Kill the Vivisectors?

Ronald Bailey | November 1, 2005

When testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last week, animal rights activist Jerry Vlasek did not back down from his despicably coy 2003 observation that assassinating "vivisectors" would spare animals from medical research:

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human animals."

Vlasek is a trauma surgeon in Los Angeles. Surely he doesn't eschew the techniques for suturing damaged blood vessels that were developed by Alexis Carrel through experimentation on live dogs?

And let's not forget the pain, suffering and death from which millions of humans have been spared by medicines and procedures developed by using animals in medical research.

Thanks for the heads up to C.S. Prakash at the Tuskegee Institute and David Martosko at the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Comments

|11.1.05 @ 12:13PM|#

When testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works last week, animal rights activist

That's the point where I tune out.

|11.1.05 @ 12:17PM|#

A complete utilitarian analysis would also examine the number of human lives that would be saved by assassinating a few animal rights activists in order to reduce the obstructions to animal research...

|11.1.05 @ 12:18PM|#

It's always been a question of consent to me. At least the animals are required to be anaesthetitized except in extreme cases, which -- pardon me, liberation biologists -- makes me queasy, regardless of the benefits.

Should we have a Nuremberg Code for animals, too?

|11.1.05 @ 12:19PM|#

For the record, I find the activist's comments as ridiculous and self-contradictory as those who blow up abortion clinics or advocate the execution of abortion providers and claim to be "pro-life."

|11.1.05 @ 12:22PM|#

How long before the animal rights nuts join forces with the fundies in a crusade against modern biology?

Dave W.|11.1.05 @ 12:42PM|#

I suppose vivisection has helped in the past. For present purposes, the important question is what are the costs and benefits of marginal vivisection currently being undertaken. Consideration of this question would make me feel better about contemporary vivisection than Mr. Bailey's playing shoot the fisk in the barrel for the umpteenth time.

|11.1.05 @ 12:44PM|#

"Vlasek is a trauma surgeon in Los Angeles. Surely he doesn't eschew the techniques for suturing damaged blood vessels that were developed by Alexis Carrel through experimentation on live dogs?"

While agreeing with the overall thrust against the animal rights loons, the above kind of argument doesn't click comfortably.

"Oh you're against slavery, well I see you wear cotton!...Oh, you're against eminent domain, I see you drive a car on a public highway". etc.

|11.1.05 @ 12:47PM|#

"I find the activist's comments as ridiculous and self-contradictory as those who blow up abortion clinics or advocate the execution of abortion providers and claim to be "pro-life.""

And as fruitless as well--those who advocate/commit the murder of abortion providers have had no success in stopping abortion and are pariahs (and abortion is much more controversial than animal testing). You would think that this might have dawned on Vlasek at some point, since it is his vocation to think about just these sorts of things. I'd say your credibility is pretty much shot when your solution involves murder.

|11.1.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Have we reached the point from a technological standpoint where vivisection can be phased out and replaced with something virtual?

|11.1.05 @ 12:49PM|#

I suppose vivisection has helped in the past. For present purposes, the important question is what are the costs and benefits of marginal vivisection currently being undertaken.

Fair enough, but even if the costs far outweigh the benefits, should we actually assassinate scientists for engaging in vivisection? And Vlasek doesn't just have a beef with marginal vivisection, but with all of it.

|11.1.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Careful walking around that campus, t. I've heard that y'all get visited by PETA kooks every so often. God forbid they mistake you for a vivisector.

I suggest you wear a sign "DAMMIT, I'm a SCIENTIST, not a DOCTOR!"

Dave W.|11.1.05 @ 1:00PM|#

Fair enough, but even if the costs far outweigh the benefits, should we actually assassinate scientists for engaging in vivisection? And Vlasek doesn't just have a beef with marginal vivisection, but with all of it.

we should be curious about whether 99% is for lifesaving procedures and 1% is for cheaper mascara or vice versa. That is the kind of curiosity I am not sensing out of Mr. Bailey or on this thread. Perhaps mandatory disclosure is a good first step so that we, as the animal liking public, can determine what contemporary viv is really being used for before we decide if its good or bad.

|11.1.05 @ 1:01PM|#

MNG-

If the PETA kooks get past security and attack me, I'll circulate a petition to allow concealed carry on campus.

