- Email: [email protected]
Veterinary Surgeons and the Cruelty to Animals act
14 8
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
the udder prevails in dairy stock is that the' results of which were summarised in a paper read by Drs Woodhead and M'Fadyean before the last meeting of the British Medical Association. These gentlemen in their examination of the Edinburgh dairies found that not more than 16 per cent. of the cases of mammitis were tubercular, and they found it quite impossible to distinguish between the tubercular and non-tubercular indurations except by the somewhat tedious process of staining for the micro-organisms present in the milk. Dr Littlejohn further implies that emaciation is a great guide in diagnosis, and that the dairyman as soon as he detects the disease hurries the animal to the shambles. We fear that cow-keepers are not such experts at diagnosis as the doctor seems to think, and it is quite certain that cows may have tubercle of the udder and continue in prime condition. There can be no doubt, however, as Dr Littlejohn indicates in his Report, that insanitary conditions, and chiefly defective ventilation and over-crowding, play an important part in the development of bovine tuberculosis, just as has been shown to be the case with human phthisis, but he appears to forget that the tubercular cows found in city dairies are in the great majority of cases infected before the date of their introduction. It will not be the present generation that will witness any decline in the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis, if we are merely to preach better ventilation of cow-sheds, and seize tubercular animals or carcases in our city markets and abattoirs.
VETERINARY SURGEONS AND THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT.
To veterinary surgeons no less than to medical men this Act has proved since the date of its passing a serious obstacle to the practice of their profession. Not only has it proved a great hindrance in the pursuit of knowledge regarding many as yet obscure diseases of the lower animals,. but it has deprived practitioners of a prompt and reliable method of diagnosis in certain cases where the lives of both men and animals may depend upon the ability to make such a diagnosis. To illustrate that it is sufficient to cite the case of rabies or of glanders. Every veterinary surgeon of experience knows that there are instances, by no means rare, in which the symptoms of glanders are so ill-defined that even after the animal has been under observation for weeks or months a positive diagnosis cannot be made with certainty. As long as such an animal is allowed to live, not only is it a menace to other members of its own species, but it distinctly endangers the lives of its human attendants. It is true that, thanks to the method of demonstrating the specific bacillus by culture which bas recently been brought into prominence by Professor Nocard, there
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
149
is not now the same necessity to resort to the inoculation test for glanders; but it cannot be denied that the culture test itself in all probability would never have been discovered had the experimental inoculation of animals been as strictly prohibited in other countries as it is in our own. Witness again the case of rabies. A number of human beings may have been bitten by a dog that is wrongly supposed to have been mad. A veterinary surgeon is called to examine the carcase of the offending animal, which has promptly been killed, and it is expected that when he has made a post-mortem examination he ought to be able to say explicitly whether the dog had or had not rabies. But as a matter of fact the mere post-mortem appearances can hardly in any case justify a decided diagnosis. On the other hand, an inoculation test would in a comparatively short space of time settle the matter beyond a doubt. But the law prohibits this, and the human beings that have been bitten are kept in a state of continual mental torture. There appears, moreover, to be an apprehension that veterinary surgeons while conscientiously refraining from experimental inoculation in such cases as those just referred to, have yet been unwittingly violating the law in performing what have on every hand been regarded as the most necessary and legitimate professional operations. The profession is by this time well aware that the late Professor Robertson had for some time before his death been attempting to introduce into this country the practice of inoculating young bovine animals as a protection against quarter-ill, after the manner of Arloing, Cornevin, and Thomas. In part of this work he was assisted by Professor Penberthy, who in the unavoidable absence of Professor Robertson performed a number of the inoculations. The results of these operations were subsequently made public in a Report to the Royal Agricultural Society. In the month of October last, Professor Penberthy received from the Home Office a letter drawing attention to an abstract of that report, and conveying the opinion of the Home Secretary that certain of the experiments there detailed ought not to have been performed without a license under the Cruelty to Animals Act, and desiring to know why they had been carried out without a license. In reply to this Professor Penberthy, who was refused a personal interview, wrote saying that he was assisting Professor Robertson, who held a license for the purpose. On November 16th he received from the Home Office a letter stating that the Home Secretary was satisfied that many if not all of the operations in question were performed contrary to law, and that but for the lapse oftime which had taken place a prosecution would have been instituted. As the outcome of this decision a joint deputation of the Royal Agricultural Society and the Royal Veterinary. College waited upon the Lord President of the Privy Council with reference to the matter, urging that the law sho~Ild be amended iq so far as it brought within L
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
