• VIVISECTION , -and, g. An operation performed on a living organism in order to study the functions of a organ; vivisection.

    [From lat. vivus - alive and sectio - dissection]

Source (printed version): Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / RAS, Institute of linguistic. research; Ed. A.P. Evgenieva. - 4th ed., Erased. - M .: Rus. lang .; Polygraphs, 1999; (electronic version): Fundamental electronic library

  • VIVISECTION , and, g. [from Latin. vivus - alive and sectio - dissection) (anat.). one. Autopsy of a live animal in order to study its body. 2. transfer Violence; the same as bloodletting in 2 values. (iron. public.).

A source: "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D. N. Ushakov (1935-1940); (electronic version): Fundamental electronic library

Making the Word Map better together

Hey! My name is Lampobot, I am a computer program that helps to do

Word map. I am fine I can count, but so far I do not understand well how your world works. Help me figure it out!

Thank! I began to understand the world of emotions a little better. Question:

You can return to the question of the faith and how they are covered by the unclean guards of churches, considering humanist what they contributed to this concept. In Russia, the issue of humanity of abortions has recently stood in sharply. And those who believe that abortion should be prohibited, undoubtedly pursue the most humane goals. But the humane will be made to give birth to a victim of a rapist or a woman who lives alone and cannot afford to feed the child, condemning him to a half-starving existence. This question, of course, rests in two important topics: the moral appearance of a person and state support for mothers of single. And similar statements of opponents of abortions can be considered absolutely humane only when the level of sustaining citizens allows them to give birth and contain children, and each individual person understands the consequences of his actions. It is difficult to argue that abortion (especially in the later stages of pregnancy) the most terrible of all possible vivissection. But humanity in this issue also rests on a set of measures to neutralize the possible subsequent "inhumanities" with respect to the future of the person who has just born.


- is it something neutral, positive or negative?

While the development of drugs and experiments on living organisms are based on huge financial investments in these areas of research and the possibility of receiving these monetary subsidies, a person will face various atrocities committed by human hands. Whatever one may say - money at all times outweighed a sound attitude to what is happening. But if a person is driven only by the mechanism of his own profit, if he is not equipped with love for the world around him, and also does not understand responsibility for his own actions, considering the slightest torture to the glory of the God of Science necessary and important, then it is difficult to call him a man. How does it differ from a predator with bloody fangs? Probably only because the predator kills in order to survive. A person often kills for the sake of higher goals, the implementation of which is extremely minimal. And if you read carefully everything that is written here, and also treated with understanding the experiments of great scientists who moved the development of anatomy and physiology by the most terrible and unacceptable methods for fanatics, you were able to conclude that the justification of many terrible experiments in the context of history was due to the study of a living organism and the possibility, subsequently, to cure this organism. At a time when a doctor could rely only on a knife as an instrument of science out of all the material at hand to study the problem of life and health, he had to use it. The death of one, two, three animals for the justified salvation of thousands and millions, the development of veterinary and human medicine are justified. The death of thousands of animals to create an eye implant, which will not be widespread among people and will serve not for survival, but for the full functioning of two or three human organisms is madness. However, this is my personal opinion. And it is up to each of us to draw conclusions about how appropriate such technologies are. But one thing must be remembered: it is not enough just to be born as a human being in order to fully correspond to those meanings and responsibilities that have been loaded into this word for hundreds and thousands of years.

Few people are familiar with the concept of "vivisection". Many will say that this term is from medicine. But the true value, for sure, will be determined by units. One cannot be indifferent and not know about vivisection when it directly affects the life of many animals. Vivisection concept Vivisection is the use of animals for experimentation and experimentation. Literally from Latin, vivus sectio means “to cut alive”. In fact, horror is caused by the fact that they can do with animals in the course of experiments: deliberately infect an animal with viruses, microbes, bacteria, do an autopsy, inject experimental drugs, apply different temperature spheres to animals.


... This is the minimum that pharmacists can make over animals. Of course, no one will make these facts public. All of these studies shock almost everyone. But for this, laboratory experts have their own justification and belief in the correct operation. All efforts are made for the good of mankind, for health, as well as for the development of new drugs for the treatment of many diseases. In many European countries and foreign countries, vivisection is the term with which many public organizations are fighting and seeking a ban. But not only love for four-legged pets makes many people rise up actively. Let's figure it out in more detail.

Secret research

Ethical aspects of vivisection - use of animals in laboratories

In secret laboratories, vivisection takes on a fierce character. For example, to find out the lifespan after 85% of the burn of the animal's body, it is covered with a special liquid and left to die. At the same time, any pain medications or sleeping pills are strictly prohibited. Not only does the unfortunate animal have to endure the burn test, any factors are carried out in order to determine what changes will occur in the body. After all the analyzes, a general table of life expectancy and many other conclusions are displayed.

All for the good

Over the many years of vivisection's existence, a large number of animals have died from the experiments. It is so great that it cannot be compared with any number of people killed from all the wars experienced throughout the world at all times. Due to the fact that there is currently a fierce protest against vivisection, the number of animals taken for experiments is limited. But nevertheless, frightening experiments on animals continue: they are poisoned, tested with alcohol, electricity, poisons, nicotine, cosmetics, body parts are burned, drowned, and much more. Unfortunately, people's daily schedules and convenience in today's world do not have much empathy with many opponents of vivisection. They firmly believe that such cruel tests on animals are good and do not want to go into details. Is it correct?

  • Deviation from the norm
  • Just imagine the situation, or remember that the medicine that the attending physician prescribed to you was allegedly taken out of production. And why? The answer is simple. Tested drugs on animals have malfunctioned the human body. Here is some of them:
  • Citromon-R, which many have purchased to relieve headaches, lowers blood sugar;
  • "Lariam" (a drug used against the bite of an anopheles mosquito), causes a disorder of the mental system;
  • "Thalidomide" (to restore the nervous system) can cause fetal pathology; Vioxx (pain reliever) can be fatal because it disrupts the heart and vascular system; Baycol (was designed to reduce


Ethical aspects of the concept & amp; quot; vivisection & amp; quot; - use of animals in laboratories

), about 100 people died from it.

This means that not all tested medicines on animals are 100% successful for human health. What could have influenced the changes in the indications of supposedly excellent medicines?

Irrefutable facts

We humans are not animals, and animals are not humans, and this is a fact. Many diseases that a person can have, an animal cannot have. People have different skin, different metabolism, different anatomical and physiological structure of the body. What is inherent in us is not inherent in animals. For example, nicotine, about which almost every person knows about the warning: a drop of nicotine kills a horse. Common valerian, which acts as a sedative, can, on the contrary, stimulate activity in the cat. Medicines that belong to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, aspirin, ketoprofen, diclofenac, ortofen, etc.) can cause gastrointestinal bleeding in dogs and cats. Analgin tablet can cause anemia in cats in some cases. This also applies to many diseases that a person cannot get sick. For example, the disease calcivirosis, which can be carried on the hairline of a person, but absolutely not bring him any harm, and for an animal it can be fatal. These and many other evidence of the difference between the world of animals and humans is an irrefutable fact. For a 100% guarantee of any medication, vivisection should be carried out not on an animal, but on a person. Money temptation Approval required to evaluate and validate a new drug

Ethical aspects of the concept & amp; amp; quot; vivisection & amp; amp; quot; - use of animals in laboratories


- research expertise, where this very drug is recognized as safe and beneficial to human health. Manufacturers are generously willing to pay for all necessary vivisection operations. Testing just one medication can take years. Moreover, the equipment must be appropriate - modern, which costs a lot of money. For vivisection, all test subjects (monkeys, rats, rabbits, cats, etc.) must be reared under ideal conditions. Sadly to admit, experiments on animals take not only their lives, but also the lives of people.

but on the other hand

If vivisection on animals poses a danger to human life, then what will happen if they begin to use it on humans? It will become even more dangerous. This is proof of the history of wartime, where millions of people were killed, captured and stolen for experiments and experiments. This terrible time grows like a lump in the throat of every person. It is known from history what the vivisection of people of that time turned into. This is evidenced by many photographs and documented records.

Currently, tests of this nature are prohibited, as they are a threat to life. Many manufacturers respecting their work make a note that "the drug has not been tested on animals." Human tissue studies are an ideal alternative to vivisection advocated by animal rights and protection societies.

When humanity was still at the dawn of its development, animal vivisection could be useful (biological processes, organ detection). However, today, modern scientists can be proud of the knowledge that reveal certain tests of a drug without vivisection of animals and humans. Computer programs and models created by analogs of human cells. Many scientists have learned to identify the toxicity of substances using a few grams of blood. In the field of genetics, many medical professors have achieved incredible knowledge. The main thing is not to stop there and develop science without violence against animals and autopsy of people.

Video: Baby animals in laboratories. True in 60 seconds

Ethical aspects of the concept & amp; amp; amp; quot; vivisection & amp; amp; amp; quot; - use of animals in laboratories


Are you familiar with the term "vivisection"? You have probably heard this word more than once. Someone will probably remember a musical group with that name, and someone will say that there is a computer game of the same name. Surely there will be those who will argue that the concept of vivisection is a medical term, or rather, a pathological term - this is the name of the actions in which an autopsy is performed on a deceased animal (person) for the structural study of organs or the establishment of the cause of death. None of these statements are true, but what it really is, each of us is simply obliged to know.

Ethical aspects of the concept & amp; amp; amp; amp; quot; vivisection & amp; amp; amp; amp; quot; - use of animals in laboratories

Vivisection - what does it mean?

In short, vivisection is animal experimentation. Vivisection (meaning of the word in Latin) comes from vivus (alive) and sectio (to cut or dissect), that is, "to cut alive." Therefore, to be honest, these are monstrous experiments on animals, during which they (being alive and conscious) are doused with acid, burned with fire, frozen, placed in vacuum chambers, autopsied, and this list can be extended indefinitely. Yes, maybe what you just read made you flinch. In our country, they do not advertise and practically do not talk about what is happening within the walls of scientific laboratories. After all, no matter what happens, everything is for the good of us, people, and somehow we don't really go into the details. But in European countries everyone knows about this, and they are actively fighting for the prohibition of vivisection. And I must say that it is not only love for animals that pushes them to this step. What then? Let's figure it out ourselves, because it's really important to know.

Secrets of the laboratories

What is vivisection for? It is carried out in order to understand how the animal's body will behave under the influence of any factors. In this case, the animal must be in its natural state, the introduction of painkillers, sedatives or any other drugs is not allowed, with rare exceptions. For example, in order to find out how long a living organism can live without medical assistance in the event of a chemical burn of 80% of the body, the animal is poured with acid and ... left to die slowly. Several dozen such experiments are carried out, and the total life expectancy is deduced in each case.

vivisection is

For the benefit of humanity

Hundreds of thousands of animals die every day in many countries: they are drowned, poisoned, their bones are broken, their eyes are burned out, they are thirsty and hungry, they are electrocuted, they are skinned, they are not allowed to sleep, injected with poisons, infecting them with viruses, testing new types of weapons , medicines, cosmetics, the effects of alcohol and nicotine, cause aggression, drive to insanity and much, much more. Over the past 20 years, a huge number of animals have undergone vivisection, this number is many times higher than the human losses for all the wars experienced around the world combined.

It is a great pity that the concept that animals are biomass created only for the convenience of man is often laid in the minds of people; it does not have feelings, reason, emotions. We, people, are the crown of development and there is no one stronger than us, more important, wiser ... But is this so?

  • Discontinued?
  • Once again you go to the pharmacy to buy a medicine, but a surprise awaits you: “This is not the case - the production was banned. Take this, ”says the pharmacist, holding out an unfamiliar box. Why is this happening? But the list of prohibited drugs is not so small, here are just a few, as a reminder:
  • "Thalidomide" (sedative) causes abnormal development of the fetus, about 10 thousand children were born with physical disabilities;
  • Lariam (an antimalarial drug) causes mental disorders;
  • "Vioxx" (pain reliever) disrupts the cardiovascular system, caused death;

Baycol (for lowering cholesterol) killed 100 people;

vivisection photo

Citramon-R caused a sharp drop in blood sugar.

All of these drugs were tested on animals and did not cause any abnormalities at all, that is, they were completely safe. What happened, really medical negligence?

Horse & nicotine

Many scientists are well aware and do not deny that using vivisection is a waste of time and money. With this, everything is completely simple: people and experimental rats (cats, dogs, pigs, frogs, and others) are completely different. We differ anatomically, physiologically, and what is good for one person is death. Each of us has our own ailments, what we are sick with does not affect animals and vice versa. It has long been known that a drop of nicotine can kill a horse, cat owners know that ordinary "Aspirin" can easily destroy their pet, and it is better to hide valerian, and "Omeprazole" acts on rats as a carcinogen. And it's not entirely wise to put sunblock on rabbits, considering them and our skins. Animals are not obese, do not use drugs, alcohol, do not get Alzheimer's, do not know what migraines are. We even sometimes live in a different ecosystem, eat differently, we have a different immunity, metabolism, environment, life expectancy. It is impossible to treat a person with a drug that has worked for a dog and be sure that it will not harm. To be guaranteed, vivisection of humans, but not animals, must be performed.

vivisection word meaning


Where there is money, sometimes common sense is completely absent, and the more of this money, the more depressing the situation is. Experiments on animals generate colossal revenues. Manufacturers are willing to pay dearly for their products to be recognized as useful and safe. And for this you need to go through many tests, it can take years to test a single drug. This requires expensive equipment, protective equipment for personnel, the personnel themselves, and these are thousands of jobs. And the test subjects themselves will need a lot. Laboratory rats must be raised in ideal sanitary conditions, with monkeys, the situation is the same, so they are not cheap at all - someone gets a lot of money. But the worst thing is the payment at the cost of the lives of our younger brothers, and often our own.

Vivisection in public

Vivisection of living people seems to be something from the realm of fantasy. But, unfortunately, history also remembers such cases. These were mainly concentration camps, prisoners of war or simply stolen people, and more often children. Hundreds of thousands of people who fell into the wartime meat grinder were subjected to the most severe torture, whose name is vivisection. Photos and some records of that time about the "work" done have come down to us. But let's not go deep into history, but rather look into the future.

In many countries of the world, such tests were abandoned many decades ago, because they are really dangerous. Self-respecting manufacturers refuse such experiences and often indicate on the label - "the product has not been tested on animals." Today, animal rights societies in many countries are actively working to eradicate vivisection. After all, an excellent alternative has long been found - research on human tissues.

For many hundreds of years, mankind has received tremendous knowledge about their health and body. And for new discoveries there is a great solution - testing computer models that were created on the basis of human cells. Methods have been developed that make it possible to detect the toxicity of substances using an ordinary egg, and for some, just one drop of blood is enough. Humanity has well studied the field of genetics, which allows testing specifically on human modules. The only thing that is needed today is to develop and support such a science. With its help, a lot of new ultra-precise discoveries have already been made, and most importantly, for this you no longer need to kill anyone.

Vivisection is the reverse side of our life, it is not customary to talk about it, but it must be done without fail. We should learn from the experience of other states and make sure that this practice becomes a relic of the past in our country as soon as possible. Today, many new diseases arise, oncology is growing exponentially, infertility often develops and a host of other problems arise. Bad ecology? Yes, it is possible, but there are many other factors that we simply do not know or do not want to know about.

Humanity is not defined by how we treat other people; humanity is defined by how we treat animals.Chuck Palahniuk

A person does not see a person in his neighbor. Does it make sense to talk about the right of the animal in times of such bestial customs? The generation that was brought up on certain ideals of humanism finally drowned itself in phones, tablets and computers, absolutely not realizing that the escape from human madness, which, like an ocean of madness, spreads around us, can be found not only on the other side of the monitor. Man considers himself the only master of the planet, but this master has forgotten about his economy in recent years. We are completely entangled in philosophy, science, technology and are drowning in a world that does not really exist. The computer is a kind of screen with messages from endless sponsors: game creators, advertisers and corporations who have found a great way to make money on a new reality, which is no doubt beautiful and in the right dosage - instructive, but only a shell for information from sponsor to consumer. Throughout his history, man has managed to create so many matrices and systems that it is no longer we who manage them, but they invent us. But where does man get his way? And at whose expense did he achieve such results without disappearing as a species in the most severe times?

Today I will talk about ambiguous things. My thoughts will not please both science fanatics and those who believe that we all urgently need to switch to vegetarianism this very second. However, what I am talking about now and said before has never been liked by convinced fanatics and those who need to chew and put in their mouths. Because the easiest way is to get the idea on and not flip the coin the other way. But this side is always available. A scientist is not always a sadist. A vegetarian is not always a psychopath. From the position of a veterinarian who adheres to the idea of ​​omnivorousness, I can confidently tell you already at the very beginning of our conversation: in our time to arrive at a scientific result that is vital for humanity, it is not necessary to hack and drag an animal through hundreds of hellish torments. In these days of the development of science, no death is worth a stupid experiment. To protect an animal, you don't have to destroy meat stores. You just need to start with yourself and learn to argue your own point of view so that it really wins a hundred points ahead. Humanity will never completely switch to plant foods. And the one who decided to give up meat has already made a significant contribution to the idea that he considers correct. And both smart scientists and sensible animal rights activists must understand that there have always been nerds. And they are not only on the opposite side of the camp. There are enough of them on your side. Sometimes they even show up in the mirror. Today we are talking about a phenomenon that humanity has not yet given an unambiguous assessment of.


in "Labyrinths".

When it comes to vivisection, what my friend calls "confusing warm with soft" happens. In order not to get involved in this confusion, I will immediately say that vivisection is not testing drugs, shampoos and anti-wrinkle products. In my humble opinion (and it will be expressed openly and honestly in this article), such experiments should be carried out on those who invent the aforementioned products. Because I cannot put my mind to how animals are connected with the issues of human cosmetics. I have not yet seen a single rat or a single rabbit that flaunts smeared with cream. It's like hammering nails in with a boot - weird and ineffective. Here, by the way, it must be understood that the Draize test consists in applying the test substance to the cornea of ​​an experimental animal (more often a rabbit). The animal's paws are fixed and it cannot rub its eyes, which causes corneal rejection. For some reason, conscience allows people not only to perform such idiotic tests, but also not to question the involvement of animals in such experiments. And young mothers, worrying about the health of their children, of course, will now reasonably be outraged: what if cosmetic products are made from components whose effect on the human body is incomprehensible to science? The answer will be simple: to make cosmetics from components that are clear to science. If suddenly an idiot has entered the ranks of my readers and he asks how to live without mascara / blush / new cool shampoo, then I wish these people to disconnect from our today's channel. I wish you happiness, health and good mood!

