[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Question 4,054.
EXPERIMENT 11. At 3.35 saline at 64 degrees C. (this is 147 degrees
F.). THE DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT. The blood-pressure ROSE MARKEDLY.
3.45. Saline in jugular vein. Slight fall, then a quite ABRUPT RISE
in blood-pressure…. THE DOG AGAIN STRUGGLED VIGOROUSLY.
3.48. Saline at 60 degrees C. (140 degrees F.). Slight RISE in
blood-pressure. DOG STRUGGLED SOMEWHAT.
3.54. Saline at 60 degrees C. An immediate RISE in blood-pressure.
4.12. One-half drachm of chloroform on inhaler.
4.13. MARKED FALL in blood-pressure.
4.13. CHLOROFORM TAKEN AWAY. BLOOD-PRESSURE IMMEDIATELY AROSE to
previous level.
EXPERIMENT 32. A few drops of chloroform were given instead of ether,
the BLOOD-PRESSURE FALLING immediately…. After a few minutes,
several drops of chloroform were again administered, a marked FALL (of
blood-pressure) following.
One-half drachm of chloroform given, PRODUCING A GRADUAL FALL IN
BLOOD-PRESSURE. On removing the chloroform, the blood-pressure
recovered.
At 5.30, saline stopped. Eye reflex not gone. At 5.36 THE
ANAESTHESIA REMOVED. SLIGHT RISE in blood-pressure. REFLEXES NOT
ABOLISHED.
Does all this seem obscure to the reader? At all events, he can see that the effect of even a "few drops of chloroform" is a fall of the blood-pressure, and that when the "anaesthesia is removed" there comes the rise which is so constantly associated with sensibility.
Some of the experiments related to the effect of cocaine in "blocking" sensation. These effects have long been known; the necessity of all this burning of flesh is not apparent.
In another experiment, a large dog was reduced to "surgicla anaesthesia," and both sciatic nerves exposed. In one nerve cocaine was inject, in the other salt solution.
The cocaine paw was subjected to burning by a Bunsen flame, UNTIL THE PAW WAS CHARRED. There was no effect on the blood-pressure. But on applying the Bunsen flame to the other paw, "THERE WAS A DELIBERATE DRAWING UP OF THE LEG, AS IF TO REMOVE THE PAW FROM THE FLAME." The writer tells us elsewhere that "under general anaesthesia—no matter how deep—if the paw of an animal is subjected to the flame of a Bunsen's burner, after the lapse of a short time, the leg is drawn up … in a deliberate but rather forceful manner, removing the foot from the flame." When cocain is injected into a nerve trunk, we are told that an effectual physiologic "block" is produced. The difference is manifest. Yet the vivisector would have us believe that in all cases of his "anaesthesia" the dog is unconscious. May it not be rather that there are phases of agony so great that the anaesthesia of the laboratory does not suppress them? Is this a matter of uncertainty? Then why not permit the vivisected dog to have the benefit of the doubt?
Here is a most significant experiment:
EXPERIMENT 17. "… The animal was allowed to come out of the influence of the general anaesthesic sufficient (sic) to make a slight struggle…. THE FEET WERE BURNED just previous to the application of cocaine, and … BLOOD-PRESSURE WAS INCREASED. More cocaine was then applied; THE ANIMAL BECAME TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, THE CORNEAL REFLEXES WERE ABOLISHED, and on applying a Bunsen flame to the paws, NO EFFECT WAS PRODUCED."
Here we have an instance of a dog allowed to come out of the influence of the anaesthetic and to struggle; the feet burned; and finally, such a degree of total anaesthetization as to prevent the usual phenomena. But why are we told that "the animal became TOTALLY ANAESTHETIZED, and that the corneal reflexes were abolished"? Is it a confession that in other experiments such a state of deep insensibility was not invariably produced?