the operation of the Cruelty to Animals Act inoculation experiments conducted by veterinary surgeons on the domestic animals. It appears to us that while it is greatly to be desired that an attempt should be made to get the Act thus amended, it was unfortunate on the part of the deputation to mix up the general question with the particular case of Professor Penberthy. Moreover, we cannot help thinking that some of the speakers read into the Home Secretary's decision much more than it was intended to convey. In the first place it is clear that Professor Robertson considered that the possession of a license was necessary to enable him to carr'y out these operations, and there is certainly nothing in the Act to justify anyone in concluding that because he himself held a license he could depute a second person to perform the experiments. To permit that would practically give each holder of a license the power to authorise any number of other persons to experiment without a license. Again, it cannot be denied that certain of the operations carried out by Professor Robertson, or by Professor Penberthy under him, were strictly experimental, and not even calculated to directly benefit the animal operated on, for they not only inoculated the animals in order to protect them, but they subsequently inoculated them with a virulent virus. Moreover, they inoculated certain unprotected test animals with virulent material, in the expectation, not that they would be benefited thereby, but that they would perish, and thus demonstrate the value of the protective inoculation carried out on the others. All this of course was most praiseworthy, but it would be absurd to try to make out that it was not an experiment. We have thought it desirable to draw attention to what was the exact nature of the operations carried out by Professor Penberthy, for apparently through misapprehension on that point it is being concluded that to inoculate calves with the view of protecting them from black-quarter would render the operator liable to a penalty unless he held a license. There need be no doubt that such a view is erroneous. The operation introduced by Arloing, Cornevin, and Thomas, and now extensively practised in several districts on the Continent, has clearly passed the experimental stage. It is quite unnecessary to split legal hairs as to what is an experiment and what is an operation. We see no room to quarrel with the opinion of the Home Secretary "that if the inoculations are performed with a bona fide belief in their efficiency, in order to produce a practical result, viz. the prevention of disease in a particular case, they constitute simple veterinary operations, but if performed with a view to test or verify a theory, they constitute experiments under the Act, for the legal performance of which a license is necessary." We presume that Professors Robertson and Penberthy had a bona fide belief that the numerous experiments carried out by Arloing and his confreres, and detailed by them in their work
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
on quarter-iII, showed that intra-venous injection of the virus conferred a high degree of immunity, and they were quite at liberty to begin that practice at once without any license. But they wished, in order to bring home to the profession in this country the value of the operation, to go further, and to perform what common sense tells everyone was not a simple veterinary operation, but an experiment to verify or prove the theory. In short, Professor Penberthy's case raises no new point. It appears, however, to have called the attention of some prominent agriculturists to the manner in which the Cruelty to Animals Act hinders veterinary surgeons in their efforts to throw light upon the nature and best means of combating the diseases of the domestic animals, and with the influence thus enlisted a strong effort ought to be made to have the Act amended.
THE DISHORNING OF CATTLE.
THE decision lately given on this question in the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh will commend itself to most people as founded on common sense, though a few well-meaning enthusiasts will doubtless regard it in quite another light. The opinion of the judges, without doubt or hesitation, was that the dishorning of cattle is not a case of cruelty within the meaning of the Act. Lord Young in giving judgment succeeded in a very few sentences in bringing into prominence the monstrous inconsistencies and absurdities of the law as it has generally been administered with regard to acts that cause pain to the lower animals. He pointed out that although man sets one animal to tear another to pieces, as in fox-hunting, the law does not appear to view this as an act of cruelty. N either does it so regard the cruel spurring which brings the winning horse first to the post. These and many other cases in which unnecessary pain is inflicted on the lower animals, the law views with a lenient eye. But woe betide the unlucky costermonger who to eke out a day's subsistence works his horse while lame or suffering from a trifling saddle-gall. There is something ludicrous in the reflection that a man to support himself or his family may be compelled to labour while his own joints are racked with rheumatism, but he must keep his animal in idleness if work would cause it pain. Veterinary surgeons may congratulate themselves that an authoritative decision has been given against the view that a painful, surgical operation on the lower animals is contrary to law if a number of witnesses can be brought together to swear that in their opinion the operation is unnecessary. We do not think that in putting the matter in that way we are in the least degree misrepresenting the manner in which it has been generally and sometimes successfully attempted to
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
the udder prevails in dairy stock is that the' results of which were summarised in a paper read by Drs Woodhead and M'Fadyean before the last meeting of the British Medical Association. These gentlemen in their examination of the Edinburgh dairies found that not more than 16 per cent. of the cases of mammitis were tubercular, and they found it quite impossible to distinguish between the tubercular and non-tubercular indurations except by the somewhat tedious process of staining for the micro-organisms present in the milk. Dr Littlejohn further implies that emaciation is a great guide in diagnosis, and that the dairyman as soon as he detects the disease hurries the animal to the shambles. We fear that cow-keepers are not such experts at diagnosis as the doctor seems to think, and it is quite certain that cows may have tubercle of the udder and continue in prime condition. There can be no doubt, however, as Dr Littlejohn indicates in his Report, that insanitary conditions, and chiefly defective ventilation and over-crowding, play an important part in the development of bovine tuberculosis, just as has been shown to be the case with human phthisis, but he appears to forget that the tubercular cows found in city dairies are in the great majority of cases infected before the date of their introduction. It will not be the present generation that will witness any decline in the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis, if we are merely to preach better ventilation of cow-sheds, and seize tubercular animals or carcases in our city markets and abattoirs.
