Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
NATURE'S SOCIAL UNION Throughout recorded history man has struggled with the dilemma of understanding his place in nature and has wondered how many of his thoughts, perceptions and feelings are also represented in animals. Since man is classified as a mammal, which possesses the exceptional gifts of speech and rational thinking, it might be expected that we have similarities with other mammals. It is obvious that humans are unlike all animals but it is also obvious that we resemble many mammals down to very minute details of molecular structure. The chimpanzee studies of Jane Goodall have been used to explain many aspects of our own behavior which we fail to understand and which concerns us because our behavior often appears irrational. Yet, as in the case of the mouse, so well described by Burns, mammals appear to manifest acute fear when their life or livelihood is threatened although we are the only species that kill each other. How then should we relate to other animals since we ourselves are one of them? Descartes propounded that animals are as machines available only for man's convenience and based on his well known dictum Cogito Ergo Sum, "I think and therefore I am" he deduced that animals "do not think" and therefore ‘are not” and thus devoid of any need for moral consideration. On the other hand Tom Regan, a philosopher from North Carolina, maintains that there is an inherent worth in every life form and each life has its own unique value. Furthermore he maintains that the domestication of animals as prescribed in the bible, which is hopelessly utilitarian, does not respect that inherent worth. So we see in the writings in Genesis that it is suggested that man was created separately by God and was instructed to have dominion over nature and animals should be subdued and controlled by man. It must be admitted, however, that some other passages do encourage some degree of sympathy towards animals. Religious thought, especially Christian doctrine, argues that animals do not have immortal souls while other religions suggest that the soul may migrate between animals and man, the direction of the migration being determined by the quality of the earthly existence, the assumption being that man represents the summit of attainment of all earthly forms. Many pet animal owners derive a great deal of comfort from a perception that there is an afterlife in which they will be reunited not only with their loved ones but also with their pets. Many pet cemeteries will use a cross on the grave of a pet to reinforce the notion of the Christian attitude to immortality. Legally domestic animals are property which can be used for labor, food, or clothing. Genesis 9 states that “every living thing that moves shall be food for you”. Aristotle proclaimed that a slave, although a human being, is an article of property in the same way as an animal. Modern society, however, no longer condones such an attitude and questions the subjugation and dominion by man over animals. Furthermore, much of society, as exemplified by the various animal welfare organizations, requests and requires a much greater concern for the welfare of animals. The problem that arises is to know and understand what factors affect the value system that animals possess and how should we provide for their contentment, fulfillment, and general well being. Their view of the world is certainly very different from ours; that of a bat is filled with sounds that we do not perceive, and any dog owner knows that the world of a dog is a world of smells of which we are totally ignorant. Do we know if domesticated dogs are truly social animals as they are in wild, and do they prefer the company of their peers? If so are those dogs that are lowest in the hierarchy of a social group inhibited in the expression of their natural ethos and lead a miserable existence being constantly threatened by the others and would they, therefore, prefer to live on their own? Has domestication resulted in an animal that prefers the company of man to that of its peers? Domestication, by man, the literal acceptance of the writings of the Bible, has resulted in selective breeding with the development of many breeds which are now living artifacts. The modern dairy cow, for example, provides enough milk for six calves instead of the one offspring that it produces and has many disorders associated with this enormous productivity. Modern turkeys can only be bred by artificial insemination since the development of their pectoral muscles precludes natural mating. In the process of domestication we have thus modified their physical and psychological welfare needs and established an interdependence between man and his domestic animals. The psychological dependence is best seen in "mans' best friend" which constantly craves his attention and approbation. We kill and eat animals, we harvest their milk and eggs, and use animals for clothing. Are we, by nature a carnivorous animal? Modern medicine would suggest that an affluent diet contains too much food of animal origin but whether or not we are by nature vegetarian is open to speculation. If we are truly herbivores we certainly do not compare with ruminant animals. I doubt that a human would be able to survive a diet of grass since we are not endowed with the necessary intestinal adaptations of a ruminant and we certainly would not