I know I'll sign it. And then I can probably get a signature from....um, OK, never mind.

|11.1.05 @ 1:05PM|#

Matthew Hogan: Interesting point, but I think the implied charge of hypocrisy still stands against Vlasek. For example, some committed Roman Catholics refuse to take vaccines developed using human fetal cell cultures.

Dave W.: I will keep shooting "fisk" or fish just as long they insist on swimming around in those barrels.

|11.1.05 @ 1:07PM|#

So because something has brought us benefits it can't be wrong, interesting. Why can't we just grow headless human (or ape etc.) bodies in labs instead of slicing up living animals.

|11.1.05 @ 1:09PM|#

we should be curious about whether 99% is for lifesaving procedures and 1% is for cheaper mascara or vice versa. That is the kind of curiosity I am not sensing out of Mr. Bailey or on this thread. Perhaps mandatory disclosure is a good first step so that we, as the animal liking public, can determine what contemporary viv is really being used for before we decide if its good or bad.

Again, even if only 1% is used for lifesaving procedures, we should keep that 1% and we certainly shouldn't be murdering any researchers. Vlasek would say the opposite on both counts.

And we aren't talking about blanket animal testing here. We're specifically talking about vivisection. I can't imagine that too many animals are actually cut open to test mascara, though I could be wrong about that.

Dave W.|11.1.05 @ 1:12PM|#

If only 1% is being used on life saving, then we don't have time to pay any attention to an idiot like Vlasek. In this instance we would have bigger fish to, errr, I mean, things to take care of.

|11.1.05 @ 1:13PM|#

dude: I don't think using dogs to develop better suturing techniques is wrong, Vlasek does. BTW, I assume you don't see anything wrong with growing headless dogs, cats, rats and mice too?

|11.1.05 @ 1:13PM|#

While agreeing with the overall thrust against the animal rights loons, the above kind of argument doesn't click comfortably.

You mean like PeTA Vice President and Type II diabetic Mary Beth Sweetland who admits to using insulin made from animals. "I don't see myself as a hypocrite," she proclaims "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."

Sorry Mary Beth, unless the definition has changed, you're still a hypocrite and will remain so until your willing to live--or in this case, die--by your fucked up priniciples. Until then, shut the hell up and lay off the medical researchers.

|11.1.05 @ 1:16PM|#

"How long before the animal rights nuts join forces with the fundies in a crusade against modern biology?"

thoreau, I'm trying to figure out if you're kidding or not....

|11.1.05 @ 1:17PM|#

While I'm on a rant, If animal rights kooks start murdering medical researchers, then the medical establishment is well within their rights to send a few ebola or small pox-laced packages to Vlasek or Ingrid Newkirk.

Turn about is always far play.

|11.1.05 @ 1:21PM|#

t:

Don't say it's a firearm. Since you're a physicist, just say it's a high-velocity projectile emitter, and you need to carry it around to acclimate it to variable conditions.

And don't load it with cop-killer bullets :)

|11.1.05 @ 1:22PM|#

How long before the animal rights nuts join forces with the fundies in a crusade against modern biology?

You know, given the similarities in their "logic" and their tactics (e.g. gross-out pictures, obnoxious picketing, the occasional letter bomb, etc.), I'm surprised that the animal rights movement and the anti-abortion activists haven't teamed up.

|11.1.05 @ 1:23PM|#

As one of those vivisectionist whose life has just been roundaboutly threatened, I appreciate this being brought to my attention.

Since i do brain research, headless humans wouldn't work for me, dude. It would work for a lot of other vivisection involving research, but there are two problems. First, you'd have to get past the public pressures that at this point still have stem cell research somewhat tied down. This is no easy task, but certainly something I would like to see work towards parallelly. Second, the cost of research would skyrocket, which would then slow it to a crawl. The rats I kill are cheap to house and keep alive, and the reproduce easily and quickly. You can disagree that the above two reasons make live animal research a worthwhile endeavor, but those are the big two that you'll have to deal with to implement your idea.

On the subject of virtual solutions, they work in some cases and (since cheaper) are used. JHU actually has a dept. focused on finding non-animal alternatives to research. That said, a lot of biomed research, like my own, involves looking for details of unknowns. There is no way to simulate those unknown variables, until you sort them out in a biological system (an animal).

|11.1.05 @ 1:29PM|#

Akira,

In a way, they have teamed up. While the serious US based AR people who have the cash sometimes go to train on tactics in Europe, the cheap and easy way is to go undercover Op Rescue and similar groups. They learn the tactics then take them back to their AR groups.

|11.1.05 @ 1:31PM|#

SR-

I'm also trying to figure out whether I'm kidding or not.


MNG-

In college, one of the assignments for an electromagnetism class was to design a rail gun. I don't remember much about my design, alas.

|11.1.05 @ 1:37PM|#

Akira,

I did not know that about the VP of PETA.

tactics (e.g. gross-out pictures, obnoxious picketing,

I was finally subject to some of those obnoxious picketing tactics this weekend, while driving by what must have been an abortion clinic. Scarier than the haunted house I visited the same day.

|11.1.05 @ 1:38PM|#

I'm at work, and hence don't have access to my DVD set of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit: Season 2." But didn't they highlight this fruitcake and his wife in the first segment of the PeTA episode?

|11.1.05 @ 1:38PM|#

Well, apropos the last animal-rights brouhaha here (where some libertarians and non-libertarians suggested the animal rights movement was a model to follow), I still say to Hell with animal rights activists and to Hell with their strategies.

|11.1.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Eric, well said.

As these animal rights nutjobs get more strident and violent they only serve to marginalize their cause.

|11.1.05 @ 1:47PM|#

But didn't they highlight this fruitcake and his wife in the first segment of the PeTA episode?

I just checked Showtime's office P&T site and lo and behold it's the same asshole!

"Violence and non-violence are not moral principles, they're tactics!" I recall him saying.

|11.1.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Edit: "office" should be "official."

|11.1.05 @ 1:49PM|#

The gross out pictures and obnoxious picketing is just the surface. In recent years than has been anthrax scares, razor blade mailings, property damage, and harrassment of friends and neighbors. Finding progress too slow, these tactics have been moved from just the scientists involved in the research, to accounting and janitorial staff members involved at the institutions.

A professor of mine was once targetted, and amongst other things, received phone calls from people telling her what she had packed for lunch for her grade-school aged child, and then kindly suggesting she stop doing her research.

Of course, in Britain things have progressed to assault, kidnapping and even branding. Only a matter of time until we start seeing assassinations.

Rich Ard|11.1.05 @ 1:54PM|#

A roommate of mine in college worked in the animal research lab; there was an office space that had 'anti-animal-rights-activist' posters, including the gem "Animal rights activists live an average of ten years longer due to animal testing."

|11.1.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Rich

This is probably the one you remember, along with some others.

|11.1.05 @ 2:04PM|#

I have some distant, distant relation who is a hard-core animal rights loon. She opposes any and all experimentation on animals for any reason what so ever. Of course, she realizes that science does need test subjects in order to progress, so what is here elegant solution:

Use prisoners for experimentation, particularly death-row inmates.

Ironically enough, she's also Jewish.

|11.1.05 @ 2:07PM|#

t:

Maybe you should reconsider your evil affiliation with animal-killing medical research, and join the much more benevolent weapons development industry.

Rail guns.. what is cooler then that?

Ben|11.1.05 @ 2:17PM|#

When the aliens come and inflict their vastly superior technology upon us, and decide that we're the ones to do experiments on, we'll see just how fast Mr. Bailey and everyone else here changes their mind. See how you like being cut up and experimented upon. I dare say you'll find it quite uncomfortable.

|11.1.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Seeing no evidence to contrary, I'm going to assume that Ben's post is satire.

Well done, sir. I shall eat a hamburger in rememberance of your delightful wit.

|11.1.05 @ 2:33PM|#

Ben,

It wouldn't be cause to change minds. Along the lines with Peter Singer's kinship theory, I hold those of my species in closer kinship than other species. Significant numbers of these I feel are sufficiently distant from my circle that their use for research or food acceptable for my species' benefit. Your aliens would likely be working on a similar stance. No change of mind would be necessary for me to desire to fight them or try to convince them that we were of higher worth to them. Should I fail, I'm sure I'd find it very uncomfortable, but this doesn't change my stance.

A similarly analogy would be a potential alien extermination of our species being reason to feel bad about the assault our immune system makes constantly on many of the myriad other organisms that exist in our bodies. Sure it'd suck if the tables were turned, but does this mean you are going to kill yourself or take immunosuppresant drugs?

|11.1.05 @ 2:33PM|#

If aliens wanted to experiment on human beings, would they care whether human beings had experimented on animals? Likely not.

|11.1.05 @ 2:35PM|#

When the aliens come and inflict their vastly superior technology upon us, and decide that we're delicious when grilled, we'll see just how fast you carnivores change yours minds. See how you like being slaughtered and infused with yummy spices. I dare say you'll find it quite uncomfortable.

M1EK|11.1.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Matthew Hogan called it 1000%, and Ronald's dismissal is lame. (Speaking as somebody who consistently argues for a lot more and better mass transit and uses it whenever practical, i.e. nearly zero since we currently got slow buses, and thus gets the same asinine hypocrisy charge thrown at him).

I agree that this particular subset of animal rights activists are lameos - but as usual, apparently I'm one of a small minority who thinks that doesn't give me the right to go off the deep end about them.

|11.1.05 @ 2:39PM|#

I just checked Showtime's office P&T site and lo and behold it's the same asshole!

"Violence and non-violence are not moral principles, they're tactics!" I recall him saying.

Ah-ha! Thought so. He was also the idiot who kept mindlessly repeating the "they're just mean-ol' meanies out to kill bunnies and puppies and kitties!" meme.

|11.1.05 @ 2:40PM|#

You need some special authorization to gain the right to go off the deep end about a political group you don't like?

I'm very sorry to hear that.

|11.1.05 @ 2:47PM|#

M1EK,

Some one who is against something enough to harrass and threaten the life of those that that something, is not ethically consistent if the then derive personal gain from using that same thing.

Dr. Vlasek makes his surgeons salary employing the techniques he derides as having been developed by those worthy of assassination. Not criticizing past actions, but discussing the killing of those that are doing what gave him his current level of livelihood.

The slavery analogy is anachronistic, but would be a valid comparison back then. If some one was enough against slavery to advocate killing of slave owners, they shouldn't be making their money on slave produced products when other options available.

As for eminent domain, I've never heard anyone advocate death for those that grab land to build highways, but if you know of some one, they could probably run Libertarian.

|11.1.05 @ 2:50PM|#

I'm one of a small minority who thinks that doesn't give me the right to go off the deep end about them.

This "small minority," who have a history of violence and property damage, isn't so lame when you realize that they're being clandestinely financed by PeTA with the donations of well-meaning dupes who think their saving doggies and kitties.

With that much money and support, I don't think we're going off the "deep end" when they start talking about killing people.

|11.1.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Edit "who have" should be "who has"

animaltoo|11.1.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Now, I'll be the first to admit that Vlasek's statements are outrageous but I also find some of these posts to be pretty revealing about the mentality of SOME liberterians here on reason.com

...in fact, barely a day passes when I don't hear some poster spouting off the whole "Live and Let Live (..er..Dude)" rationalization of some sort.

Apparently however - that particular philosophy only applies to those with solid bank accounts and opposable thumbs...

So let me be one of the first to state that I AM for the humane treatment of animals and that I don't approve of inhumane and unethical research on animals without some very justifiable reasons.

Let me also state that I am NOT a member of PETA either but I am sure starting to get a little annoyed with the suggestions here that anyone that gives a damn about our planet's fellow inhabitant's must be.

Rich Ard|11.1.05 @ 4:39PM|#

chthus, that's the one. Thanks.

|11.1.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Animaltoo: I haven't seen anyone here advocating that baby ducklings be bashed in basements with hammers just for fun. One can give a damn about our planet's fellow inhabitants without thinking that they have the exact same rights as people do.

|11.1.05 @ 4:43PM|#

animaltoo,

You may have found some of the posts revealing, but you didn't reveal which ones in particular. Further, you additional statement doesn't really reveal just what your position is. What is humane/inhumane? What's ethical experimentation? Can inhumane treatment during experimentation ever be considered ethical? What reasons would justify animal experiments in your mind?

