herents in England or America;
to-day it is probably the tacit opinion of a majority of the medical
profession in either land. One may question whether any similar
change of sentiment in a direction contrary to reform has ever
appeared since Civilization began. We shall endeavor to show,
hereafter, to what that change is due.

Absolutely opposed to this sentiment are the principles of what is
known as "antivivisection." According to this view, all vivisection is
an immoral infringement upon the rights of animals. The cruelties
that accompany research will always accompany it, until all scientific
experimentation upon animals is made a criminal offence. From a
statement of opinion giving expression to this view, the following
sentences are taken:

"All experimentation upon living animals we consider unnecessary,
unjustifiable, and morally wrong.... Even if utility could be proved,
man has no right to attempt to benefit himself at the cost of injury,
pain, or disease to the lower animals. The injury which the practice
of vivisection causes to the moral sense of the individual and to
humanity far outweighs any possible benefit that could be derived from
it. Dr. Henry J. Bigelow, Professor in the Medical School of Harvard
University, declared that `vivisection deadens the humanity of the
students.' Nothing which thus lowers morality can be a necessity to
progress.... Painless or painful, useless or useful, however severe or
however slight, vivisection is a practice so linked with cruelty and
so pernicious in tendency, THAT ANY REFORM IS IMPOSSIBLE, and it
should be absolutely prohibited by law for any purpose."

This is antivivisection. It is a view of the practice which has
seemed reasonable to large numbers of earnest men and women whose
lives in various directions have been devoted to the prevention of all
kinds of cruelty, and to the promotion of the best interests of the
race. When this view is maintained by men and women who oppose the
killing of animals for purposes of food or raiment or adornment, or
their exploitation in any way which demands extinction of life, it is
entirely consistent with high ideals. It is against this view that
the arguments of those who contend for vivisection, without
restriction or restraint, are always directed.

But even among antivivisectionists there are, naturally, differences
of opinion. For instance, the National Antivivisection Society, the
principal organization of