So friends. Vivisection is a series of manipulations aimed at studying the work of a living organism, its resistance to various stimuli (such as poisons or purulent diseases), as well as the anatomy of a particular organism, elucidating its mechanism of action and other interesting processes that, as it seems to many, need to be performed precisely on a living organism. The main method of vivisection is vivisection. It is difficult to explain this term without taking a gulp of blood. But I think that in our time there are not so many people who were not familiar with the experiments of a certain Dr. Moreau, at least in the adaptation of Wells's book with the wonderful Marlon Brando in the main roles. Well, or according to the work of Professor Preobrazhensky from Bortko's film based on the book by Mikhail Bulgakov.

The history of this method is rooted in antiquity and has improved over the centuries, attributing to itself many merits. Proponents of this method, for example, tell us that only vivosection helped the great father of modern medicine Ambroise Paré (who, by the way, abandoned trauma-aggravating methods of treatment, for example, filling the wound with boiling oil or burning with hot iron) to study the technique of ligating blood vessels (imposing ligatures). However, many people forget that even before Paré, in the III-IV century, some slightly forgotten in our time, Antilles, proposed the first technique for applying a ligature and closing damaged vessels. The same Antill, by the way, made a significant contribution to the development of surgery, and even then, in his "dense" time, he was able to give the first recommendations for the treatment of leucorrhoea. However, let's not offend the worthy Paré, because he tried as best he could and did a lot of useful things for the development of medicine: he was the first to describe a hip fracture, he appreciated the issue of limb amputation with a fresh look and did a lot of good deeds. But Antillus nefariously cut leeches in half to improve the effect of their use. Have you noticed what kind of duality plays in this issue? But, of course, we are not talking about the Pair and not about the leeches. Let's start from the very beginning.

The history of vivisection is rooted in the Roman Empire. More specifically, at a time when Christianity was finally established as an official religion. After this event, the autopsy of the corpses of gladiators and other people who went under the knife of doctors after death was prohibited on pain of death. It was to this time that the first experiments of Galen belong. Galen was a talented surgeon. He had a good understanding of physiology and was hired as a gladiatorial physician for the high priest of Asia after he was able to bring back to life a monkey, whose entrails had been practically removed. It is worth paying tribute to Galen as a professional - it was rumored that during his work only five gladiators died, which is not comparable with six dozen who died during the work of the previous doctor. But by the will of legislation, to further advance science, Galen had to revise his methods and study pigs, goats and monkeys. However, the great doctor made one very terrible mistake. He believed that the organs of animals are similar to humans. The result of such a ridiculous mistake was a fifteen-century madness that Galen, of course, could not have foreseen. Here, by the way, it should be noted that errors in the conclusions of the great doctors were encountered not only in the process of vivisection of live animals, but also in the study of already dead bodies. So, for example, Erizistratus, having first studied the empty arterial vessels of a dead animal, suggested that these vessels distill air. But these first experiments and the study of already dead animals that fell into the hands of doctors, nevertheless, provided valuable information about what an organism is and how it functions. And in many of their details, they completed the knowledge of the internal structure of animals, laying a certain basis in the field of veterinary medicine, without which assistance to animals in the future would be simply impossible.

And I do not think that it is worthwhile to argue for a long time about the moral right of doctors of those times. The point here, rather, should go about the fact that in all ages there were many idiotic laws, violation of which was tantamount to suicide. In addition, it is difficult to compare the relatively progressive Middle Ages, which thoughtlessly opened a bloody fountain, which a person is still unable to close, with the Roman Empire. And I hope that there are few of those who would argue that knowledge of such an important subject of study as anatomy is still useful for humanity. To treat animals or humans, you need to know what to treat. You need to know what result your treatment should lead to.

The idea that a person is like God often created quite controversial situations. Why does a man need to be godlike if he has no compassion? We have already had the pleasure of witnessing several crusades, the madness of terrorist organizations and other fanatics of the faith. Many have transformed the question of faith into a tool that works only for them and can justify any evil (a prime example of this is the endless sects). When the Roman Church said that man is higher than an animal and the dissection of human bodies for detailed study was prohibited and scientists, as mentioned earlier, so as not to lose their lives and continue their studies, unknowingly reasoned that the organs of humans and animals are identical. And they put live animals under the knife. In those days, a person actively comprehended anatomy and physiology. What do we comprehend at such a high cost today? A silly childish question arises: "Why the hell are the privileges of the" king of beasts "given to us so often interpreted as" the will to dispose ", to put oneself on a step above other neighbors on the planet?" And only today we come to the understanding that a certain power comes complete with a huge responsibility not only for its use, but also for our own consciousness. Consciousness, which is obliged to stop the idiot's hand at the right time. And save another little life.

There are things that a person is not obliged to understand. These include bioenergy, torsion fields, esotericism, philosophy and the construction of baths with his own hands. It is not necessary to be strained to pretend to be a sage; it is enough to be able to understand the cause-and-effect relationships. It is not necessary to love the whole world, it is enough just to help your neighbor. And this neighbor does not always have to be a person.

Among the vivisector anatomists of the Middle Ages was Andreas Vesalius. It was he, by the way, who corrected more than two hundred Galen's mistakes, no doubt accepted by the scientific community at face value, and also took up dentistry in detail and corrected Aristotle in his statement that a man had 32 teeth, and a woman had 38. Vesalius - risking his own life, he dug up human corpses and studied them in his laboratory. At first, they treated him, like any revolutionary of his time, badly: Vesalius was expelled from Padua for encroaching on Galen's authority in his work "On the Structure of the Human Body", which did not prevent the scientist from becoming a court surgeon under the Spanish king. In his work on the study of the work of the lungs, Vesalius writes: "When you make a section in any interval of the ribs to the chest cavity, part of the damaged side of the lung falls off and no longer stretches with the chest <...> in order to see whether the lung naturally follows chest, you will dissect in the other side the cartilage of two or three ribs and, after cutting along the intervals of these ribs, you will bend the ribs separately outward and break them in order to arrange a comfortable place through which you can see the lung of the intact side. promised to describe above, you will undertake on a belly dog ​​or a pig, although because of the voice it is more appropriate to take a pig.After all, a dog tied for a while sometimes does not bark or howl, no matter how pain you cause it; sometimes you cannot observe , the voice went away or returned. "

And here - right here - it is worth understanding one simple detail: the study of anatomy in other ways was almost impossible at that time. There were not many instruments that could count the contraction of the heart or observe the expansion of the lungs during inhalation. Research of this kind can look horrible and inhuman. But this research is undoubtedly scientific, despite the pain and suffering. Much more scientific than shooting stray dogs, with which the authorities have no desire to fight bloodless methods in view of the high costs of neutering each yard animal. And imagine: vivisection in the context of the Middle Ages gives a hundred points ahead of the modern world, in which murder is committed for the sake of murder. Someone will say that sterilization will not solve the problem, because people will continue to throw dogs out into the street, and the number of stray dogs will multiply. I will answer this question with the same answer: a similar situation can be solved by sterilization. Sterilization of people who throw their pets on the streets.

In 1864, man invented ether anesthesia. This discovery was one of the most important breakthroughs in human history. Its discoverer Dr. William Morton also tested anesthesia on animals, later on himself, and later, as a practicing dentist, performed the first operation under anesthesia, which achieved worldwide approval. Here, it would seem, it was worth drawing a line under our story, however, with the advent of painkillers, the problems in animals did not diminish. Scientists actively began to conduct the so-called acute experiment, the execution of which took place under general anesthesia, but a little later they noticed that the indications obtained under anesthesia differed from the indications obtained without his participation. That is, it is from this moment that we can say that the concept of torture in vivisection has been defined. After all, while a person needed elementary anatomical and physiological information, and it was impossible to get it, a sane person should understand that science (especially such a subtle one as anatomy) requires sacrifices. And several dead animals can provide a person with unique material regarding the treatment of certain pathologies and injuries of animals of the same species. In some cases (I emphasize in red -


), even a person.