In my reasearch, I treat animals rather inhumanely and eventually kill them in order to do my experiments. This experimentation has the potential to reduce human suffering in the future. If that potential comes to fruition (no sure thing, but a lot better than shot-in-the-dark chance) it will alleviate the suffering of a large number of humans.

Is it ethical? I and many others say yes, many would say no. Does it matter what species is in question? I work on rats, but would the equation change if it were dogs? chimps? zebrafish? snails?

|11.1.05 @ 4:59PM|#

chthus,

Question on how it's done: Do you anaesthetize the animals, or cut their vocal cords before you start so they don't scream? I would imagine you'd at least have to immobilize them somehow so they didn't try to wriggle out and escape during the experiment.

Personally, I just can't see myself being able do it. I don't care what the benefits were.

|11.1.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Say what you will about that Vlasek guy -- he makes some great pickles.

|11.1.05 @ 5:11PM|#

Apparently however - that particular philosophy only applies to those with solid bank accounts and opposable thumbs...


No, just sentience.

|11.1.05 @ 5:30PM|#

SPD,

Basically, it depends on what I am trying to learn with the experiment. For most things, the animal is anesthetized (including all vivisection and operations I do), but in other experiments, I have to stress the animals unanesthetized (restraint and tailshock). To do this I've had to have my experiments cleared with an animal care committee consisting of two scientists, a student member, two vets, a non-scientist employee of my institution and an non-scientist from outside the institution. I must convince them that what I am try to determine is of value, hasn't been done before, and can't be determined by alternate methods.

And yes, the animals do scream when shocked. performing the experiments, for me, is about the same level of enjoyment as a root canal. I've also put myself through the same series of shocks and didn't particularly like it. Unlike them, I was unrestrained.

I don't do what I do flippantly or without consideration for all aspects involved. I give far less consideration to my food.

|11.1.05 @ 5:32PM|#

They think surgical studies are done
Inhumanely; they'd rather see none.
The account antiviv-
isectionists give
Is it's cutting up monkeys for fun.

From oedilf.com, I take no credit

|11.1.05 @ 5:41PM|#

chthus,

Interesting information on the particulars; thanks for indulging my curiosity.

I give you credit. I know this stuff isn't being done for the hell of it, and that as the experimentation gets better and more advanced the suffering decreases while the benefits remain, but I guess I'm too much of a softie. I'd be having nightmares for quite some time. Not judging you or anyone else who does it for a living; just saying there's a vocation for everybody, and that just ain't mine. But someone's got to do it.

(I read the Carrel piece. Lots of chloroform involved; granted, it was all circa 1907-08. Didn't know if it's still used today. I had no idea experimental surgery had gotten even that far at the beginning of the last century.)

|11.1.05 @ 5:55PM|#

Now, I'll be the first to admit that Vlasek's statements are outrageous but I also find some of these posts to be pretty revealing about the mentality of SOME liberterians here on reason.com

...in fact, barely a day passes when I don't hear some poster spouting off the whole "Live and Let Live (..er..Dude)" rationalization of some sort.

For some reason, I can't fight off the suspicion that this post was the first thing s/he's ever read on Hit and Run, and his/her comment was based off a little fill-in-the-blanks template.

|11.1.05 @ 6:17PM|#

If animals that are going to be vivisected are granted �human� rights then I don't see why animals that are going to be eaten won't receive the same rights. If that were to happen it will be a major set back for human kind. Not to mention the fact that there would be no more use for cattle and other tasty animals so they would soon be extinct. (I call dibs on the last steak!)

animaltoo|11.1.05 @ 8:06PM|#

Ok, since I've obviously "ruffled some feathers" (no pun intended) let me clarify.

When I said SOME, I was specifically referring to posts by the likes of Akira (and thoreau perhaps) - I don't know which is worse though..fanatics like PETA or those who immediately get all worked up at the simple mention of a group's name?

Secondly - thank you chthus's for your candor. As I said quite clearly before, I agree with the original premise of this thread - mainly that comments like vlasek's are way over the top.