VETERINARY SURGEONS AND THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT.
To veterinary surgeons no less than to medical men this Act has proved since the date of its passing a serious obstacle to the practice of their profession. Not only has it proved a great hindrance in the pursuit of knowledge regarding many as yet obscure diseases of the lower animals,. but it has deprived practitioners of a prompt and reliable method of diagnosis in certain cases where the lives of both men and animals may depend upon the ability to make such a diagnosis. To illustrate that it is sufficient to cite the case of rabies or of glanders. Every veterinary surgeon of experience knows that there are instances, by no means rare, in which the symptoms of glanders are so ill-defined that even after the animal has been under observation for weeks or months a positive diagnosis cannot be made with certainty. As long as such an animal is allowed to live, not only is it a menace to other members of its own species, but it distinctly endangers the lives of its human attendants. It is true that, thanks to the method of demonstrating the specific bacillus by culture which bas recently been brought into prominence by Professor Nocard, there
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
149
is not now the same necessity to resort to the inoculation test for glanders; but it cannot be denied that the culture test itself in all probability would never have been discovered had the experimental inoculation of animals been as strictly prohibited in other countries as it is in our own. Witness again the case of rabies. A number of human beings may have been bitten by a dog that is wrongly supposed to have been mad. A veterinary surgeon is called to examine the carcase of the offending animal, which has promptly been killed, and it is expected that when he has made a post-mortem examination he ought to be able to say explicitly whether the dog had or had not rabies. But as a matter of fact the mere post-mortem appearances can hardly in any case justify a decided diagnosis. On the other hand, an inoculation test would in a comparatively short space of time settle the matter beyond a doubt. But the law prohibits this, and the human beings that have been bitten are kept in a state of continual mental torture. There appears, moreover, to be an apprehension that veterinary surgeons while conscientiously refraining from experimental inoculation in such cases as those just referred to, have yet been unwittingly violating the law in performing what have on every hand been regarded as the most necessary and legitimate professional operations. The profession is by this time well aware that the late Professor Robertson had for some time before his death been attempting to introduce into this country the practice of inoculating young bovine animals as a protection against quarter-ill, after the manner of Arloing, Cornevin, and Thomas. In part of this work he was assisted by Professor Penberthy, who in the unavoidable absence of Professor Robertson performed a number of the inoculations. The results of these operations were subsequently made public in a Report to the Royal Agricultural Society. In the month of October last, Professor Penberthy received from the Home Office a letter drawing attention to an abstract of that report, and conveying the opinion of the Home Secretary that certain of the experiments there detailed ought not to have been performed without a license under the Cruelty to Animals Act, and desiring to know why they had been carried out without a license. In reply to this Professor Penberthy, who was refused a personal interview, wrote saying that he was assisting Professor Robertson, who held a license for the purpose. On November 16th he received from the Home Office a letter stating that the Home Secretary was satisfied that many if not all of the operations in question were performed contrary to law, and that but for the lapse oftime which had taken place a prosecution would have been instituted. As the outcome of this decision a joint deputation of the Royal Agricultural Society and the Royal Veterinary. College waited upon the Lord President of the Privy Council with reference to the matter, urging that the law sho~Ild be amended iq so far as it brought within L
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
