Texts by Hans Ruesch
Hans Ruesch fluently spoke and professionally wrote in 4 languages (Italian, German, English, French). He made an effort to have translations made (by himself or other people) of his writings, at least within these 4 languages. However, this is not true of everything he wrote and, most importantly, there are often considerable differences in the versions he prepared in different languages, usually out of a concern to provide readers living in different countries with the kind of examples they might find more relevant and useful. So those who want to see what was the first version of his most famous tract, Slaughter of the Innocent, have no other choice than to try and read the Italian Imperatrice nuda.
N.B. The following texts are all copyrighted, but they are made freely available in the disinterested spirit of their author, who was especially keen in disseminating the results of his research, in order to accelerate, thanks to public indignation, the demise of a pseudoscientific, dangerous, and barbarous practice.
Reproduction for noncommercial uses through Internet is allowed at the condition that appropriate reference to the source (including the Internet address of this web site) is made.
Those wishing to make a commercial reprint of some work are required to contact the Hans Ruesch Foundation, which owns the copyright.
File pdf (1,209 Mb)
This is a transcription of the first edition of the book. The last edition (2005) had a new preface by M. Mamone Capria. The English version came out in 1978 and is much longer. To buy the book please write here.
In this interview Hans Ruesch discussed in an essential and lively manner all main issues of the debate on vivisection. It is a very good short introduction to antivivivisectionism.
· 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection 
It may be useful to note that many of the authors cited by Ruesch in this fundamental compilation are not against vivisection. Vivisectionists use to stress this fact as an inconsistency or as the sin of “out-of-context citation”. Granted for the discourse’s sake the good faith of the critic, it is hard to get it more wrong than that. In fact the circumstance that a negative remark on vivisection is underwritten by someone who performs or otherwise praises vivisection, does not weaken its value, indeed it magnifies it. For instance, we read that Robert Koch, a famous vivisector who got in 1905 a Nobel prize, said in the Report to the Royal Commission of 1906, p. 31: "An experiment on an animal gives no certain indication of the result of the same experiment on a human being." The fact that he did not for this reason renounce vivisection (contrary to what Prof. Dr Pietro Croce, among others, famously did) shows at once both the poor scientific substance of vivisection and the poor scientific and ethical quality of its practitioners (including the higher-ups).