| 
|
Chapter 12. Separation Through Denial --Debate on Vivisection
It was a mild fall evening. Tom and I were on East 86th street gathering petitions in support of the "Research Modernization Act," a proposed federal bill which would have diverted much of the funding for animal experiments towards modern, more effective alternatives.
As was always the case when we worked the issue of vivisection, some people stepped up to debate with us -- most notably animal researchers.
On this particular evening a young man who claimed to be a researcher at NYU drew me into a long discussion about the so-called "benefits" of experiments on animals. Most of his arguments I was already familiar with:
"You know many of the medical advances we have made have been through the use of animals. You cannot deny that."
"So are you saying then, that the ends justifies the means?" "If we did not have animals to exploit, would it be acceptable to experiment on poor people or children?"
"Where do you draw the line?" "On those who cannot fight back?"
"Those who cannot speak human language?" "Those who cannot defend their rights?"
"That is silly. Human life is sacred."
"On what basis do you say that?" "Religion?" "Why does religion have a place in a scientific debate?" "If you are claiming humans have souls and animals don't, there is no scientific evidence to that claim."
"No, human life is superior to that of animals. We are capable of great achievement."
"We are also capable of great destruction." "Should rights only be granted according to one's IQ, achievements or conquests?" "Are you saying 'might makes right?" "By that thinking, Hitler was a hero."
"Human life has greater potential and value. Would you rather we experiment on your child or your dog?"
"You are putting forth a threat, rather than a reasonable dialogue of the issues." "There was a time when a man's life was considered more 'valuable' than that of a woman; there was a time when a white person's life was considered more 'valuable" than that of a black person." "A time when a Christian's life was considered more 'valuable' than a Jew." "Would it have been considered ethical to experiment on women or Jews or African Americans? "Is it ethical to experiment on those who are simply different from us?" Such is the basis for all oppression, whether towards animals or people."
"A woman or person of different race or religion is still a human being."
"So? That hasn't stopped slavery, war, genocide and oppression through the ages." "Hitler killed 10 million humans." The Nazis also experimented on people. They did so because they COULD. The victims could not fight back." We experiment on and kill animals because we CAN. They cannot fight back. And they cannot express to us in human language how they feel."
"We experiment on animals because it advances medical progress."
"But, since animals are different from humans biologically, wouldn't it be more scientifically advantageous to experiment on people?"
"It would be unethical to experiment on people."
"Who says?" "God or Congressman?"
"Society creates its own ethics, laws and values."
"To suit our conveniences and prejudices."
"Look, you can argue ethics all you like, but the bottom line is if you had to go into a burning building and save either your dog or your child, you would save your child. That is not a 'threat' that is reality. We deal with dying people everyday and have to make a choice on the best way to learn and develop medicines and treatments to best help them. We are making a choice in the burning building scenario to save the people."
"But, the bottom line is for every way that animals have helped medical discovery, they have also hindered it. An animal doesn't necessarily respond to drugs or treatments the same way a person does. Tylenol can be deadly to a cat. Rabbits can eat Strychnine. We could have the cure for cancer right now, but if it kills cats or rabbits, it may never get to people. On the other hand, how many times have we found treatments that worked in animals that did not work in people, or in some cases, made people sicker?"
"Its not perfect, but it's the best we got. This is why a drug is not approved by experimenting only on one species. We research on many different species of animals and do studies that cover many years, to study long-term and short-term effects."
"But, why not use the alternatives which tend to be cheaper, more expedient and more accurate as pertaining to people?"
"Because we still need to study a drug's effect on the WHOLE organism. Alternatives are useful as an adjunct to animal experiments, not a substitute for them."
"What if that 'whole organism' is your pet dog?"
"Don't be silly. We breed animals specifically for use in experimentation."
"That is not always true." "There are many states which still employ pound seizure." "A person's lost dog could end up in a pound, be sold to a lab and wind up on the vivisection table." "It has happened millions of times down through the centuries." "Answer the question: How would you feel if the animal on the experimentation block were YOUR dog?"
"I would be upset of course." "I have an emotional attachment to my dog." "But, my dog is not going to end up in a lab." "Animals are bred for that purpose."
"So, as long as we don't have 'emotional attachments' to the animals, it is OK to abuse and exploit them?" "Is this how some Nazis who had children at home were able to send other people's children to gas chambers?" "It was OK because they had no sentimental attachments to those children?" "That is separation through denial, not reality." "The child of the self and the child of the stranger have the same inherent value." "The animal in the lab, the animal in the pound, the animal in the slaughterhouse and the pet in the home have the same inherent value." "It is only our prejudices that create a false illusion of difference."
"We value according to our needs and the uses others fulfill."
"Yes, you are right on that. And as long as those we "use" cannot fight back, it is OK what we do to them?"
"Are you saying that the life of a fly or mouse has the same value as that of a human?"
"I am saying that no life is disposable just because we deem it convenient or 'useful'." "I am saying that all life has a place in nature and in the ecosystem. All life is sacred in its own way. As humans, yes, we value and protect our own lives above the others, as a lion kills a zebra to sustain his own life." But, in terms of what humans do to other animals, it is not a question of our survival, but mostly a question of abuse for selfish, trivial and mostly unnecessary purposes. Abuse for profit, either materialistically or professionally."
"But, we have saved human lives through the use of animals in research." "That is not 'trivial."
"You cannot prove to me that we could not have made those medical advances through other means had the use of animals been denied to us for ethical and practical reasons, from the very start." "Humans are very inventive and creative." "I believe that had animals been banned for use in experiments, we would be far more advanced in the use of alternatives and probably more advanced in the curing of disease than we are now. You cannot prove me wrong on that. When one door closes, another opens -- usually a better one."
"You're right. I cannot prove what would have happened had we never used animals. But, I believe we would not be advanced as we are now."
"Then we disagree. Either animals are not like us, in which case these experiments are irrelevant and misleading. Or, they are like us, in which case the experiments are unethical." "You can't have it both ways."
"I imagine there are a lot of shades of gray here." "It is not an 'either/or' scenario." "If it makes you feel better, I am opposed to the killing of animals for fur." "Furs are unnecessary."
"I don't know that it makes me feel better. I thank you for being opposed to fur. However, it is easy for people to be critical of those abuses they are not personally involved in. I bet I could find furriers who think animal experimentation is cruel. We adjust our ethical beliefs to adapt to our lifestyle or career choices." "I bet you would feel differently about vivisection, were you not involved in it. As it is now, you need to find reason to justify what you do. However, that is simply rationalization and denial. Consider again if the dog in the lab cage, were your dog."
"I think what I am doing helps humanity. You think again about that burning building and the choice of saving your child or your dog."
"I would save my child first, but then do everything to save my dog." "I would not kill my dog and then hope that by doing so, it would help me save my child." "When it comes to that burning building, in many ways, humans create the burning buildings through bad lifestyle and diet choices. "Scarifying and throwing animals into those burning buildings will not save us."
"You may be right in some ways on that. Thanks for an interesting discussion."
"Yea, same here. I guess some things for both of us to think about."
We said our goodnights and went our separate ways. I always found that those involved in animal research were more interested in intellectual dialogue and debate than those involved in fur, hunting or other abuses of animals. Perhaps it is because in over a century of experiments and research on animals, we have inadvertently, discovered how close animals are in fact to humans -- more so psychologically and behaviorally, than physiologically. It indeed, give us much to ethically ponder.