When wrong is simply wrong

Primum non nocere – First, do no harm. These words, believed to be first uttered by the ancient

https://albert-schweitzer.com/

Greek physician Hippocrates, are what I believe should be the base of ALL medical research.

While there remains some contention as to its origin and its application, primum non nocere is historically and widely considered to underpin the Hippocratic Oath. Whether or not its relevance is applied in practice to human patients however, it’s certainly not applied in pre-clinical stages of research – ie animal experiments.

The procedures that lab animals are subjected to are not generally made public. Obtaining this information involves trawling through medical journals and then translating them to lay English – as Humane Research Australia does with its case studies. What HRA has uncovered are horrific cases of harm – live rats having weights dropped onto their exposed brains, live dogs having their hearts removed and transplanted into others, and live cats and monkeys restrained in metal frames, while researchers perform craniotomies (that is the surgical removal of part of the skull) for electrodes to be implanted in their brains. Yes, that still happens today!

The Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes  lists as one of its governing principles:

“A judgement as to whether a proposed use of animals is ethically acceptable … must balance whether the potential effects on the wellbeing of the animals involved is justified by the potential benefits.”

This, effectively, endorses harm to animals if it is assumed that humans will ultimately benefit. However the majority of research papers HRA analyses do not give any clear indication of having clinical application – that is, being of benefit to human health - and instead suggests that more research be conducted, and of course that almost inevitably involves more animal experiments.

Putting aside the scientific arguments of using non-humans as models for human disease (which I address in other blogs), consider the ethical dilemma of inflicting harm on innocent victims in order to provide snippets of information which, together with many other snippets derived from many more cruel experiments, supposedly MAY provide a potential cure. However, add in the fact that over 95% of experimental drugs and processes ‘successfully’ tested on animals fail when applied to humans then it seems to me this ‘necessary’ infliction of harm is completely unjustified.

My driving passion to oppose animal experiments (and indeed all animal exploitation) is not just the cruelty, and not just the scientific invalidity (both of which are credible reasons to oppose the practice) but instead, the injustice.  It is simply wrong and unjustified to cause harm to any individual – let alone 7 million individuals – for a potential benefit to another, especially when that benefit may not even exist.

Let’s, for a moment, consider the use of humans instead of other animals to illustrate the point; for example, the work of J. Marion Sims:

“…an American physician and a pioneer in the field of surgery, known as the "father of modern gynecology". His most significant work was to develop a surgical technique for the repair of vesicovaginal fistula, a severe complication of obstructed childbirth.

Sims used enslaved African-American women as experimental subjects in the development of this important surgical breakthrough. This work has been regarded by many modern historians and ethicists as unethical. He has been described as "a prime example of progress in the medical profession made at the expense of a vulnerable population." But his contributions are also defended. Physician L. L. Wall emphasized that Sims conformed to accepted medical practices of the time, that he performed surgery for a therapeutic result, and that the women he operated on suffered what could be a catastrophic condition for their health and quality of life.”[1]

From a scientific perspective, such research might be considered of value because it provided data from humans which was to be applied to humans – hence no ‘species differences’ (which renders animal experiments inapplicable), however that does not make his actions just. Wrong is simply wrong.

For this reason I have never subscribed to utilitarianism (the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority). Instead, I subscribe to Philosopher Dr Albert Schweitzer’s Reverence for Life. "Ethics is nothing other than Reverence for Life. Reverence for Life affords me my fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, assisting and enhancing life, and to destroy, to harm or to hinder life is evil."

Animal experiments do not observe Reverence for Life, nor do they adhere to Hippocrates “First do no harm”. They are instead, a cruel disregard for sentient lives based on human apathy and resistance to change.

Animal experimentation doesn’t result in human cures. Genuine cures are discovered in spite of this abhorrent practice, not becauseof it. Yet, it disappoints me that we even have to argue against the validity of such a cruel practice when it should be apparent that wrong is simply wrong. That alone should be reason to end animal experimentation immediately.

For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust

---

[1]Wikipedia