- checking login information
Loading...In The Name of Science: European Union confirms torture is legal
“The Parliament has produced a charter for the multibillion pound animal research industry to carry on business as usual, with scant regard either for animal welfare or public opinion…”
Michelle Thew, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
“Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances social knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.”
George Bernard Shaw
Last year, the Executive Commission of the European Union proposed a range of measures to ‘lessen the suffering’ of the 12 million vertebrate animals used in experiments each year. The proposed amendments to the EU’s 20-year-old animal experiments law included important protection measures regarding our closest animal relatives, the Great Apes.
This year, on May 5th, Members of the European Parliament voted on the amendments proposed by the commission. What was the result? Aside from a few crumbs scattered at the feet of animal advocates, the MEPs voted with industry lobbyists, and the animals lost… again.
According to Reuters UK,
“Researchers can continue most experiments on mankind’s closest relatives — chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans — after European Union lawmakers watered down proposals to restrict testing.”
As stated by Stephanie Ernst on Change.org,
“The European Parliament has voted to allow millions of animal ‘procedures’ to go ahead throughout the EU each year without the need to seek formal approval… Despite MEPs having voted last year to phase out all primate experiments, months of intense lobbying weakened their resolve.“
According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, wild populations of primates all across the world are being devastated to supply the research community.
On Mauritius, primates who are endangered or under threat of extinction are caught in the wild for the sole purpose of being exported for vivisection. Suffering in cages during captivity and in transit, they are often mistreated, beaten, and sometimes deprived of sufficient food. They are also transported in such dire conditions that many of them die of shock or hunger.
The Commission had proposed scaling back experiments on the 12,000 primates used each year, suggesting that they only be used ‘if the survival of their species was at stake or during an unexpected outbreak of life-threatening disease in humans’.
But according to a press release from the campaign ‘Make Animal Testing History’, “MEPs voted to continue to allow scientists the freedom to use primates in experiments with no direct application to improving human health…”
There were a few minor improvements to the law that were approved, including the decision to establish centers for developing non-animal alternatives. However, even if this does happen, and even if the meager ‘improvements’ are actually enforced (and I am not at all confident that they will be), these ‘victories’ appear to me to be little more than an opiate for the animal advocates and for the public.
Simply put, the lawmakers, at the bidding of industry lobbyists, have provided just enough positive movement to make the outcome appear balanced.
A press release from Make Animal Testing History states, “Sustained lobbying by the animal research industry has been intense, at times deeply disingenuous and certainly alarmist… “
As stated by Reuters UK, “one politician involved in drafting the laws took the unusual step of resigning her role in February, blaming excessive industry interference.”
As far as I can tell, the overall result is that animals used for experimentation are in virtually the same position as before: desperate and helpless in the unfeeling hands of those who view them as property, as tools of the industry to be used however ‘science’ deems fit. In other words, they have been betrayed, yet again, by those who have the power to protect them.
This leads me to question whether there is any point at all to advocating for animal protection at the legislative level. This defeat seems to be a perfect demonstration of the futility of fighting the animal industry where they are extremely strong and powerful. Industry lobbyists, with much to lose from the passage of tougher animal protection laws, will do everything in their power to make sure they remain free to obtain grants and funding for these procedures.
Meanwhile, our society remains in the dark ages about an issue of serious ethical concern. The individuals who carry out these procedures are, necessarily, indifferent to the suffering of non-human animals. Along with everyone who supports this practice, they must force themselves to believe in the fallacy that animals are not entitled to the basic right of a life free from unthinkable suffering. In this delusion, they are blind to the obvious truth that the eyes of these beautiful creatures are the windows into a soul that is pleading for mercy.
In order to keep the industry of vivisection going, we, as a society, demand that certain individuals desensitize themselves to a practice that most of us would experience as nothing short of a nightmare. In the name of science, barbaric practices are deemed not just acceptable, but necessary, ‘for the advancement of humanity’. Aside from demonstrating a very misguided understanding of ‘humanity’, this also indicates something deeply troubling about the ethical condition of our society.
