Letter: Human benefit is no reason to harm animals

Professor Marina Picciotto’s defense of animal experimentation seems to boil down to, “The ends justify the means” (“Animal research saves lives,” Jan. 28). She and her colleagues ignore the fundamental ethical questions that arise from harming other sentient beings for our own benefit.

They attempt to justify their abuse of animals in laboratories by suggesting there is a remote chance that their research somehow will help humans (which in most cases it does not), even though such behavior would, in other contexts, be criminal.

This approach to medical ethics opens the door to horrendous abuses. For example, painful, invasive experimentation on non-consenting, vulnerable humans has lead directly to medical discoveries that have saved countless lives and which people around the world benefit from every day. Would Picciotto and her colleagues condone these as well?

What is right and what it potentially useful are two different discussions, although animal experimenters would like the public to think they are one and the same. Given what we know about the rich lives of animals who are confined in laboratories, no enterprise that allows them to be isolated, poisoned, mutilated and killed can be considered ethical, regardless of the hypothetical benefits to humans.

Joan Poster
Jan. 28
Westport, Conn.

Comments

  • ???

    "Would Picciotto and her colleagues condone [painful, invasive experimentation on non-consenting humans] as well?"

    Uh, isn't that WHY we use animals for medical testing? To AVOID the situation noted?

    Look, I like chimps and mice as much as the next guy but, sorry, broccoli experiments just don't produce the necessary results.

  • John

    "necessary results" this is an emotional statement not a logical one. Animal experiments no longer produce necessary results--- see http://www.curedisease.com and educate yourself. This is the reason why 99.9% of the time animal "researchers" refuse to participate in public debates to authenticate the validity of their erronious statements. If one were truely engaged in TAXPAYER funded research it would be an autonomous response for the "researcher" to want to show the public the progress of their work.

  • Lindy

    "Would Picciotto and her colleagues condone [painful, invasive experimentation on non-consenting humans] as well?"

    Uh, isn't that WHY we use animals for medical testing? To AVOID the situation noted?

    You have responded to this sentence alone when it is directly related to what is said in the rest of the article, which explains why you have completely misunderstood it.

    As I see it, it was responding to their suggestion that if there is any hope of humans being helped then it is ok to do horrible 'research' on animals.

    Therefore, on that basis it seems to indicate that they would also condone the work done on the unconsenting humans as that actually WAS beneficial to humans. Do you see the hypocrisy now?