invariably die,
there would be no objection to trying "every variety of antidote that
can be discovered." This humane suggestion the author of "Animal
Experimentation" holds up as "FLAT-FOOTED ADVOCACY OF HUMAN
VIVISECTION!" The absurdity of such pronouncement must be evident to
everyone of common sense. We should think very little of any surgeon
confronted with the case of a native suffering from a snake-bit, who,
finding ordinary remedies of no avail, refused to try "EVERY VARIETY
OF ANTIDOTE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED." This is not the "human
vivisection" to which objection is made; for such experimentation is
for the personal benefit of the man himself.

Take, for illustration, the experiments made by the author of "Animal
Experimentation" and other investigators some years since, upon
soldiers in an Army hospital. The author of the pamphlet which first
brought these experiments on soldiers before the public, states
distinctly that "just so far as the experiments were made upon
suffering men IN THE HOPE OF GIVING RELIEF FROM PAIN, and at the same
time contributing to medical knowledge, THERE CAN BE NOTHING TO
CRITICIZE IN ANY WAY."[2] Surely the experimenters should ask no
clearer exculpation from all blame, so far as relates to permissible
experimentation on man. The critic, however, suggested that in some
cases, the enthusiastic experimenters went beyond this, and quotes
from the original article the following descriptions of their work:

"We finally entered upon A DELIBERATE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTS with the
intention of ascertaining in what respect ... the two drugs in
question were antagonistic.... The experiments which we shall now
relate were most of them made upon soldiers, who were suffering from
painful neuralgic diseases, or from some cause of entailing pain. In
some cases, however, CONVALESCENT MEN WERE THE SUBJECTS OF OUR
OBSERVATIONS, but in no instance were they allowed to know what agents
we used.... SOME WERE MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH, suspected of
malingering. The patient was kept recumbent some time before and
during the observation."

[2] Taber, "Illustrations of Human Vivisection," Chicago, 1906,
pp. 13-14.

It is unnecessary to give the full description of these experiments.
We are informed of "series of experiments," of "two other sets of
experiments," of the "effect on the eye" or "the effect of the two
drugs upon the cerebral functions"; the material was abundant. The
reviewer of this ex