ent excuse?

It is a significant fact, that every writer who attempts to defend or
to excuse the experiments here described and others of the same type,
always evades the principal reason for their condemnation. The
condemnation of what may be called "human vivisection" rests chiefly
upon its incurable injustice.

ALL SUCH EXPERIMENTS VIOLATE ONE OF THE MOST SACRED OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Every man, not a criminal, has the inherent right to the inviolability
of his own body, except for his own personal benefit. Apply this to
the experiments herein described.

THEY IMPLY A SUPPRESION OF THE TRUTH. Is it probably that any mother,
bringing to a hospital her ailing child, would leave it there without
apprehension if she were distinctly informed that when it had partly
recovered, it would be used for experimentation relating to a test for
syphilis?

THEY IMPLY A PHASE OF DECEPTION, so far as a formal "consent" is ever
obtained without a full and complete statemnet of possible dangers.
Can we imagine Mary Rafferty to have consented to Bartholow's
experiments upon her brain, if, in full possession of her intellectual
faculties, she had known--as he knew,--what risks they involved? It is
the performance of experiments upon dying children, upon infants for
no urpose of individual benefit, upon men and women all unconscious of
the character of the investigation; the imposition upon the ignorant
and confiding of unknown risks; the utilization for experimentation
under cover of treatment for their ailments, of the poor, the feeble-
minded, the unfortunate, without their full, intelligent and adequate
consent, that makes the practice abhorrent to every conception of
morality, and every ideal of honour.

How such experiments are coming to be regarded, we may see in a recent
article from the pen of Dr. Francis H. Rowley, president of the
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:

"The use of children in hospitals, or anywhere else, as material for
experimentation is not to be tolerated for a moment, in our judgment,
by any right-minded man or woman. Whatever is conscientiously done
for the benefit of the child itself, to save it from disease or to
lessen its suffering, though it may cause it temporarily more or less
pain, is nothing against which objection should be made. But to use
the child, even when no permanent harm may result to it, as a subject
upon which to try out certain theories, or to test the ef