Jasper Republican, Volume 1, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 November 1874 — Vivisection—Do Animals Suffer? [ARTICLE]

Vivisection—Do Animals Suffer?

The discussion growing, out of Mr. Bergh’s opposition to the practice of vivisection, on the ground that animals suffer intense pain under mutilation for scientific purposes, has resulted in the publication of some very curious and interesting facts from men authorized to speak on both sides of the question, and none more so than we find in a recent letter from Dr. Crosby, M. D., of New York, to the Tribune. The sense of pain, according to the doctor’s theory, is designed for the selfpreservation of all animals, each being endowed with this quality to the extent of insuring this result. Some animals when mutilated suffer much, while others suffer but little or not at all. Appearances of suffering are not conclusive that pain is actually experienced, as convulsions, for example, though indicative of suffering, produce no pain aside from muscular soreness, and only establish the fact that the brain has lost control over the rest of the nervous system. The cry of an animal is not at all times a proof of pain, as for instance the pig, when seized, however gently, manifests by its cries great agony, while it is quiet when the knife is plunged suddenly into its throat, and this sense of fear under restraint is attributed to the natural timidity of the animal. A number of instances are cited in proof that no such suffering exists as has been supposed, many of which, if not absolutely convincing, are at least difficult to disbelieve. A horse with a leg shot off at the battle of Fair Oaks fell, got up again and commenced feeding. Thirtysix hours afterward the same horse was found quietly feeding, seemingly in good condition, although the bone protruded through the soft parts- and the wound was filled with maggots. Another case of a post-horse, is given falling in harness on the road in Scotland, lacerating the skin and tendons over the fetlock joints. The tibia and fibula protruded, the foot turned back and the horse walked on the ends of the bones. And yet it is said the animal looked and felt apparently well. Still another case is given of an Oxford coach-horse dislocating both fetlock joints and traveling on the ends of the bones until they were worn smooth.

| Uormice WQI eat off a mutilated pRW and rate will eat their tails when pressed by hunger, as also has been remarked of monkeys. Rabbits and hares will cry out with fear when hunted and hard pressed, but when caught in a trap will sometimes eat the limb away to obtain freedom, and rats have been known to do the same. It is stated as a singular fact, and it is so, as showing the distinctive traits between beasts of prey and beasts that are preyed upon, that the former, though frequently losing a limb by a trap, will never gnaw oft an extremity, from which Dr. Crosby argues that the sense of pain was designed for the preservation of animals by compelling them to take due care of themselves. The rat or the rabbit, though inconvenienced by the loss of a leg, can still provide it--self with food, but in the cases of carnivora the loss of legs is usually the forerunner of starvation. The argument is pursued by the learned doctor, descending in the scale of the animal kingdom to fish, newts and beetles, and incidents are cited to prove that in destroying each other and themselves no pain is experienced. It is contended that the objections raised by humanitarians to vivisection are based upon the sentimental rather than the rational, and that vivisection practiced with the animals rendered insensible by the application of ether destroys the last vestige of sentiment and leaves Mr. Bergh and his friends not even the ghost of the leg of an argument to stand on. Whatever may be the fact we are inclined to thjnk that, while the world will -indorse Mr. Bergh in his humanitarian theory of protection to animals from cruelty and overwork as a sentiment, it will also be willing to sacrifice half of the lower animal kingdom if in so doing the rational may be served and the physical system of mankind be better understood.—St Louis Republican.