the operation of the Cruelty to Animals Act inoculation experiments conducted by veterinary surgeons on the domestic animals. It appears to us that while it is greatly to be desired that an attempt should be made to get the Act thus amended, it was unfortunate on the part of the deputation to mix up the general question with the particular case of Professor Penberthy. Moreover, we cannot help thinking that some of the speakers read into the Home Secretary's decision much more than it was intended to convey. In the first place it is clear that Professor Robertson considered that the possession of a license was necessary to enable him to carr'y out these operations, and there is certainly nothing in the Act to justify anyone in concluding that because he himself held a license he could depute a second person to perform the experiments. To permit that would practically give each holder of a license the power to authorise any number of other persons to experiment without a license. Again, it cannot be denied that certain of the operations carried out by Professor Robertson, or by Professor Penberthy under him, were strictly experimental, and not even calculated to directly benefit the animal operated on, for they not only inoculated the animals in order to protect them, but they subsequently inoculated them with a virulent virus. Moreover, they inoculated certain unprotected test animals with virulent material, in the expectation, not that they would be benefited thereby, but that they would perish, and thus demonstrate the value of the protective inoculation carried out on the others. All this of course was most praiseworthy, but it would be absurd to try to make out that it was not an experiment. We have thought it desirable to draw attention to what was the exact nature of the operations carried out by Professor Penberthy, for apparently through misapprehension on that point it is being concluded that to inoculate calves with the view of protecting them from black-quarter would render the operator liable to a penalty unless he held a license. There need be no doubt that such a view is erroneous. The operation introduced by Arloing, Cornevin, and Thomas, and now extensively practised in several districts on the Continent, has clearly passed the experimental stage. It is quite unnecessary to split legal hairs as to what is an experiment and what is an operation. We see no room to quarrel with the opinion of the Home Secretary "that if the inoculations are performed with a bona fide belief in their efficiency, in order to produce a practical result, viz. the prevention of disease in a particular case, they constitute simple veterinary operations, but if performed with a view to test or verify a theory, they constitute experiments under the Act, for the legal performance of which a license is necessary." We presume that Professors Robertson and Penberthy had a bona fide belief that the numerous experiments carried out by Arloing and his confreres, and detailed by them in their work
EDITORIAL ARTICLES.
on quarter-iII, showed that intra-venous injection of the virus conferred a high degree of immunity, and they were quite at liberty to begin that practice at once without any license. But they wished, in order to bring home to the profession in this country the value of the operation, to go further, and to perform what common sense tells everyone was not a simple veterinary operation, but an experiment to verify or prove the theory. In short, Professor Penberthy's case raises no new point. It appears, however, to have called the attention of some prominent agriculturists to the manner in which the Cruelty to Animals Act hinders veterinary surgeons in their efforts to throw light upon the nature and best means of combating the diseases of the domestic animals, and with the influence thus enlisted a strong effort ought to be made to have the Act amended.
THE DISHORNING OF CATTLE.
THE decision lately given on this question in the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh will commend itself to most people as founded on common sense, though a few well-meaning enthusiasts will doubtless regard it in quite another light. The opinion of the judges, without doubt or hesitation, was that the dishorning of cattle is not a case of cruelty within the meaning of the Act. Lord Young in giving judgment succeeded in a very few sentences in bringing into prominence the monstrous inconsistencies and absurdities of the law as it has generally been administered with regard to acts that cause pain to the lower animals. He pointed out that although man sets one animal to tear another to pieces, as in fox-hunting, the law does not appear to view this as an act of cruelty. N either does it so regard the cruel spurring which brings the winning horse first to the post. These and many other cases in which unnecessary pain is inflicted on the lower animals, the law views with a lenient eye. But woe betide the unlucky costermonger who to eke out a day's subsistence works his horse while lame or suffering from a trifling saddle-gall. There is something ludicrous in the reflection that a man to support himself or his family may be compelled to labour while his own joints are racked with rheumatism, but he must keep his animal in idleness if work would cause it pain. Veterinary surgeons may congratulate themselves that an authoritative decision has been given against the view that a painful, surgical operation on the lower animals is contrary to law if a number of witnesses can be brought together to swear that in their opinion the operation is unnecessary. We do not think that in putting the matter in that way we are in the least degree misrepresenting the manner in which it has been generally and sometimes successfully attempted to