I do believe that there is a legitimate need for medical research using animals but I also believe that there should be very specifically defined standards for how such subjects are treated. I also think there should be some level of specific medical justification for testing those procedures which we as humans would deem cruel or inhumane were they performed on us.

Finally - Akira you responded to my statement "Apparently however - that particular philosophy only applies to those with solid bank accounts and opposable thumbs..." with:

"No, just sentience."

I don't think many people would agree that animals lack the ability to feel or perceive - do you?

Perhaps you meant sapient?

Larry A|11.1.05 @ 8:08PM|#

If animals that are going to be vivisected are granted "human" rights then I don't see why animals that are going to be eaten won't receive the same rights.

The hole in the argument is this: The claim that animals and humans have the same rights is based on the philosophy that humans are no better than animals.

As an activist told me when he found out I teach Hunter Education, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

I responded with, "So if rats hunt and pigs hunt and dogs hunt, shouldn't I naturally teach boys (and girls) to hunt?"

If people want to be part of nature, they should participate as nature designed them, as hunter-gatherers. If people aren't part of nature, the argument that animals have equal rights falls apart.

animaltoo|11.1.05 @ 8:51PM|#

Larry - I am not suggesting that animals have "equal rights" to humans. I am simply suggesting that animals be treated humanely and with respect.

As a southerner I have many deer hunting friends - "One shot one kill" is the motto here in NC and nothing upsets a hunter's day more than having an animal suffering for an extended period of time.

|11.1.05 @ 9:55PM|#

They'd suffer even less if not hunted (barring overpopulation, of course, and even then I'd rather see the use of birth control instead of culling, where possible). Just sayin'.

Akira, I suspect most insulin is synthetic now. Anyone else know?

|11.1.05 @ 10:33PM|#

poco,

You are correct the much of currently available insulin is synthetic human rather than animal. Of course, the fact that it is grown in genetically manipulated e-coli bacteria might set the GMO people all a fluster.

As for the animals suffering less if not hunted, I'm not sure that's the case. How exactly do you suppose they die. In general, illness, predators, starvation, and the infirmity of age or accident (with starvation usually being the final cause) is how animals in the wild die. If an animal dies in the woods and there's no hunter around with a gun, does it suffer? The answer is generally less. Man is only capable of a subset of nature's cruelty.

|11.1.05 @ 10:37PM|#

generally yes, not less.
oops.
for all my typos today, that's the first to flip the meaning of a sentence.

|11.1.05 @ 11:38PM|#

"nothing upsets a hunter's day more than having an animal suffering for an extended period of time."

"They'd suffer even less if not hunted (barring overpopulation, of course..."

What chthus said. And unfortunately, in most areas deer would become overpopulated, because humans have killed or driven away their former predators. Even if the natural predators were still around, personally, I'd probably rather be shot in the chest with a bullet than pulled down by a pack of wolves.

When I was a kid, I had a book called Wild Animals I Have Known, by Ernest Thompson Seton. This was a collection of "biographies" of various wild animals, based on the author's observations of animals in the wild (and somewhat anthropomorphicized). Here is something I remember from the book's foreword, and since I just now found it online at www.gutenberg.org/etext/3031 , I can give you an exact quote:

"The fact that these stories are true is the reason why all are tragic. The life of a wild animal always has a tragic end."

In other words, dying peacefully in its sleep is not usually an option for a wild animal. It usually involves some pain and fear.


"... and even then I'd rather see the use of birth control instead of culling, where possible). Just sayin'."

Yes, but have you ever tried getting a condom onto a struggling, 350-pound whitetail buck? Please don't respond if the answer is "Yes." :)

|11.2.05 @ 2:41AM|#

More crazy animal rightists at work:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16053849-1242,00.html

"Christopher Leigh Herreros, 19, was sentenced in May to four months' jail for torturing the stray eight-week-old kitten on Seven Hills railway station in January.
Herreros pleaded guilty to committing an act of cruelty on an animal, throwing the kitten against a brick wall and running over it with the front wheel of his bike."

Terry

|11.2.05 @ 2:48AM|#

Imagine, interfering with a human being's right to dispose of her property as she sees fit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4353300.stm

"Fluffy the cat took up to 10 minutes to die after 34-year-old Holly Thacker put the animal in the machine at her home in Hellesdon, Norwich, a court heard.

