hat could have been
meant for England alone. By omission of all its other conclusions,
especially those relating to painful experiments, has the author been
fair to his readers? Do such significant omissions illustrate an
impartial reliability that commands our admiration? Does it denote an
accuracy that should inspire our trust?

IV.

What judgment does the author pass upon scientific experimentation
upon human beings? In his volume on animal vivisection, he has
reprinted various articles on the subject written by himself during a
controversy which raged quite fiercely at the beginning of the present
century; of course in his book we find nothing of the points made
against his arguments by his various opponents of that day. The
subject is an important one, and some day will have a volume devoted
to its discussion.

In the eighteenth chapter of the present work, a careful distinction
is drawn between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem
to be entirely proper, and those other phases which ought to be
condemned:

"It is of course to be expected, that certain experimenters upon human
beings will endeavour to confound both phases of inquiry in the public
estimation; yet there is no difficulty in drawing clear distinctions
between them.
I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being,
conscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely
for the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and,
if practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and
right.... So long as the amelioration of the patient is the one
purpose kept in view, it is legitimate treatment.
II. Human vivisection is something different. It has been defined
as the practice of submitting to experimentation human beings, usually
inmates of public institutions, by methods liable to involve pain,
distress, 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 OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE
PERSONAL WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE
EXPERIMENT IS MADE."[1]

[1] Pp. 289-290.

All distinctions of this kind the author of "Animal Experimentation"
apparently sweeps aside. A writer suggested that upon natives of
India who, when bitten by poisonous serpents, almost