I really see no harm which can come of giving our
children a little knowledge of physiology. But
then, as I have said, the instruction must be real,
based upon observation, eked out by good explanatory
diagrams and models, and conveyed by a teacher whose
own knowledge has been acquired by a study of the
facts; and not the mere catechismal parrot-work which
too often usurps the place of elementary teaching.
It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to give a formal
contradiction to the silly fiction, which is assiduously
circulated by fanatics who not only ought to know,
but do know, that their assertions are untrue, that
I have advocated the introduction of that experimental
discipline which is absolutely indispensable to the
professed physiologist, into elementary teaching.
But while I should object to any experimentation which
can justly be called painful, for the purpose of elementary
instruction; and, while, as a member of a late Royal
Commission, I gladly did my best to prevent the infliction
of needless pain, for any purpose; I think it is my
duty to take this opportunity of expressing my regret
at a condition of the law which permits a boy to troll
for pike, or set lines with live frog bait, for idle
amusement; and, at the same time, lays the teacher
of that boy open to the penalty of fine and imprisonment,
if he uses the same animal for the purpose of exhibiting
one of the most beautiful and instructive of physiological
spectacles, the circulation in the web of the foot.
No one could undertake to affirm that a frog is not
inconvenienced by being wrapped up in a wet rag, and
having his toes tied out; and it cannot be denied
that inconvenience is a sort of pain. But you
must not inflict the least pain on a vertebrated animal
for scientific purposes (though you may do a good
deal in that way for gain or for sport) without due
licence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
granted under the authority of the Vivisection Act.
So it comes about, that, in this present year of grace
1877, two persons may be charged with cruelty to animals.
One has impaled a frog, and suffered the creature
to writhe about in that condition for hours; the other
has pained the animal no more than one of us would
be pained by tying strings round his fingers, and
keeping him in the position of a hydropathic patient.
The first offender says “I did it because I find
fishing very amusing,” and the magistrate bids
him depart in peace; nay, probably wishes him good
sport. The second pleads, “I wanted to
impress a scientific truth, with a distinctness attainable
in no other way, on the minds of my scholars,”
and the magistrate fines him five pounds.
I cannot but think that this is an anomalous and not
wholly creditable state of things.
ON MEDICAL EDUCATION
[1870]