Vets told the court that Fluffy was gripping to the washer's metal drum so tightly its claws broke off as it spun round. Eventually the cat drowned. "

When will those horrible animal rightists learn ??

Ashish George|11.2.05 @ 5:52AM|#

Ronald Bailey says: "One can give a damn about our planet's fellow inhabitants without thinking that they have the exact same rights as people do."

"Animal rights" is really a misnomer. Most people who oppose the meat industry, vivisection, etc. are really only advocating one right for animals: The right to be left alone.

That does not strike me as particularly radical.

|11.2.05 @ 8:52AM|#

"Vlasek is a trauma surgeon in Los Angeles. Surely he doesn't eschew the techniques for suturing damaged blood vessels that were developed by Alexis Carrel through experimentation on live dogs?"

M. Hogan writes that this argument doesn't "click comfortably." I agree. For two reasons:

First, even if Vlasek's failure to eschew establishes his hypocrisy, that doesn't mean that he is wrong. Just because a person fails to live up to his or her moral belief doesn't imply that the moral belief is incorrect.

Second, I am not sure that the hypocrisy charge is warranted in the first place (not about the suturing techniques, anyway). Doctors and surgeons everyday probably use (and thus make money from) techniques or knowledge developed as a result of Nazi experimentation on human beings, but it would not be considered hypocritical of a doctor to claim that what the Nazis did was wrong or that the Nazis deserved to be killed. Why not? Well, I think there is a temporal element involved. Once time has passed and a certain piece of knowledge becomes established as part of a profession there arise a host of ethical problems with letting that knowledge go or ignoring that knowledge. (For one thing, pieces of knowledge tend to band together in networks of knowledge within a profession and lead to further knowledge, and so to ignore one piece can lead to having to ignore much more.) After a certain point, dismissing knowledge--however that knowledge was gained--can itself be immoral.

Vlasek would be hypocritical here if these suturing techniques are not already established practice within the profession. Are they not so established? I don't know. Perhaps someone knows?

|11.2.05 @ 9:33AM|#

Terry:

I believe you proved my point that it's possible to care about the planet's other inhabitants with recourse to animal "rights." In both of cases you cite, people were properly imprisoned for unnecessary cruelty to animals.

|11.2.05 @ 9:35AM|#

"Surely he doesn't eschew the techniques for suturing damaged blood vessels that were developed by Alexis Carrel through experimentation on live dogs?"

Great argument you got there, Bailey. Surely you didn't drive on any public roads this week.

M1EK|11.2.05 @ 9:53AM|#

"Animaltoo: I haven't seen anyone here advocating that baby ducklings be bashed in basements with hammers just for fun."

Ronald,

Actually, your magazine published a very creepy article asserting that skinning animals for their fur "ennobles" them. Have we forgotten already? It was only a couple of weeks ago if I recall.

M1EK|11.2.05 @ 9:53AM|#

"Animaltoo: I haven't seen anyone here advocating that baby ducklings be bashed in basements with hammers just for fun."

Ronald,

Actually, this very site linked to a very creepy article asserting that skinning animals for their fur "ennobles" them. And, by the way, did so while effectively endorsing the author's position.

Have we forgotten already? It was only a couple of weeks ago if I recall.

|11.2.05 @ 1:59PM|#

The first thing I saw on Stevo's last post was:

Yes, but have you ever tried getting a condom onto a struggling, 350-pound whitetail buck?

And then I forgot everything else I ever knew, struck dumb.

|11.2.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Ronald Bailey:

"I believe you proved my point that it's possible to care about the planet's other inhabitants with recourse to animal "rights." In both of cases you cite, people were properly imprisoned for unnecessary cruelty to animals."

Thank you Me. Bailey, it�s good to know that at least one person at Reason supports criminal prosecution of animal abusers.

Although I agree with Reason that giving non-human animals the same rights as humans is extreme and wrong, I am very much bothered that Reason seems to be taking the extreme opposite position that animals are entitled to no legal protections at all.

Perhaps you Mr. Bailey, since you do care about our planet�s other inhabitants could write an article defending animal welfare laws.

Terry