relish tile idea of such an existence. They need to spend their life either eating, ruminating or sleeping which leaves little time for anything else. Of course, strict vegetarianism and veganism is practiced by many people who lead very healthy lives but they are all thin! However, if we might conclude that the carnivorous habit is predation, the eating of corpses as George Bernard Shaw called it, and the biblical exhortation "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you ... " may be part of our own biology and part of the natural order of things and further if we conclude that domestic animals are a product of man's manipulation of nature it then becomes incumbent on man to nurture, rather than dominate, the animal kingdom and we thus have an important caretaker and stewardship role. The veterinary profession is charged with the responsibility to relieve suffering in animals. Yet on the other hand, the veterinarian is often required to, either recognize or deny, the benefits to man of research using animals. Likewise, a practicing veterinarian sometimes has to utilize euthanasia to control pet animal overpopulation. Often for economic reasons a sick animal has to be denied treatment and is killed. How can a veterinarian endorse the eating of meat, the use of animals in research and teaching, the practice of euthanasia instead of therapy. How does a veterinarian approach hunting, is it a form of high technology predation which appeals to man's natural biological drive? What stance do veterinarians take on the use of animals in circuses and what are their thoughts on the extinction of animal species by man? The veterinary profession has to wrestle with these ethical problems and is expected to provide leadership to the community on these issues. For example animal welfare groups that condemn animal experiments naturally expect support from the veterinary profession and yet veterinarians use drugs that have been developed from such research and are therefore expected to also support the biomedical community. With respect to the use of animals in research Albert Schweitzer expressed his views very well and his comments extend to many other aspects of the relationship between man and animals. "Wherever any animal is forced into the service of man the sufferings which it has to bear on that account are the concern of everyone of us. No one ought to permit, insofar as he can prevent it, pain or suffering for which he will not take that responsibility. Let no one shirk the burden of his responsibility” The laws which govern the use of animals in research and the conditions of their confinement now force scientists to justify their use and to describe, in detail, the procedures that will be used in the experiments. It also forces the scientist to balance the suffering that he, or she, may inflict on the animal against the perceived benefit of the research. Research biologists rarely stray from the boundaries of acceptable behavior but they can become sometimes caught up in the excitement of their discoveries and forget the impact on the animal. Before undertaking research using animals they now have to seek approval from a committee of peers who scrutinize the proposed procedures and this exercise in itself ensures that every research scientist questions himself or herself as to whether or not that research meets his or her own ethical standards and responsibilities. Much of the criticism of research using animals has centered on the suffering caused by surgical procedures. It has thus concentrated on pain. We can only speculate on the intensity of pain experienced by animals, as compared to man, but this preoccupation with the pain of surgery has tended to cause us to disregard other forms of suffering that may be caused by animal experimentation. Deprivation of food and water, lack of exercise and deprivation of social contact all require consideration as well as any surgical procedure. We need to develop a logical basis for our attitude towards conducting research on different species. In Britain there has been an antivivisection movement since the nineteenth century which was successful in getting an Animal Welfare Act passed in 1876. This act, defined specific rules for each species the most restrictive being for horses, dogs, and to a lesser extent cats. Rats and mice were subject to very few restrictions. Cold-blooded species such as reptiles and amphibians were not worthy of mention. It is obvious that the Act was based purely on emotion; selecting groups that have a close relationship with man. There can be no logical basis for separating mammalian species or even cold blooded animals. I quote from a book by Diamond, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee", the third chimpanzee being man; "Somewhere along the scale from bacteria to humans we have to decide where killing becomes murder and where eating becomes cannibalism”. Most people draw those lines between humans and all other species. However, quite a few people are vegetarians unwilling to eat any animal and yet willing to eat plants. An increasingly vocal minority belonging to the animal rights movement objects to medical experiments on animals or at least on certain animals. That movement is especially indignant at research on cats and dogs and primates and much less concerned and generally silent about insects and bacteria. However, Diamond does go on to