lf experimenting: `A small cow,' he writes, `very thin,
and which had undergone numerous operations--that is to saw, WHICH HAD
SUFFERED DURING THE DAY THE MOST EXTREME TORTURE--was placed upon the
table,' etc. M. Sanson adds `...Those who have seen these wretched
animals on their bed of suffering--lit de douleur--know the degree of
torture to which they are subjected; torture, in fact, under which
they for the most part succumb!' THE POOR BRUTES ARE ACTUALLY SLICED
AND CHOPPED, PIECEMEAL, TO DEATH, in order that the e'le`ves
(students) may become skilful operators!"

Almost a year passes, and on September 6, 1862, we again find the
editor of the British Medical Journal discussing the ethics of animal
experimentation. He admits that there is useless vivisection and
unnecessary infliction of pain. Significant, indeed, it will seem to
the physician of to-day to find one of the leading exponents of
medical opinion condemning as "unjustifiable" demonstrations of
well-known facts, which are now considered as essential to medical
education. After stating that some restrictions should be imposed,
the editor adds:

"We will venture to suggest that these restrictions should be well and
clearly defined; that some high authority like Dr. Sharpey himself
should lay down certain rules on the subject, and for the purpose of
preventing, if possible, any needless suffering from being inflicted
experimentally on the lower animals. All of us must be well aware
that many needless experiments are actually performed, and until some
clearly defined rules on this head are laid down, we venture to think
such needless suffering will still continue to be inflicted on
animals. If, for example, it were publicly stated by authorities in
the profession that experiments of this nature, made for the mere
purpose of demonstrating admitted physiological facts, are
unjustifiable, a great step would be gained, and a great ground of
complaint cut from under the feet of the enthusiastic antivivisection
societies. The very fact of an authoritative sanction to the
legitimate performance of such experiments...."

The denunciations of cruel vivisection by the British Medical Journal
extend over a considerable period. Occasionally the Journal quotes
the opinions of some of its medical contemporaries in Paris, admitting
the need for reform. For instance, in its issue of May 2, 1863, in
its editorial columns, the Journal presents us with a quotation fro