|
“A
proposal to eliminate animals in medical testing” |
|
“Even if animal
tests produced a cure [for AIDS], ‘we’d be against it.’” (Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), as quoted in Fred Barnes, “Politics,”
Vogue, September 1989, p. 542) “Even granting that we [humans] face
greater harm than laboratory animals presently endure if … research on these
animals is stopped, the animal rights view will not be satisfied with anything
less than total abolition.” (Tom
Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983) “We come with a new philosophy. We hold
the radical line. We will not compromise! We will not apologize, and we will not
relent! … Vivisection is not an abstract concept. It’s a deed, done by
individuals, who have weaknesses, who have breaking points, and who have home
addresses!” (Kevin
Kjonaas, National Leader-spokesperson for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, (SHAC-USA)
rally, East Millstone, New Jersey, outside a medical research facility, December
1, 2002) These
statements have been made by the leaders of a few of the largest and most
influential animal rights organizations in the world.
There is a considerable amount of rhetoric decrying the use of animals in
medical and cosmetic research. Terrorist
organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front and Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty violently attack research companies and their employees in an effort to
stop animal research. Computer
models are suggested as alternatives. While
this option is in use today, it will be years before it is a viable replacement.
In the meantime, live models must
be used. With the abolition of
animal use in research, the only alternative is the use of humans. After all, what is more physiologically compatible to a human
than another human? Replacing
all animal research with human research will require a total reconstruction of
research as we know it. The first
and obvious obstacle is where are the research subjects (RSs) going to come
from? To begin, every human being with a social security number
must register with the Research Requirement Agency (RRA.) Upon registration, the individual’s DNA type and family
history is recorded and kept in the RRA database.
Actively serving military personnel, police and firefighters are exempt. A
social security number application is submitted for every human being born in
the United States. When this is
done, the infant is also registered for research requirement (RR).
With both parents already registered, the infant’s DNA type and family
history are easily cross-referenced. Each
individual registered for RR is required to serve a total of forty-eight months
as an RS. These months are not
required to be consecutive. Any
individual, at any time, may be called to RS duty.
Legislation similar to that which applies to military reservists will be
in place to protect the RS from loss of job or school credit.
Many
preliminary tests will require strict controls.
For those tests, RSes will be housed by the research company.
Compounds will be constructed so the daily activity of the RS, along with
nutritional intake, can be controlled and monitored. In the case of RSs used for
psychological testing, all contact with the outside world will also be
controlled. Those tests which do
not require such strict control will be monitored by means of RRA officers.
These officers will visit the RS regularly to collect data recorded by
the RS and to ensure compliance with test requirements. There
will be some who will object to this proposal.
These people do not value all life equally.
In fairness, though, each objection of these speciesists will be
addressed now. ·
You
couldn’t do any real generational testing. Humans simply live too long,
breed slowly, and produce too few offspring to make generational and some
genetic testing feasible. A
quote from Tom Regan in The Case for
Animal Rights addresses this best, “If abandoning animal research means
that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it … We have no basic
right … not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to.”
If the reproductive deficiencies of the human race make some testing
infeasible, that testing will not be done.
However, with every human, past and present, in the RRA database,
generations may be used. It will
just take much longer than it would have with the exploitation of helpless
rodents. ·
What
about epidemics? All
that could be done would be to treat symptoms (if in a developed country) and
watch people/animals die. Look at
what the Bubonic Plague did to Europe! “Humans
have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the
earth.” (Newkirk, as quoted in Reader’s Digest, June, 1990) The human race must make some sacrifices to eliminate
the exploitation of non-human animals. Earth
is already straining to support the human population.
The social, economic and ecological issues beleaguering this poor planet
can be traced to human presence. A
reduction in the human population would be beneficial to those humans remaining,
as well as to the ecology of Earth. “If you haven’t given voluntary human
extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may
seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that
the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not
billions, of Earth-dwelling species … Phasing out the human race will solve
every problem on earth, social and environmental.” (“Les U. Knight”
(pseudonym), “Voluntary Human Extinction,” Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2,
(Summer 1991), p. 72.) ·
You
would be taking normal healthy individuals and screwing with them, leaving them
inferior. At
the risk of sounding flippant, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of
the few, or the one.” (Spock, Star Trek, The Wrath of Kahn)
Individually, nobody wants to be damaged by medical testing.
