injury to
health, or even danger to life, without any full, intelligent,
personal consent, FOR NO OBJECT RELATING TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT,
BUT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SOME SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY."

The distinction is a perfectly clear one. Under the term "human
vivisection" only those experiments are included which have some of
these characteristics:

1. THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE PERSONAL
WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE EXPERIMENT IS
MADE.

2. The experiment is liable to cause some degree of pain, discomfort,
distress, or injury to the health, or danger to the life of the person
upon whom it is performed. The defence often made that no real injury
resulted from the experiment, cannot palliate the offence against
personal rights.

3. The experiment is performed without the intelligent, and full
consent of the individual experimented upon. Such legal consent of
course is impossible to obtain from children, from the feeble-minded,
or from lunatics in public institutions.

It is the purpose of this chapter to demonstratte that such
experiments upon human beings have been performed. Naturally, it will
be impossible to quote the cases in full. Enough, however, will be
given to prove that the charge of human experimentation is not the
exaggeration of ignorance or sentimentality; that such methods of
research have been practised upon the sick, the friendless, the poor
in public institutions, without their knowledge or intelligent
consent; that they are in vogue even in our own time; and that
hospitals and institutions, founded in many cases, for charitable
purposes, have lent their influence and aid in furnishing either
victims or experimenters.

Commenting upon certain human vivisections in Germany, the British
Medical Journal declared in its editorial columns:

"Gross abuses in any profession should not be hushed up, but should
rather bemade public as freely as possible, so as to rouse public
opinion against them and thus render their repetition or spread
impossible. And therefore we have reason to thank the newspaper
Vorw"arts for dragging into light the experiments made by Dr. Strubell
on patients.... The whole medical profession must reprobate cruelties
such as these perpetrated in the name of Science."[1]

[1] British Medical Journal, July 7, 1900, p. 60.

It is this sentiment which justifies present publicity. The cases to
which attention will be direc