1963 Geloof en Wetenschap : Orgaan van de Christelijke vereeniging van natuur- en geneeskundigen in Nederland - pagina 200

II'

162

BUITENLANDSE CONTACTEN

to vivisect should do so „m trembling awe at the responsibility which he assumes" and „avoid the least dram or scruple of unnecessary pain" But for the non-Christion it is different He is probably naturalistic and Darwinian in his outlook, which means that he regards man as the cleverest of the anthropoids There is no radical difference between himself and other animals and so he has the right to ignore animal suffering if it stands m the way of his research From here Dr. Lewis draws the conclusion that it is but a short logical step to cutting up of „imbeciles, criminals, enemies or capitalists" because they are inferior beings and indeed, as he says, „experiments on men have already happened" So Dr Lewis concludes that the vivisectors have won the first round and that this means that the is already a great advance m the triumph of ruthess, non-moral utihtarianism over the old world of ethical law He comes down on the side of the antivivisectionists The greatest surprise of all m the article is that Dr L,wis falls into the trap of which he strongly warns us to beware The whole article IS charged with emotion The word vivisection (dissection while alive) brings to mind the poster of terrified animals cringemg in a corner for fear of what is coming to them He used the word or its derivatives eighteen times m the article. Why did he not simply speak of „ammal research"? Possibly because he wanted to stir emotions against the use of animals for experimental purposes. He speaks of tormenting, torturing, cutting up, and inflicting pam and cruelty to animals — and there is no mention of anaesthesia at all. He does less than justice to our Humanist (or Darwinian) colleagues, most of whom are known to be scrupulously careful when using animals m research work He makes no mention of the present safeguards against misuse of animals or cruelty. While we appreciate the need for the utmost care and enlightened Christian conscience m the experimental use of animals to advance medical knowledge, no good is served m trying to show that those engaged m this work are thoughtless, hearthless, cruel and degraded It is not true. Let us stick to the Christian principles which he so ably enunciates and be very careful m case our standards slip. It IS interesting that Sir Derrick Dunlop, writing in the British Medical Journal in December last year, mentions that even the best antivivisectiomsts can sometimes be strangely irrational. He pointed out that the late George Bernard Shaw — „a protagomst of vegetariamsm, a violent antivivisectiomst, and a shrewd critic of the medical profession" — did not hesitate to accept treatment by liver mjections when he developed pernicious anaemia The discovery of this treatment was, of course, based on Minot's experiments on dogs. Bernard Shaw lived to a ripe old age, but made no asknowledgment of the reason why the injections which he was receiving were so effective — C. G. S " H R. W.

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen