Vivisection Essay

Title

Ethics: Vivisection Essay

Author

Milan Holzapfel

Date

19 October 2000

Summary

The article “Pig--term solution. The same rationale applies to the amount and type of vivisection necessary to perfect the method (implied, not stated). It is only a matter of time before the method is available to the general population. There are ethical issues (unspecified).

A lot of animal research will be necessary in order to perfect the process of safely transplanting animal organs to humans, also called xenotransplantation (Tanne, 1999; Michler, 1996; CRT, 1999). The focus of this essay will be on the aspect of animal experimentation, also called vivisection.

An analysis of these assumptions will serve as an introduction to the topic. Then views critical of the assumptions stated above will be described, one school of thought questioning the paradigm of modern medical science, the other not questioning the paradigm but the ethics of medical science. The ethical theories that will be applied are Utilitarianism and an extension of Kantianism.

Introduction

Animals serve us as companions, as natural resources, labour, entertainment, food and objects of scientific research. In all the above named uses of animals it seems to matter very little to us whether the animals we use lead unfree and unpleasant lives, die at our hands or even suffer intense agony. Human needs are more pressing than the needs of animals, and although many of us think that it is ‘unfortunate’ that animals suffer at our hands, there is no sense of urgency to ease their plight. There seem to be no rights of animals that we need to take into account (Rachels, 1995, p. 97-100).

In our western culture this attitude can be traced to a deep-rooted anthropocentricism, which is founded in our ancestors’ interpretation of the Bible of our Judeo-Christian heritage. In ‘Genesis’, the first chapter of the Bible, we read: And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them.

So here is the command to subdue (have dominion) over every living being and the ‘fact’ that God made us ‘in his image’ which is why we are so special. To our religious ancestors this was a good reason to disregard the plight of animals. Singer (1999, p. 266-8) explains how many influential thinkers, including Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas have confirmed this so-called ‘strong anthropocentric’ view in different ways throughout the millennia. It is therefore no surprise that our society continues to act by this philosophy.

A view that is held by many medical researchers is that vivisection is not only important for the advancement of medicine and the welfare of humans and animals, but also that opponents of vivisection are against progress and human interests. The limited growth of medical knowledge that would result from stopping vivisection would harm humans and is therefore unethical (Patton, 1993). Scientific research on drugs, surgical procedures and genetic modification aimed at curing illness in humans and animals is the most effective way to improve health. Many researchers hold a ‘weak anthropocentric’ view which is derived from the idea that we humans interpret the world the way we do because we are humans and we cannot be expected not to act in a ‘speciesist’ way. This is a more scientific or philosophical interpretation of the religious view.

We should, to prevent wastefulness, prevent cruelty to animals as long as it does not interfere with our interests. In all other cases human interests override any rights animals may have (Patton, 1993). Medical researchers present long essays detailing the many advances that have been brought about through vivisection (Patton, 1993, Bodmer, 1992, Cohen, 1991) and explain how irreplaceable it is. Researchers sometimes argue that animals cannot suffer and that they have no rights (Cohen, 1991)

Some people criticise the whole biomedical conventional approach to medicine, however (Ruesch, 1989). Animal testing, according to this school of thought, serves only as a tool to enable the official endorsement of products that can be sold for a profit but are in effect quite useless.

Many alternative practitioners, labelled as ‘quacks’ by the ‘medical establishment’, argue that nutrition, environmental, social, psychological and even spiritual factors all play a role in maintaining good health. An imbalance in one or more of these factors will lead to a weakened physiological system which becomes less and less able to maintain and repair itself. It then becomes vulnerable to pathogens or organ defects. This is the stage where surgery and drugs are applied, often without even considering the removal of the true cause of the illness. It is precisely the idea that the aforementioned factors influence human health, most of which only apply to humans that further supports the notion of the uselessness of vivisection when it comes to understanding the true causes of illness.

These critics argue that a change of the biomedical model of illness and the shift away from the profit motive would require deep-seated societal changes, which is why the biomedical model remains in place despite its errors. If one holds this view, the matter of animal research is much less an ethical debate than it is a scientific debate.

Peter Singer illustrates a utilitarian perspective on the issue. Utilitarianism is concerned with maximising the amount of happiness in the universe and minimising pain. It is part of the consequentialist branch of moral philosophy. That means it requires us to consider the consequences of what we do. The deed that brings the greatest amount of happiness is the deed we ought to do, keeping in mind that one person’s (for instance our own) happiness is worth no more or less than any other person’s happiness.

There is a common perception held amongst many medical researchers and the public that animals have no rights because they are not rational beings (Cohen, 1991). A problem with this view is that even permanently, hopelessly retarded humans are regarded as worthy of receiving protection and rights while even the most intelligent animals are not (Singer, 1991).

Singer goes on to explain that we should rather ask the question ‘Can they suffer?’ not ‘Are they rational?’ just like the early utilitarian Bentham suggested over 200 years ago. To Singer, the basis for having interests is being able to feel pleasure or pain. Any other distinction would be arbitrary. Racists proclaimed that only if someone has the ‘right’ skin colour they have rights. Speciesism, the arbitrary distinction based on species membership, is just as impossible to defend. Singer states human rationality allows the suffering to be worse for the same pain, however, than a certain pain in an animal. A human suffering from cancer will probably suffer more than a rat with the same disease does. The assumption here is that animals can experience pain.

In true utilitarian fashion Singer states that animal suffering is permissible when it serves to reduce greater future suffering in humans or animals. Because we have duties toward animals that arise from their ability to suffer, we need to decide carefully on a case-by-case basis whether an experiment is justifiable. Singer also mentions advanced methods of research that do not involve animal testing and demands more emphasis on their refinement. He concludes with the idea that the greatest reduction of animal suffering will, however, arise through the adoption of a vegetarian diet. He suggests this strategy to anyone who is opposed to animal suffering in order for them to be consistent.

While many medical researchers point out that animal experiments are heavily regulated by law and need to be approved by ethics committees, Peter Singer (1993) cites relatively recent cases of atrocious, cruel and wasteful experiments. There is obviously room for the improvement of the effectiveness of ethics committees (Puplick, Oogjes, 1994)

According to Rachels (1995, p. 127-38) the philosopher Immanuel Kant devised the theory of the intrinsic worth of humans based upon humans being rational. For him a duty arises from that rationality. His deontological ethics (an ethics of absolute moral rules) stressed the need to value the intrinsic worth or dignity of rational human beings and never treat them as means to an end. That means we must, if we are to respect this rationality never manipulate or use people.

Another very important aspect of Kantian thought is The Categorical Imperative, a concept that has deeply influenced western culture. Kant (in Rachels, 1995) expresses it like this ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’. The main implications that arise from this are that we should only do things that we could apply to the whole of society. Put simply, if we steal from someone we must be prepared to live in a society of thieves. Kant’s reasoning behind this is to make moral behaviour analogous to rational behaviour. A further idea is his insistence on consistency, which requires that the above named rules have no exceptions.

Kant’s view on animals was very clear. He said we have no duties toward animals and that they are merely means to our ends (Rachels 1995 p. 127). Herein he is in line with the ancient idea of human supremacy over animals.

Conclusion

To avoid speciesism, we could use the capacity to suffer as the quality from which duties arise to a being. We could say that instead of respecting a beings’ rationality, from which duties arise like not lying to it, we must respect a beings right to live its life without having to suffer.

The shortcomings of Kantian theory become painfully obvious in the above mentioned use of the categorical imperative, however. It would be easy for us to say, precisely because there is no species more advanced than we are, that we would not mind if we were treated the way we treat animals (humans as victims of speciesism). We can be relatively safe in the knowledge that it just won’t happen the other way around.

If one wanted to take the implications of this essay seriously, this essay presents a challenge: The two ethical theories that were applied suggest that we should at least adopt a vegetarian diet and purchase products that were developed without animal testing (normally stated on the packaging) because we have a duty to animals that arise from their ability to suffer. A more difficult challenge would be for individuals to research the holistic approach to medicine and find out what they can do to actively maintain their health (wellness) to reduce the dependency on drugs and surgery developed with the help of animal research. This would help us maintain consistency, which is a powerful and recurring theme in ethics.