Degrazia states that "...possibly certain behavioral studies of other species that take place in laboratories but do not cause pain, distress, or suffering to the subjects" may possibly be justified (312). To be specific, he states that the taking of a blood sample would qualify as such. These actions do not cause unreasonable harm and thus could be justified. I'll state simply that I disagree strongly.
My opinion stems from an earlier discussion of animal space and desire. I stated that I believe animals deserve a right to space as a part of personhood. If we are to allow animals to live out their lives just as any other "person" would, then having access to room to move about seems imperative. We would consider "housing" a human right, I think. Contest it if you like, but for now it is.
So, that established, wouldn't be confining animals in a laboratory a violation of their right to space in and of itself? I do believe it would. Studies have repeatedly shown that confined animals suffer from higher levels of stress and discomfort. The laboratory, no matter the "accommodating conditions", is not a natural habitat. It is a "prison" of sorts, meant to keep animals in place until they have been sufficiently used.
However, I would contest one point further. Is DeGrazia suggesting that having blood taken is not painful in some way? It does cause distress during, and even leading up. To say it doesn't is ignorant. And to subject an animal in an already unfamiliar and stressful area to this would only seem to make the suffering worse. Thus, I find Degrazia completely at wrong.
Question: Setting aside the issue of "animal space", do you believe it would be wrong to cause such minimal pain in any situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment