An insightful and incisive take on the issues.
From DM's commentary:
Why does intelligence matter? The objection to using any animal in experimental research is that it experiences pain, both physical and mental. As far as physical pain is concerned, there is really no difference between a rat and a chimp. They both possess a highly sensitive nervous system, capable of sending intense pain signals to the brain when they are being hurt. To prevent physical pain to experimental animals, one would have to stop all animal research tomorrow.
The separation of apes from other animals reflects our concern that they, being so similar to us, must also be able to experience horrific mental pain, and this is what makes us feel the need to exempt them from medical research duties. We envisage that, like a human torture victim, they must be able to sit in their cells awaiting the next test, with all the anticipatory dread that we ourselves would feel.
This brings us to the ultimate dilemma. If a human terrorist knew when and where a bomb would explode, killing a thousand innocent people, would we have the right to inflict pain on him to save them? If a severe experiment on an ape was the only way we could save the lives of a thousand sick children, would we have the right to carry out the procedure to save them? If the terrorist and the ape are both capable of experiencing intense physical and mental pain, what is the difference? Should we not treat them both in the same way? And do we really want to live in a culture that accepts torture, just so long as it is for a good end?
This question is an important one:
And do we really want to live in a culture that accepts torture, just so long as it is for a good end?
The fact is that few animal tests have anything to do with medicines, and of those that do, many fail. Accepting torture because there is the slimmest of chances that it might do some good - <1% href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/desmond_morris/2006/12/post_787.html">The Guardian"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment