1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910231238003321

Autore

Bates A.W.H

Titolo

Anti-Vivisection and the Profession of Medicine in Britain [[electronic resource] ] : A Social History / / by A.W.H. Bates

Pubbl/distr/stampa

London : , : Palgrave Macmillan UK : , : Imprint : Palgrave Macmillan, , 2017

ISBN

1-137-55697-8

Edizione

[1st ed. 2017.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (XXI, 217 p.)

Collana

The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, , 2634-6672

Disciplina

170

Soggetti

Ethics

Great Britain—History

Animal welfare

Medical ethics

Sociology

Moral Philosophy

History of Britain and Ireland

Animal Welfare/Animal Ethics

Theory of Medicine/Bioethics

Sociology, general

Great Britain

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Nota di contenuto

Introduction -- Chapter 1. Vivisection, virtue, and the law in the nineteenth century.- Chapter 2. Have animals souls?.-  Chapter 3. A new age for a new century -- Chapter 4. The National Anti-Vivisection Hospital, 1902–1935.- Chapter 5. The Research Defence Society -- Chapter 6. State control, bureaucracy, and the national interest from the Second World War to the 1960s -- Conclusion.

Sommario/riassunto

This book is open access under a CC BY 4.0 license. This book explores the social history of the anti-vivisection movement in Britain from its nineteenth-century beginnings until the 1960s. It discusses the ethical principles that inspired the movement and the socio-political background that explains its rise and fall. Opposition to vivisection



began when medical practitioners complained it was contrary to the compassionate ethos of their profession. Christian anti-cruelty organizations took up the cause out of concern that callousness among the professional classes would have a demoralizing effect on the rest of society. As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the influence of transcendentalism, Eastern religions and the spiritual revival led new age social reformers to champion a more holistic approach to science, and dismiss reliance on vivisection as a materialistic oversimplification. In response, scientists claimed it was necessary to remain objective and unemotional in order to perform the experiments necessary for medical progress.