However, the greater good of society, the human race even, must be taken
into consideration. People donate
kidneys to those in need. Is not
the possession of one working kidney inferior to possessing two?
While nobody wants to be damaged while an RS, it is a necessary risk that
must be taken to ensure the well being of our descendants. ·
Why
not use only criminals and the dregs of society?
Why do you want me, an honest, hardworking, upstanding member of the
community? The
simplest answer to this question is there aren’t enough “dregs” to test
on. However, this only touches the
surface of the issue. The
elimination of animals in research is a result of a shift in societal morals.
For too long, humans have been willing to have others assume the risk
while reaping the rewards. The time
for such thinking is past. It is
high time for those who wish to benefit from medical testing to shoulder some of
the responsibility for making the benefits possible.
Something else that must be considered is the need for RSs outside the
demographics of the typical lowlife. Research
subjects of all ages, backgrounds, and lifestyles are needed to provide adequate
resources for the varied testing that will be done. ·
Well,
first take a look at the number of new drugs and procedures under development.
Then look at how many subjects it would take to make the test valid. I
think that when you do that you’d find that a sizable portion of the
population of the US would be sitting in a corporation research center every
year until you ran out of available subjects. Then the commitment would
have to be upped. There are not enough people. This
objection addresses two issues. The
first is the number of new drugs and procedures under development.
According to the University of Southern Mississippi, Department of
Medical Technology, there were 10 billion laboratory tests performed in 20011.
A prioritization of testing must take place.
The number of laboratory tests will obviously need to be drastically
reduced. One way to do this is
through the elimination of cosmetic testing. Until
adequate computer models make testing for non-lifesaving drugs and procedures
feasible, vanity will have to take a backseat to more immediate issues, such as
AIDS or cancer. The
second issue is the number of individuals available for RS duty.
Currently, there are approximately
290 million people in the United States.
Of these people, 25% are 0-17 years old, 63% are 18-64, and 12% are 65
and over. A small percentage of the
population can serve RS duty. The
economy is able to absorb a reduction in the workforce up to ten percent without
excessive negative impact. That
gives the RRA 17,987,300 individuals aged 18-64 from which to draw.
An even smaller percentage of RSs under 18 years old may be used.
Five percent of school age children give the RRA a pool of 3,644,750
individuals to use. Short term
testing can be done during the traditional summer vacation to prevent undue
disruption of the educational system. Youth that must participate in long term testing will be
allowed to resume school at the grade withdrawn from at the commencement of the
test. The senior population is more
available than the younger generations. Advanced
age also presents opportunity for the study of those afflictions that accompany
longevity. As there are fewer
seniors in the workforce, drawing ten percent of the senior population will not
adversely affect the economy a great deal.
This percentage will provide the RRA with 3,560,200 individuals 65 years
and older. All total, this is only
8% of the total US population, or 25,192,250 RSs available at any given time.
This figure does not include individuals who wish to volunteer for extra
time as an RS. With the
reprioritization of testing, this number is ample to provide the necessary
medical research to benefit the human race. ·
This
could only be done voluntarily under the Constitution as
it is now written. It
is well within the realm of possibility to conduct RR within the guidelines of
the Constitution. Registration for
RR is not mandatory. However, if an
individual is not registered with RRA, that individual forfeits the right to
reap any benefit from medical testing. The
technology exists today to provide each and every individual with a computer
chip, which will be implanted at birth. The
individuals registration status, the time already served as an RS, and all
medical information will be contained in this chip.
Upon the individual’s admission to the hospital or doctor’s office,
the chip is scanned. If the
registration status shows that the person is not registered with the RRA, that
person is not entitled to any medical treatment whatsoever.
This also applies when purchasing any medication.
The person does, however, have the opportunity, at any time, to register
for RR.
Will the elimination of animals in testing be
an easy undertaking? Of course not. However, we, as the human race, must take our moral
obligation to our fellow residents of Earth seriously.
Our lofty position on the food chain does not entitle us to exploit our
non-human brethren. This proposal
will not only save the lives of countless thousands of non-human animals, it
will also protect those who work for, in, and with research facilities from
violent terrorist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front and Stop
Huntington Animal Cruelty. How much
longer can we allow others to assume the risks necessary for medical
advancement, while we sit back and reap the benefits with a clean conscience? |