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.


AN ARGUMENT WHICH WOULD DEFEND ANY CRIME

The Achilles heel of vivisection, however, is not to be found in
the pain it causes, but in the line of argument by which it is
justified. The medical code regarding it is simply criminal
anarchism at its very worst. Indeed no criminal has yet had the
impudence to argue as every vivisector argues. No burglar
contends that as it is admittedly important to have money to
spend, and as the object of burglary is to provide the burglar