If a person without a scientific agenda committed acts that even came close in brutality to the procedures that scientists and researchers do regularly, we would be rightfully concerned about their mental stability – specifically, about their ability to discern between right and wrong, and to empathize with others, the very qualities that differentiate a person of sanity from a psychopath.
For those readers who are under the impression that opposition to vivisection is a cause championed only by the animal-rights movement, consider the following quotes. These are but a few of many, which clearly indicate that vivisection has been opposed, throughout history, by many great minds, including some of the more enlightened individuals in the scientific community.
“Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.”
~ George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
“During my medical education … I found vivisection horrible, barbarous and above all unnecessary.”
~ Carl Jung, MD (1875 – 1961)
“I abhor vivisection…. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty.”
~ Charles W. Mayo, MD (1961), son of the co-founder of the Mayo Clinic. (The Mayo Clinic is consistently ranked among the top three U.S. hospitals.)
Experimentation on live, fully-conscious animals exemplifies the callous disregard that we humans have for the suffering of others, which is the root cause of many of our most serious problems. The continued legality of this practice serves to reinforce the hardhearted attitude we hold toward non-human animals, and thereby serves to reinforce the hardhearted attitude we hold toward our fellow humans.
For this reason, the continuation of vivisection acts as an impediment to our evolution as a society. Maintaining that such horrifically barbaric practices are socially acceptable serves to keep us in the dark about the true nature of our fellow animals. That is exactly the opposite of what we need as a civilization.
As the EU animal testing defeat shows, it is disheartening to see the results of the attempts to change legislation that regulates torture. As long as animals are viewed as property, their protection will always be less important to society than the perceived rights of the humans who own them and who profit from their use.
In short, new legislation will not fix the situation, unless it comes as a result of a crucial change in perception.
As Albert Schweitzer so eloquently said,
“Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace.”
Read more: animal testing, animals, environment & wildlife, ethics, eu, great apes, primates, torture, vegan, vivisection
Image: In Defense of Animals
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Thanks for sharing!
It would be ideal if these companies chose out of compassion and integrity to do the right thing, but…
Mary B I didn't give a lesson in civility. That would be an exercise in futility. Your problem is not…
meet our writers
116 comments
+ add your ownI read the article and then participated in the poll and am wondering....
WHO CONSTITUTES THE 1% WHO VOTED "YES"?!
Newsflash to those 1%-ers: Unless YOU are willing to let us strap YOU down, don't condemn other creatures to suffer in your place, as your slave proxy.
People are so goddamned smug and self-righteous about humans being the "dominant species" as to think we should be able to simply do as we please with no sense of guilt, remorse and certainly NO morality. Merely because something is still presently "legal" doesn't automatically confer upon any action morality, ethics, justice or fairness.
Until humans learn to build societies on relationships other than those based on exploitation, stratification and slavery, we will not evolve. We do not have any such "rights" to harm other species and treat them like prisoners, for any reason.
And honestly? Though "a child dying" is always sad, it's NATURE. Let nature take it's course. The biggest hypocrites are the ones that rush their kid to the doctor over a sniffle and walk by an injured animal on the roadside, saying unsympathetically, "Oh, well let nature take it's course." There are too many humans, we are not an advanced species, merely tool-makers without the sense to know when NOT to do things.
I read the article and then participated in the poll and am wondering....
WHO CONSTITUTES THE 1% WHO VOTED "YES"?!
Newsflash to those 1%-ers: Unless YOU are willing to let us strap YOU down, don't condemn other creatures to suffer in your place, as your slave proxy.
People are so goddamned smug and self-righteous about humans being the "dominant species" as to think we should be able to simply do as we please with no sense of guilt, remorse and certainly NO morality. Merely because something is still presently "legal" doesn't automatically confer upon any action morality, ethics, justice or fairness.
Until humans learn to build societies on relationships other than those based on exploitation, stratification and slavery, we will not evolve. We do not have any such "rights" to harm other species and treat them like prisoners, for any reason.
