Vivisection

Etymologically, vivisection refers to the dissection or, more generally, any cutting or surgery upon, a living animal, typically for the purpose of physiological or pathological scientific investigation. More recently, the term has been applied broadly, especially by animal rights activists, to any type of experimentation in which animals are injured, with or without literal vivisection.

Animal rights advocates attempt to use vivisection to recast the terms of the discourse to favor their position, employing vivisection as a veiled barb. Supporters of animal research and testing respond that animal experimentation does not always require the invasive procedures implied by vivisection. Animal rights activists have campaigned against and attacked companies for engaging in activities described by critics as "vivisection".

Comparatively recent (mainly since the 19th century) controversy regarding vivisection has centered around moral questions of whether benefits, perceived or actual, of animal experimentation outweigh what suffering is thereby 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 has 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). Provided that welfare laws and accepted codes of conduct are adhered to, the procedures carried out on laboratory animals would therefore be painless to them, even though they may still "look painful" to human observers who are prone to empathy at the sight of a wound.

Vivisection has long been practised on human beings too. Herophilos, the "father of anatomy" and founder of the first medical school in Alexandria, was accused by Tertullian of vivisecting 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) both conducted human vivisections on concentration camp prisoners in their respective countries during WWII. The scientific value of these experiments is questionable, as indeed are the ethics of using any results; in some cases, the purpose of human vivisection appeared to be only tormenting prisoners rather than purposeful research. In response to these atrocities, the medical profession internationally adopted the Nuremberg Code as a code of ethics.

One might therefore assume that in modern civilized societies, vivisection on humans is strictly taboo. However, this is not the case. In fact, it is not uncommon these days for human volunteers to agree to be subjects in invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (so called biopsies), the implantation of catheters, or other procedures which make it necessary to cut the volunteer's living flesh. These procedures are, by definition, vivisection. But provided that they are approved by ethical review, are carried out in an approved manner that minimizes pain and longer term health risks to the subject, and are only carried out with the subject's consent, such procedures would not be considered to exploit the subject, and would then be morally relatively uncontroversial.

Vivisection

External links

See also

Further reading