Using Animals in Medical Research Is Essential For Human Welfare
Many still believe that the goal of the animal rights/liberation movement is to find more humane ways for humans to make proper use of animals. That would be a noble goal, but it is not what animal liberationists were really after. Rather than supporting animal welfare--which acknowledges the human right to make proper and humane use of animals for human betterment, but which also insists that humans fulfill our moral obligation as humans to do so in the most humane ways practicable--animal liberationists insist that humans have no moral right to make use of any animal for any reason. Thus, when they equate cattle ranching with human slavery and eating meat to the Holocaust, they mean it.
Following this anti-human philosophy would lead to great human harm in many areas, explicitly including the stunting of medical progress, as this column demonstrates.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:40 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I am not saying that any challenge to animal research is a challenge to human exceptionalism. To the contrary: I believe that supporting animal welfare is a noble calling.
But to state that all animal research should not be done, as animal liberationists do, is to countenance great human harm and suffering. Especially since the bases of such assertions are founded in an alleged moral equality between humans and animals. THAT is what challenges human exceptionalism.
Wesley,
this topic is like hitting a raw nerve. Having been brought up in Melbourne where Peter Singer had a career as a bioethicist at Monash University (or was it La Trobe?) I am well aware of the Animal Liberation movement and their extreme ideas.
This hits a very raw nerve because people like Singer and the Animal Rights movement consider animals to be more important than humans. This is to the point where they dream up definitions relating to the beginning and ending of life, that will see the death of humans, including the kind of definitions that were responsible for killing Terri Schindler.
We have a duty to care for our animals. If I wanted to get Scriptural on the subject, then I can point to the Book of Genesis where God gave Adam dominion over the animals. When animal liberationists get in on the act, they actually forget that man has dominion. However, that dominion also means that we have a responsibility to give food and water to our animals and to ensure their safety.
We raise certain animals for food - sheep, cattle, pigs, chickens, turkey, rabbit, crocodile, and yes even kangaroo is used for food. It is absurd to equate animal husbandry with a holocaust. My view here is that such an equation dehumanizes those who have been killed as a result of a holocaust (not just Nazi Germany, but Russia, Turkey and other regions have had their version of the same thing). It also dehumanizes the holocaust against the unborn. Now we have a new problem relating to the elderly, disabled and other defenceless members of our society.
I do not see that we need to get all upset because a cat might kill a stray bird. It is very natural for cats to seek out anything that moves, such as birds and mice. Oddly enough cats do not necessarily attempt to touch a pet bird in the same household (experience speaking here). The same is true between cats and dogs. They are capable of a good relationship with each other, even if the cat takes a swipe or two at the dog's face.
The problem with the ethics of the animal liberationists is that they have a tendency to treat animals as though they are gods, just as the ancient Egyptians treated animals as though they were gods. When this happens humans are devalued.
Personally, I am skeptical about "scientific research," especially if it is being done by a government agency, or with federal taxpayer dollars. As for research on animals, I view it as not being a good thing... Perhaps it is "essential human welfare" in some cases, but it should be kept to a minimum... And it especially should not be done for non-medical purposes, such as cosmetics.
It is extreme to deny the parallels of factory farms and the Holocaust. In both, sentient beings are crowded into huddled concentration camps; they are treated like dirt; they are ridiculed and disrespected; the atrocities occur en masse, mostly out of view of the public; the killing is mechanical, in part to erase individuality of the victims and to desensitize the killers. In some respects, the animals in these human-made hells suffer worse than Holocaust victims. Their suffering starts on day 1 of their lives. They are even bred to suffer: broiler chickens start having mssive heart attacks when only 6 weeks old and still peeping, because their hearts cannot keep pace with their genetically engineered hyper growth rates.
Many scholars and even Holocaust escapees and Nobelists have commented on the similar dynamics between factory farms, the Holocaust, and other atrocities. Recall that "holocaust" originally referred to animals and that Auschwitz and Buchenwald were designed after slaughterhouses.
Most people reflexively resent the comparison because they are complicit in the horrors inflicted against animals, and they realize it's all preventable.
The comparisons between instituionalized animal suffering and other large-scale atrocities is important because it seeks out common denominators that make societies oppress huge numbers of the less powerful.
You are deceptive and maybe dishonest in your assertion that abandonment of animal research will result in human suffering: some experiments are clearly unscientific, superfluous, corrupt, or of little consequence to pressing human health problems - they keep researchers employed and universities flush and let's get rid of them first; given the huge and ongoing stream of misleading results from animal labs, largely stemming from extrapolation and artifact errors, is reasonable to conjecture that if all animal research was replaced right now with human-focused researcn, the pace of discovery and cures would increase; for those areas for which there is no alternative to animal research, I submit that is due mostly to lack of will. Just as Tom's of Maine broke rank and gained ASDA certification without doing tests on animals, and just as PCRM developed a credible non-animal insulin test a several months after conceiving of the idea, so we can replace other animal methods with ethical, scientifically sound, non-animal alternatives. My strong sense is that pro-vivisectionists have their heels dug in too deeply in defending and sustaining vivisction, and prematurely dismiss alternatives. They don't want to cede an inch of ground to their opposition.
The ethical question remains: by what right can we harm others for our gain? In dire circumstances, such as self-defense, suspension of normal moral obligations is justified. The desire to live longer or better does not justify the imposition of suffering on non-consenting sentient beings. Keep in mind that sceintific research goes on, and scientists wil enldessly tinker, with or without vivisection. ""But shouldn't we do everything?" Sure, we could cut funding for the Smithsonian. We could kill all our pets - why should we spend money on them when it could go to curing cancer or feeding a staring child? Ditto for wide-screen TVs. We could exercise more and more than 20 percent of us could eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Let's be honest: we're not really interested in doing everything possible to cure or disease. Animals are just convenient and rightless; most animal research is done out of view of the public, and they have little idea about its inherent shortcomings.
If a super race of morally superior aliens who saw us like we
see rats wanted to use us as medical subjects, would you consider that morally justified?
Re: wasting life. Every animal in a factory farm and fur farm (to name two) has a wasted life. They suffer for our whims, indulgences, and pleasures. In our unncessary infliction of suffering upon them, we are perhaps wasting parts of our own lives.
Re: animal liberation sees no moral uses for animals.
1. Not quite. Non-invasive research ala Goodall is acceptable. Many see companion animals as acceptable. Most recognize borderline cases, e.g., search and rescue dogs.
2. This is no defense for factory farms, fur farms, rodeos, animal circuses, or other venues of severe animal exploitation.
NAIA's claim to be for animal welfare is a joke. They support blatant violations of animal welfare.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home