And honestly? Though "a child dying" is always sad, it's NATURE. Let nature take it's course. The biggest hypocrites are the ones that rush their kid to the doctor over a sniffle and walk by an injured animal on the roadside, saying unsympathetically, "Oh, well let nature take it's course." There are too many humans, we are not an advanced species, merely tool-makers without the sense to know when NOT to do things.
I am English, and therefore a Euproean by dictate, not choice. That this torture and abuse still survives does not suprise me. The European Parliament is comprised mainly of sycophants and parasites. That they can condone this abuse just proves it! As a civilisation I believe that we are doomed, if only for the way we abuse nature. It is first class pornography in that is has a few futile benifits for some, but degrades us all. Not to mention the animals...I once worked in a central London hospital where there was an "animal house." Access to this place was like trying to invade Parliament. It sickened me, and I left.
Angel, this is one of the most powerfully written and truthful articles on vivisection I have ever read and I have read them by the dozens along with books and videos. Simply put? A tour de force of logic. Thank you.
Naively, I actually thought that the EU was going to help the animals. I also expected better from a Labour government but the way that they have demonised and imprisoned compassionate people concerned about needless animal suffering on conspiracy to commit charges is nothing short of disgraceful. New Labour New Life for Animals?, animal testing figures have increased, I shall never vote for Labour ever again. Animal testing is a blot on mankind.
Ann C,
There is no way you are going to convince me that biomedical researchers don't wish to inflict harm. The pharmaceutical companies are not interested in finding cures. Why? Because they would lose too much money. They would rather sell you drugs to alleviate your symptoms rather than cure the cause. When you develop side effects from these drugs (as is often the case) they will then sell you more pills to alleviate the side effects. Get where I'm going with this? It's all about the money.
It has been well documented by USFDA that animals who don't react to a substance will not have the same effect on humans. Why not test on humans instead? That would be more specific. I have volunteered on a few clinical trials at the hospital where I work. What we have found is that reactions to certain compounds and substances differ even from one human to the next so where does animal testing fit into this other than it being unnecessary?
I have educated myself about vivisection, it should be against the law.
First, I have to say, Ann C. I cannot agree with you at all because if I were working for these companies, I would quit before I ever touched an animal. If anyone ever asked me to do anything like the atrocities that are carried out on these poor souls, I would throw whatever liquid around me that I could find in their face (documenting the effects, of course!) and kick them till they begged me to stop. I think that would be similar to what they do to these animals daily, actually it is less pain than they endure!
It can only take a heartless individual who can either cary out these experiments, or watch them be done, or even allow them to be done! There is no amount of money in the world that I could be paid to me by any of these companies that would make me do anything to harm an animal!!!!
I would never want an animal to die for me, or anyone I know. I could never feel good if I knew my continued existence was based on the death of an animal. And to say that you would rather have an animal die than a member of your family is really selfish.
I know what I am going to do to help end this problem, I will let you know how it goes, either that or you will see me on the news ;)
ASK YOURSELF - A POEM BY PHIL CLAISSEY
Ask yourself "Have we the right
To shoot a duck or bird in flight
To pin butterflies on the wall
To squash an insect big or small
Or catch a fox or even deer
To chase with hounds and fill with fear
To eat a cow, pig or lamb
Or go to war to kill a man
Or play with fish in the brook
To throw in line and catch with hook?
If they could speak they would shout,
"Put us back we've done no harm
Neither have our friends on the farm"
Then man would turn to the fish and say
"We're more intelligent than fish or beast
That's why on you we fish and feast"
The fish replied, blue in the face,
"If more intelligent beings than man
Came down from space and took your land
And with your children played fishing games
Had roast man for dinner
Well you do the same"
Ask yourself "Have we the right
To kill and eat less intelligent life?"
This makes me sad and angry at the same time. How artrogant and disrespectful we humans are - at leat the ones who do not value the right to freedom from pain and suffering of animals. It disgusts me to no end but we must not stop fighting. For the sake of our furry friends who suffer unimaginable horrors we must keep fighting.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment