"Vivisection, Virtue, and the Law in the Nineteenth Century" by Bates

Vivisection is a practice of experimentalist doctors, but clinicians
wanted to distance themselves from it because inflicting pain is at odds
with caring for patients.
Anti-vivisectors viewed by some as regressive luddites.
    Always a minority in support of vivisection
Desire to protect anmials was "a form of social self-defense."
    Middle class activists?
        Cock-fights and bull-baitings alarmed the urban bourgeoisie
        Casual cruelty => Violence
    Radicals who wanted to empower disenfranchised humans
Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle Act
    Required offender to act 'wantonly and cruelly'
    Moved focus from moral to legal concerns
Originally a French ("Continental") Procedure
    Magendie is a famous Parisian vivisector
Utilitarian arguments, "betterment of mankind," used by vivisectors
Voluntary doctors' boards and organizations founded.
Fear of vivisectors' character, human vivisections of charity patients
Ethics wasn't an established practice in the nineteenth century
    Not even legislation until Medical Act of 1858
    Virtue ethics: doctors expected to act gentlemanly
        Doctors can't enjoy vivisection; motives > actions
        Ideal motive is actually a balance: scientific inquiry tempered
        with a degree of care for the animal (but not too much, that's
        effeminate)
Empathy seen to be lacking by vivisectors
- Cadaver dissection had interchangeable arguments
    "Cold-heartedness and self-indulgence"
1876 Cruelty to Animals Act requires licensing (passed due to a shocking
experiment conducted by a Frenchman)
Dubious value on several bases: while quantitative value was obtained,
    objectors worried it had little scientific relevance to human.
Countered with specific examples of benefits from vivisection like John
Hunter's work with aneurysms.
Nationalist criticism (Brits -> French, in particular)
Objective criteria: "the information sought must not be obtainable by
observation alone, the experiment must have a distinct and definite
object, it must not be a repeat, it must cause the least possible
suffering to the least sentient animal, and must be properly witnessed
and recorded." (influence in Antivivisection Act)

Wantonly: without rational regard
Cruelty (Sir John Day): "Something which cannot be justified."
There were no successful prosecutions of vivisectionists in Britain.
676 people licensed, many not required to use anaesthesia.
    Encouraged nepotism by requiring signatures of other physicians
National Anti-Vivisection Society founded to end animal experiments.
    Also known as Victoria Street Society
    Claimed that Act made vivisection rates worse
Teaching colleges avoided vivisections because teachers believed that
"anyone who would look calmly on a vivisection would not make a good
physician." Rare in the field too

Support of laboratory medicine correlates strongly with feelings about
vivisection.

----------------
Lecture

Dogs used for vivisection because they are docile and like humans.
- Traces its role into modern medical profession in conduct, education

Paradox between rationality (cool indifferenc to suffering) and
caring/sympathy/bedside-manner/compassion.
    - Dr. Watson & Holmes and Prendick & Dr. Moreau represent this
      paradox as separate people

The Case Against Vivisection
- Feminists and socialists wanted good treatment of disempowered humans
- Upper class wants to control underclass and prevent "taste for blood"
    - Corresponds to Dr. Moreau's fear of "taste for flesh"
- Progress & motive as proper justifications of cruelty
    - Dr. Moreau's negligence of pain corresponds to this

Vivisectionists and Anti-vivisectionists continued to battle out in the
legal system throughout the 19th century, but little changed in terms of
public opinion and physicians' ability to vivisect.