| Revision as of 02:52, 20 December 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits added link to EB← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:17, 20 December 2005 edit undoSpinyNorman (talk | contribs)1,550 edits Include correct definition and link to OEDNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Etymologically, '''vivisection''' refers to the ] or, more generally, any cutting or ] upon a living animal, typically for the purpose of ] or ] scientific investigation. It also generally describes a procedure performed without anasthesia. | Etymologically, '''vivisection''' refers to the ] or, more generally, any cutting or ] upon a living animal, typically for the purpose of ] or ] scientific investigation. It also generally describes a procedure performed without anasthesia. | ||
| The term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort. However, the ] defines the term as "the practice of performing operations on live animals for scientific research" . | |||
| The terms "vivisection" and "animal testing" are now used synonymously (Croce 1999). | |||
| == Historical overview == | == Historical overview == | ||
Revision as of 03:17, 20 December 2005
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. It also generally describes a procedure performed without anasthesia.
The term "vivisection" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe all animal testing in which the animals suffer pain or discomfort. However, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "the practice of performing operations on live animals for scientific research" .
Historical overview
Template:Animal liberation movement
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, however the laws do 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 and point to undercover investigations showing that animals sometimes do suffer .
Human vivisection
Vivisection has long been practised on human beings, and was a prerequisite for the development of the field of medicine. However, human vivisection has had a chequered history. 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 . 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
- 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
- Site from the Australian government showing an example of the ethical prerequisites for human experimentation Parent page for the document