A Point about Pavolv

[Paul Mackin]

     By the by, this makes me wonder about TRP's rather discomforting (for 
     me, anyway) descriptions of the poor dogs in these sections.  Is this 
     an accurate portrayal of the Pavlovian experimentations?  Did it get 
     any worse?  (Not really sure if I want to know, but...)
     
It may not have been quite as bad as one might imagine with Pavlov. 

Pavlov worked with normal, heathy, unanethsetized animals, keeping them alive indefinitely. His great skill as a surgeon allowed him to do this. He was able to introduce a catheter into the femoral artery of a dog almost painlessly. (well, nobody asked the dog)

This was in stark contrast to  the standard methodogy of the day and later 
in which  the experimental animal would be heavily anesthetized before the
much the more radical procedures took place. Once the findings
were recorded the trachea would probably be ligated, suffocating the animal. In other words it was never allowed to regain consciousness and presumably suffer. 

There were variations as well, hybrids of the two extremes.

Obviously Pavlovian methods would not have worked in, say,
the decortcate cat experiments of the more mainline Charles
Sherrington.

Sorry if this sounds gruesome.

				Paul