Page images



MRS. K. COOK, November 21 and 28, 1906

MRS. K. COOK ("Mabel Collins "), authoress and journalist, and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Parliamentary Association for the Abolition of Vivisection, after alluding to Metchnikoff's work, referred to certain published experiments made between 1879 and 1900. She said that the antiseptic treatment does not in any way lessen the pain of a wound: "I will point to the wellknown instance of the King's operation, when Sir Frederick Treves treated the wound antiseptically: and the papers daily stated that he suffered greatly from the wound, on the authority of his medical attendants." 1

Mrs. Cook proceeded to refer to other published experiments in physiology and pathology. She was then asked about an "open letter" which had been sent by her Committee to the Commissioners. She said that it had been drawn up by Dr. Arabella Kenealy. She was not in favour of mere restriction of experiments on animals; she would prefer the repeal of the present Act. She stated

1 It will be remembered that H.M. the late King underwent operation for a large abscess. The wound had to be kept open, to ensure drainage; and for several days His Majesty suffered pain from the necessary changing of the dressings.

that her Society was formed in 1902, and had about 200 members.1

Asked about experiments on animals to find a cure for snake-bite in India, and a preventive treatment against plague in India, she said that she thought them unjustifiable. Asked whether she could give any instances, within the last fifteen years, since she first was connected with the subject of vivisection, where operative experiments had been allowed without anesthetics, she said that she felt sure she could supply such instances if the Commission would give her time to look them up." Asked whether she knew of any proceedings ever taken, either by her Society, or by any other person, on account of experiments made in unlicensed places, she said "No." Asked whether she objected to the testing, on a guinea-pig, of milk suspected of tubercle, she said "Yes." She was not prepared to admit that the use of the guinea-pig was of any value. Even if the test gave a positive result, she would still think it wrong, as a matter of principle.

DR. SNOW, November 28, 1906

Herbert Snow, M.D., formerly Senior Surgeon to the Cancer Hospital, Brompton, gave evidence at the instance of the Parliamentary Association for the Abolition of Vivisection. He said that his evidence would be given to show "that the thing which has been reported as cancer in mice is a totally different thing from the cancer of human beings." He referred to a Report of the Imperial

This Society was responsible for the notorious leaflet which was circulated a few days after the death of H.M. the late King, suggesting that His Majesty's death was due to medical treatment.

2 Mrs. Cook subsequently wrote to the Commission, stating that she was unable to furnish the details referred to, without access to the Home Office files; and requesting to be heard again.

Cancer Research Fund, and stated that an article in it was to his mind "rather disingenuous." He referred also to an account, in the same Report, of a tumour of dogs, which in 1889-90 was regarded by competent pathologists as cancer, but was now set down as inflammatory; and to the early opinions as to actinomycosis and coccidial disease. He agreed with the general view, that the main feature of cancer is the multiplication of cells by division, and the formation of secondary growths by the distribution of these cells to other parts of the body. He said that he was afraid that the medical profession did not consider him as an authority on cancer, and had mostly ignored his work; he was not connected with a medical school. He had not himself investigated any mouse tumours, and only knew of them by literature. He had never seen any mouse tumours, either in the recent state or under the microscope. He was not aware of the fact that specimens of tumours, forwarded to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund from all parts of the world, were examined, and that a report was written on nearly every one of them and returned to the sender. He would not allow that the workers at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Laboratory were familiar with human cancer. He had suggested to the Cancer Research Committee that they should call a congress on cancer. He had taken no part in the recent International Congress on cancer. He had not been doing any cancer work for the last year or two; he was getting old. It was perfectly unheard of, that cancer should disappear in the human subject. As a student he had never seen any experiments on animals. He would not say that it was not necessary sometimes to make experiments on animals, either painless or painful; but experiments should only be exceptionally allowed. He would not make any distinction between one animal and another. He thought

that experiments on animals should be allowed in special cases, with perhaps greater restrictions than at the present moment. He had no personal knowledge of cancer in the lower animals. Asked for his opinion as to the rarity of cancer appearing, in animals, at the seat of injury, he said that he did not know. Asked his opinion as to the theory that cancer is of parasitic origin, he said that there were a priori grounds against a genuine parasite in cancer, and that none had been found. He wished to withdraw the word "disingenuous," which he had applied to the paper published by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. With regard to Jensen's tumour, he held that Professor Ehrlich and Professor Sims Woodhead had made a blunder. He thought that the clinical features of cancer were infinitely more reliable for diagnosis than the microscopic examinations of the growth by an expert authority. He said that he was afraid he was getting very rusty now, and for some years had not followed closely the general lines of research. He thought it justifiable to try a new drug on an animal. He would like to see the Act abrogated with reservations. He had never read the Act. He explained his opinion as to the objects of the use of curare, but said that he had never had anything to do with curare, and that his knowledge was rather rusty. He was asked his opinion of the statement as to keeping animals under complete anæsthesia for two or three hours, and said that he had no practical knowledge with regard to that. He was of opinion that cancer research had led to entirely negative results, both in this country, on the continent, and in America. He would recommend the granting of a special licence to any one who had any special line of research to pursue practically, for cancer, as for anything else, if he had any special points to investigate.

March 13, 1907

Miss Arabella Kenealy, L.R.C.P. (Dublin), gave evidence representing the Parliamentary Association for the Abolition of Vivisection. She said that she had practised for eight or nine years, had ceased to practise seven or eight years ago, and since that time had been wholly engaged in literature. She made a preliminary statement condemning experiments in physiology, with special reference to the facts of internal secretion. "The term "internal secretion' is one," she said, "upon which physiologists fall back when, after innumerable experiments on animals, they have failed to obtain any knowledge of the uses and functions of the organs investigated." Again, "the truth is, that the term 'internal secretion' stands for that higher and intrinsic function performed by all organs-a function which is beyond the reach of experimental physiology, and which is, I think it cannot be doubted, to be found in the realm of psychology."

Asked to give some particular instances of experiments in physiology which seemed to her useless, she referred to some experiments published in The Journal of Physiology, August 1906, and elsewhere. "I think, very likely," she said "this is only my personal opinion-but, if one knows anything of the phenomena of hypnotism, one cannot help thinking that very often these animals must be entirely under the hypnotic influence of the man who operates. Consequently he gets what he expects to get; and another man, seeking for something entirely different in the same way, gets entirely different results." Asked about the production of immunity, by means of inoculation, she said that she considered it unscientific as well as futile. She said that if you made people immune to the microbe, you

« EelmineJätka »