|
Etymologically, vivisection refers to the dissection of, or any cutting or surgery upon, a living animal. More generally, it is used to describe any experiment upon living animals, or any live animal testing, typically for the purpose of physiological or pathological scientific investigation (Britannica). [1]
Historical overview
Comparatively recent (mainly since the 19th century) controversy regarding vivisection has centred around moral questions of whether the benefits of animal experimentation outweigh the suffering inflicted. Those advocating a strict animal rights view, rather than a more general animal welfare position, may argue that, regardless of possible benefits to society, vivisection is immoral based on its transgression of the rights of animals.
Modern codes of practice like those issued by the U.S. National Institute of Health or the British Home Office require that any invasive procedure on laboratory animals must be performed under deep surgical anaesthesia. These codes are legally binding for most organisations involved in vivisection in the western world (see, for example the U.K. animals (scientific procedures) act (ASPA). Welfare laws and accepted codes of conduct specify that the procedures carried out on laboratory animals should not be painful to them, although legislation does allow for anaesthetic not to be used if it will confound the results of an experiment. Opponents to vivisection claim that the law can fail to protect animals being vivisected [2] and point to undercover investigations showing that animals sometimes do suffer. [3]
Human vivisection
Vivisection has long been practised on human beings. Herophilos, the "father of anatomy" and founder of the first medical school in Alexandria, was described by the church leader Tertullian as having vivisected at least 600 live prisoners. In recent times, the wartime programs of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele and the Japanese military (Unit 731 and Dr. Fukujiro Ishiyama at Kyushu Imperial University Hospital) conducted human vivisections on concentration camp prisoners in their respective countries during WWII. In response to these atrocities, the medical profession internationally adopted the Nuremberg Code as a code of ethics. This code of ethics does not prohibit vivisection on humans.
Human volunteers can consent to be subjects for invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), or other procedures which require surgery on the volunteer. These procedures must be approved by ethical review, and carried out in an approved manner that minimizes pain and long term health risks to the subject [4]. Despite this, the term is generally recognized as pejorative: one would never refer to life-saving surgery, for example, as "vivisection." The use of the term vivisection when referring to procedures performed on humans almost always implies a lack of consent.
References
Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science: An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health, Zed Books, 1999. ISBN 185649733X
See also
Further reading
- Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers (2003)
External links
|