Academician Pavlov used not an acute, but a so-called chronic experiment. In addition to speculative conclusions about the effect of light or sound on the secretion of saliva, Pavlov, for example, conducted studies of gastric juice using a hollow tube implanted into the dog's stomach and coming out with a plugged end. For everyone who considers Pavlov a soulless flayer, it is worth citing his own words:

“When I embark on the experience connected at the end with the death of an animal, I experience a heavy feeling of regret that I am interrupting a jubilant life, that I am the executioner of a living creature. I break an inexpressibly artistic mechanism with my hand, but I endure it in the interests of truth, for the benefit of people. are overlooked. "

And someone will ask me: "What is the difference between Academician Pavlov and modern surgeons who practice vivisection?" And it is strange enough that people still cannot understand that outside the window is not at all the nineteenth century. To obtain the necessary information, it is often enough just to turn on a certain device, which will count almost everything you need. Yes, this is undoubtedly expensive equipment. But you can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs. This applies not only to the financing of modern Russian science, which they so want to develop, but still use the methods of the Middle Ages, but also to the very desire to be human. As it turned out, in order to outgrow the scientific environment of its time and not be branded as a flayer, you need to invest quite heavily in the development of new equipment for this very science. And, you see, there is a difference between studying the digestion process and growing a human ear on the back of a rat? Yes, in 2013 there was such an experiment. To grow this ear, sheep cartilage was used, transplanted onto a titanium wire frame and implanted under the skin of a rat. In January 2016, the Japanese achieved the same results using stem cells. The experiment, by the way, aims to use high technology to correct facial defects. The outer ear on the rat's back is a rewarding and much needed experience. Where is there Pavlov.

There is one natural stop signal that I personally follow the relationship to any medical experiment associated with the life and health of people or animals. He sounds quite simple: everything that does not concern human survival and the study of the natural processes of the living organism, I do not recognize at the level of the necessary scientific method. If we talk about the effects of poisoning substances, diseases and pathologies to the body, it is worth recognizing that for all those centuries, so far humanity spent quite bloody and painful, but such necessary for the understanding of the structure of living beings, animal tests and humans, a huge luggage of knowledge Regarding our anatomy and physiology. When we encounter relatively young diseases - we have a certain algorithm for their study, polished by centuries, as well as new bloodless technologies. Based on centuries-old experience, one can judge the functioning of the body, the causes of its malfunction and the possibility of correction of such reasons. For all other developments and research that are not critical for survival at the moment, there are (or created) certain technologies. And it is not necessary to sew again and smoke to see in a living organism the same thing they saw scientists several centuries ago.

It is also worth noting that the issues of vivisection are not always the questions that concerned exclusively animals. ISII Siro, commander of the Japanese detachment 731, as well as Joseph Mengele ("Angel of Death from Auschwitz", as many prisoners nicknamed) conducted a number of experiments on people, during which in prisoners soldiers were not only the experiments of direct exercise, as well as research on study Effects on the body of electric current, deprivation of water and food, chemical impact, exposure to boiling water, drying, charming, procedures for changing the eye color. Scientists of ISII received a unique experience of studying the human body, during which, under common and local anesthesia, abdominal organs, as well as chest, including light and heart, were removed from the person. Experiments on the removal of the brain were also carried out. The most terrible moment in such studies can be called not even those inhuman experiments that were given, sometimes unique results (the achievement of which cannot be justified by any unique experience), but the illusion of the very idea of ​​the impossibility of experimenting with the human body in the spirit of Christian prohibitions of Rome. For completeness, the picture must be understood that no prohibition works for a hundred percent. And if a scientist with an insane baggage of ideas wants to cut a rat or a person - believe me, he will do it if his inner world is not staffed completely outlined by the concept of "humanism." Indeed, in our time, under the term "Humanism" with a proper desire, you can sign any insane doctrines, ideas and actions that may damage everything, which is defined as opposite to this definition.

Добавить комментарий