suggest that the chimpanzee is worthy of special consideration in any establishment of a hierarchy of species that should be spared from animal experimentation because science clearly shows that it is our closest mammalian relative and shows many human-like qualities and skills. He would, therefore, propose that the line be drawn between all the chimpanzee species, including man and all other animals. In using animals for extending biological knowledge we must take responsibility for the sacrifice of that animal. Each time any living creature is killed in the service of man, or for that matter in the service of other animals, we must recognize that the sacrifice honored us and that the exercise was undertaken with due recognition of that honor. Although many people find bull-fighting to be distasteful, the underlying justification and philosophy, as portrayed by Hemingway in his book “Death in the Afternoon”, l is that the superior intellect of man can dominate the powerful strength of the bull. It therefore, in a rather brutal way reinforces the dominance of man over the animal kingdom. However, in a Spanish bullfight the death of the bull honors the matador who recognizes this by saluting the bull before “the moment of truth”. In recent years the veterinary profession has changed in a way that few other professions could have changed. When I was a student most of us were of a farming background and our ambitions were to work in the area of food animal medicine. Men were in the majority and it was not considered a profession for women for pure physical reasons. However, enlightenment about the fact that women are quite capable of treating larger animals coupled with the removal of barriers to women in the application process to Colleges of Veterinary Medicine has resulted in most colleges of veterinary medicine now accepting some 80% women. The practice of veterinary medicine now is very largely dedicated to companion animal medicine and food animal medicine has declined. It is now a more caring profession and one that seems to be well equipped to deal with the enormous ethical problems that the profession has to face. The human-animal bond is important in many of our lives and animals play an important role in the psychic wellbeing of many lonely or socially isolated people. They also become an important part of a family with young children. Pets have been used as a tool in the treatment of some psychopaths. If man is not to stifle his human feelings he must practice kindness towards animals for he who is cruel to animals is often cruel in his dealings with man. You can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. The need to recognize our stewardship with respect to animals is also extended to our role in preserving the environment. St. Frances of Assisi broke away from traditional Catholic doctrine and frequently entered a state of religious ecstasy being deeply moved by every living creature. In this way he was very similar to the Native American Indian's sense of man's place in the ecosystem. The very moving letter from Chief Seattle to the President of the United States, Franklin Pierce concerning ownership of land reads "The deer, the horse, the great eagle they are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the animals and of man all belong to the same family.” We are stewards and caretakers not only of the animals but also of the planet. Many of our veterinary students are interested in issues of conservation. What can a veterinarian do in this respect? Where animal reservations or wilderness areas border human habitation there is a risk of disease transfer which may decimate the animal population. The spread of rabies in the local raccoon population is an example. In some of the wildlife game reserves in East Africa outbreaks of disease have been occurring with greater frequency and 70% of the emerging diseases such as AIDS and SARS are mutant diseases derived from animals. The confinement of animals to wildlife reserves has prevented the dispersal of their genes and conserved a narrow gene pool with all its risks for inbreeding and an increased susceptibility to epidemic diseases resulting from a lack of biological vigor. The veterinarian has a clear role in understanding how disease outbreaks may be managed and contained. Wild animals are an essential part of our heritage. They are valued for their beauty, for their intriguing adaptations, and for their rarity. They are part of the web of life; you touch one part and it affects all others. We have moral obligations to protect things of aesthetic value and to ensure their continued existence. It is gratifying that we have students of high moral and intellectual caliber with a deep sense of their responsibility to issues that are of concern to society and they are acquiring the skills to play a significant role in the future of society. The practice of veterinary medicine embodies a concern not only for the welfare of animals but also the welfare of man to meet not only his .daily needs but also to his spiritual and material survival. Man is thus ennobled by his participation in, and recognition of, the natural world and veterinary medicine may be called a “truly noble profession" since it recognizes this fact and strives to subdue man's spiritual arrogance and engender a sense of humility and social union with nature, a stewardship not a dominance or subjugation.