." Civilizatian is just beginning to grow conscious of this, and that the weal or woe of vegetable life reflects upon the condition of prosperity or happiness of man. This truth is'already plain : "Conmensalism, cosmic commensalism, we may denominate the scientific aspect of the truth of what we have called the unity and interdependence of all the world's life." The antivivisectionists have first recognized this truth; they have recognized the fact that animals, all the world of living beings have rights per se. Utter and reckless use of any living thing for human selfishness, with complete indifference to the nature and rights of the living thing is as unscientific as impolitic. To have recognized even emotionally the fact of Life's commensalism is the ground and strength of the antivivisectionist cause, and upon this foundation they may safely build. 2. The weakness and errors of the antivivisectionists are many and patent, and may all be summed up in the one criticism that these good people have not intellectualized their emotions. They attack vivis-ection, while they let go unrebuked many other sources of cruelty to animals that inflict far greater suffering. Then they make the mistake of calling death vivisection. An animal that is killed for dissection purposes is not vivisected, and by the "total prohibition of vivisection" they mean and represent among other things the abolition of death in the laboratory. If this were the case then the slaughter house and the fish-boat must be taken into consideration and the controversy widens out into the greater problem of the use of the animal world as food. |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-21/nchh-21-008.pdf |
Document Sort | all; group-e; nchh-21 |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-21-008 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-21 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb2666817 |
Revision History | keep |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Page 633