Now at the very time when the lectures describing these experiments were being circulated in print and discussed eagerly by the medical profession, the customary denials that patients are experimented on were as loud, as indignant, as high-minded as ever, in spite of the few intelligent doctors who point out rightly that all treatments are experiments on the patient.  And this brings us to an obvious but mostly overlooked weakness in the vivisector’s position:  that is, his inevitable forfeiture of all claim to have his word believed.  It is hardly to be expected that a man who does not hesitate to vivisect for the sake of science will hesitate to lie about it afterwards to protect it from what he deems the ignorant sentimentality of the laity.  When the public conscience stirs uneasily and threatens suppression, there is never wanting some doctor of eminent position and high character who will sacrifice himself devotedly to the cause of science by coming forward to assure the public on his honor that all experiments on animals are completely painless; although he must know that the very experiments which first provoked the antivivisection movement by their atrocity were experiments to ascertain the physiological effects of the sensation of extreme pain (the much more interesting physiology of pleasure remains uninvestigated) and that all experiments in which sensation is a factor are voided by its suppression.  Besides, vivisection may be painless in cases where the experiments are very cruel.  If a person scratches me with a poisoned dagger so gently that I do not feel the scratch, he has achieved a painless vivisection; but if I presently die in torment I am not likely to consider that his humility is amply vindicated by his gentleness.  A cobra’s bite hurts so little that the creature is almost, legally speaking, a vivisector who inflicts no pain.  By giving his victims chloroform before biting them he could comply with the law completely.

Here, then, is a pretty deadlock.  Public support of vivisection is founded almost wholly on the assurances of the vivisectors that great public benefits may be expected from the practice.  Not for a moment do I suggest that such a defence would be valid even if proved.  But when the witnesses begin by alleging that in the cause of science all the customary ethical obligations (which include the obligation to tell the truth) are suspended, what weight can any reasonable person give to their testimony?  I would rather swear fifty lies than take an animal which had licked my hand in good fellowship and torture it.  If I did torture the dog, I should certainly not have the face to turn round and ask how any person there suspect an honorable man like myself of telling lies.  Most sensible and humane people would, I hope, reply flatly that honorable men do not behave dishonorably, even to dogs.  The murderer who, when asked by the chaplain whether he had any other crimes to confess, replied indignantly, “What do you take me for?” reminds us very strongly of the vivisectors who are so deeply hurt when their evidence is set aside as worthless.