Frivolous PETA Complaint Rejected
I reported here a few weeks ago that PETA had filed a complaint with the federal government against the Oregon National Primate Research Center, claiming abuses of the animals. I wrote then that I believed the claim would prove to be unmeritorious, as many (but alas, not all) of PETA's allegations tend to be. Well now the verdict is in and indeed, the Feds cleared the lab. From the story:
Federal regulators have cleared the Oregon National Primate Research Center of complaints that workers routinely mistreated monkeys at the Hillsboro site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates animal care at federally funded biomedical research facilities, sent two veterinarians to the center last week. The inspectors issued a three-sentence report, released today, which concluded, "No non-compliant items were identified during the inspection."PETA's purpose is to shut down all animal research. One tactic is to file unmeritorious claims as a method of harassment. If PETA knew its complaint was frivolous, there should be a price to pay. In any event, next time PETA makes such a claim, remember this non event.
Labels: PETA. False Charges of Abuse.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:09 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
I wonder how it is you think an animal who is a lab subject is somehow not being abused. Abuse that results in suffering is intrinsically there, regardless of whether the use is morally right or wrong.
"No non-compliant items were identified during the inspection" is not necessarily the same as not being abused, though legally it could be.
Put another way, would you volunteer your life to be a laboratory experient subject at the lab since you claim no abuse occurs?
A livetock pig being fattened in an crate pen to be strung up at a fraction of its natural lifespan is not abused if none of the tenders torture it? A lion living its life in a zoo is not being abused because none of his caretakers mistreat it?
Almost any use by man, including use as pets, results in abuse of non-human animals.
I m agnostic about PETA. Many of their activities and actions seem odd or misplaced. Trying to change laws is likely to be fruitless as long as the majority see no wrong in abuse and killing of non-human animals, which are regarded as property, or things, for any benefit to man.
See, the problem John, is you don't see a difference between a human and an animal. Most of us do and most of us understand that this research is necessary to alleviate tremendous human (and often animal) suffering. We should try to limit it wherever possible, but not give it up.
Changing laws is the only recourse open to any of us. Otherwise, we will descend into the kinds of societies where militias rule. And remember, if rights think they can violate the law for their cause, then those they attack can do so too for theirs.
I am certainly for changing laws as a means for change. I should have been clearer by stating that I thought it was a little early for pressing for some changes in laws and that continued advocacy was what was needed.
I am strongly opposed to the use of violence by those claiming to be animal rights advocates. Such actions will only harm the cause of animal rights. As a matter of fact, I wonder if some of such individuals might be provocateurs working for "industry."
I never said I saw no difference between animals and humans. Rather, I think humans are exceptional and that gives us the duty to take care for God's creatures. They are, after all, presently at our mercy. We exist in the physical realm, however, and are obviously animals in the physical sense.
I strongly disagree with the idea, as advocated by people like Peter Singer that there is no difference between animals and humans.
The subject of this post is whether animals are abused being used as laboratory subjects. Whether or not the abuse is necessary is a different one.
So far you haven t disagreed that they are not abused by being used as laboratory animals. I would grant that they are not abused in the present legal sense.
Silly of me not to say important things first: I d like to thank you for your blog. I have gained some useful ideas from it and I enjoy reading it.
I would recommend Gary L Francione for a viewpoint on animal rights who has changed my thinking and I would agree with, though there are differences.
(Francione also has stated he strongly opposes use of violence to acheive animal rights.)
"I never said I saw no difference between animals and humans. Rather, I think humans are exceptional and that gives us the duty to take care for God's creatures. They are, after all, presently at our mercy. We exist in the physical realm, however, and are obviously animals in the physical sense."
Excellent. I am sorry if I jumped to conclusions. The harm caused to animals in research is, in my view, justified by the tremendous good it does. The human good, which is often missing in these discussions, is a crucial--not THE crucial--element.
I know Gary and have debated him. I admire his integrity as I disagree with his philosophy. But he definitely speaks against violence and his leadership by example in the "abolitionist" model is admirable from an ethical perspective. I will have a section on Francione in my upcoming book.
Thanks for tuning in and for sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home