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. In some extreme cases, the test subjects may include human beings.

More recently, the term has been applied broadly to any type of experimentation in which animals are injured, with or without cutting or surgery (see animal testing for information about other forms of animal experiments).

Many dictionaries and encyclopedias now use the term "vivisection" to mean any kind of harmful animal experiment, whether it entails cutting or surgery or not, although those who experiment on animals dislike this trend as they feel that "vivisection" is an emotive term (Croce 1991). They may claim that animal rights advocates attempt to use "vivisection" to recast the terms of the discourse to favor their position. Supporters of animal research and testing respond that animal experimentation does not always require the invasive procedures implied by "vivisection".

Historical overview

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 should not be painful to them, although anaesthetic need not be used if it will affect the experiment and the animal may feel pain after the anaesthetic has worn off. Opponents to vivisection claim that the law often fails to protect animals being vivisected [1], point to undercover investigations to show that these animals do suffer [2] and point out that even aside from the invasive procedures they go through the animals may suffer from being kept in inadequate living conditions.

Human vivisection

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. Many have questioned the scientific merit of these experiments, as well as the ethics of using their results. In some cases, it is claimed, 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 may be described as a form of 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 generally be considered to exploit the subject, and so would generally be morally uncontroversial.

References

Professor Croce M.D., Pietro, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make (1991) BETA Tipografica s. r. l.:Rome

See also

• Animal testing
• Holocaust
• Human experimentation
• Vivisection and experimentation debate
• Animal rights
• Animal Aid
• Animal Liberation Front
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Rat Park

Further reading

• Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers (2003)

External links

• Vivisections at Kyushu University Hospital in 1945
• "Research Defence Society", a web site that argues that vivisection is humane and essential to human health
• "Vivisection - Absurd", a website that argues that vivisection is cruel, unscientific and a danger to human health