Monthly Archive for March, 2009

Yet another hypocrisy in an outdated system

It is certainly the case in western civilization that we are taught to believe doctors and medical researchers have our best interests at heart and that they toil tirelessly to save lives. But there is a major flaw in this seemingly compassionate status quo and a darker side that the general public either knows little about, conveniently chooses to ignore, or even worse, chooses to justify and rationalize. I am of course talking about animal testing and research.

We as humans have become so driven to control every aspect of our lives, to control every disease, to manipulate every bacterium, and seem to have this insatiable need to obliterate every illness from the face of the planet. Through this endless quest for health, we too often forget and ignore the suffering, torture, and abuse that non-human, yet fully sentient brings must undergo.

It is without doubt that we owe our quality of life today to the sacrifices of millions of animal test subjects who were forced to partake in hideous medical experiments and were left malformed, disabled, or dead. Pharmaceutical companies are required to test their products on animals before their products can be licensed and marketed and as a result, dogs and numerous other animals are forced fed medication. One of the most common tests performed on these lab animals is a sub-acute toxicity test where the drug is administered in ever increasing doses over a period of weeks just below the level where rapid poisoning could occur. However, tests for chronic toxicity in these medications are required to last over two years.

Another form of medical research performed once again on fully sentient beings is classified under the seemingly benign umbrella term of “applied research.” In applied research animal test subjects are injected with diseases so as to have the effects noted as the virus spreads throughout the body. Animals are also subjected to conditions to cause them to develop a problem and then scientists will note how the disease affects the body. For example, air supply may be cut off causing the animal to suffer a stroke or neurotoxins will be injected to simulate degenerative diseases.

To suggest that all medical research and progress be thrown out simply because it was associated with or achieved through animal testing is ludicrous. But with advances in medicine, animal testing has been rendered totally irrelevant and is an outdated form of cruelty. There are numerous alternatives to such needless torture, such as….

  • Test tube studies on human cultures and tissue samples. Stem cells and donated organs can also be used to conduct any number of experiments currently conducted on animals. Besides simply being totally cruelty-free, results obtained from human-based experiments are far more accurate since when studying the human body, it’s a safer bet to actually use human organs, cells, and tissues.

The stress that animals undergo in laboratory settings often renders any results of said testing useless as stress can raise blood pressure, alter hormone levels, and change blood chemistry. Some of which are the very things being tested.

Animals react in different ways to tests than humans; obviously, as we are different species, meaning the results of testing will not always be accurate or lend anymore information about a drug or procedure to the researchers.

In addition to the numerous moral reasons against animal testing and disregarding its total lack of necessity, medical testing and research is rife with hypocrisy. Researchers make the argument for the continuation of animal testing by arguing:

animals used for such testing are similar enough to humans to make said research valuable, yet separate enough from humans as to make their pain and agony irrelevant.

Well, which is it?

Double trouble

World, we have bunnies.

Actually, we’ve had the one rabbit since sometime in October, but about a month ago we acquired a second rabbit as a companion for her. So without further ado, meet Regan.

img_5488

And Jax. Also known as the rabbit child of Satan.

img_5578

Regan is a Dutch rabbit who was found hiding under a parked car outside a park not too far from our house. Domestic rabbits tend not to do so well in the wild; ironically, many people who no longer want their rabbit leave him or her in an outdoor area, thinking he or she will be fine. The man whose car she was under lured her out with a carrot, and a neighbor decided he’d take her in and try to find her people. He didn’t, and so he put her up on a listserve to try and find her a home. I saw the posting, and we went to go pick her up. Rabbits are the third most popular “pet” in American (and thus the third most “euthanized”) and tend to be seen as “throwaway pets,” due to their small size, ready availability, and relatively inexpensive cost to purchase. Almost anyone can walk into a major chain pet store and purchase a rabbit for about $20 - a rabbit bred in the equivalent of a rabbit puppy mill, and who will more often than not have health problems from the poor diet fed them by the pet store and poor “people” skills since she has spent her entire life moving from one tiny cage to another.

But I digress. Regan was in almost perfect health, except for the permanent tendon damage she sustained to her toes from not having her nails clipped, making it obvious that she had been someone’s pet. So we brought her home. Rabbits make good apartment pets if you’re willing to make the time to litter train them and allow them enough time out. Regan was already trained, making it even more obvious that she had lived in someone’s house for years.

Jax is a slightly different story. We got him from someone on Craigs List, which may not have been the best route to go. Lesson learned. We had narrowed our search down to two rabbits, Jax, and another male Holland Lop from a petting zoo in Maryland. Jax’s person sent me a photo of him in a tiny hutch with a wire floor and no shelter or toys, and that was pretty much it. The man told me he was used to being handled and being with other rabbits, and volunteered very little other information, even when I probed - not a good sign. Still, rabbits aren’t meant to live in wire hutches, and it was 10 degrees outside at night, so we picked Jax.

Unfortunately, the man lied about exactly how much he’d been handled, and he spent the first three days with us cowering in the corner of his pen. Apparently the dude mistook abject terror for comfort. His bad. He also has worms. In the past month he’s become much more comfortable with us being around, but he’s still not too sure about being touched, which is a problem when it comes to moving him from place to place.

We did our first official bonding introduction with them last night, after waiting about three weeks after Jax was neutered. It went well enough. Here’s a video with some extremely insightful commentary by me and Alex…

One of the less common questions we get vis a vis veganism and vegan ethics is whether or not we believe vegans should be animal owners. I say owners because in the eyes of the law, that’s what people who allow animals into their homes are, and because I don’t believe that we can necessarily transcend the paradigm that we’ve all had ingrained in us since we were less capable of intellectual functioning than your average guinea pig. So should vegans “own” animals?

A potentially tricky proposition, because most people who acquire pets don’t acquire them for the animal’s sake - we bring domestic animals into our homes because we want them there, for one personal reason or another. When that personal reason becomes overshadowed by an inconvenience or change in circumstances, we get rid of the animal because it’s easier. Many people, even “animal lovers” do this. Many people prey on both the people and animals by breeding animals for sale, an action that both solidifies the property status of animals, and creates millions of “excess” animals per year, a number that is by no coincidence about equal to the number who are thrown away and killed in shelters.

As vegans, don’t we have a duty to eschew all forms of systematic animal abuse? I hardly think one could argue that the institution of “pet ownership” doesn’t fall into that category.  However, I think if we look at the number of animals who are killed yearly in shelters (5 million) because people simply don’t want them anymore, we have a simple answer. It is our duty to help wherever possible, and this includes domestic “pet” animals.

Ovum

Thanks go out to a.r. hub

alex3

An ovum is “the female reproductive cell which, after fertilization, develops into a new member of the same species.” An egg is a hen ovum.

It is therefore arbitrary to separate a body part from reproductive excretions such as egg’s or milk.

Suicide Food

From Suicide Food (quoted in full b/c it’s that good):

alex2“This specimen of meta-suicidefood has garnered a lot of attention lately. We’re not even going to name the product it is meant to advertise.

Nor will we link to any of the (many) locations where you can view it online. If you really care, you may do your own legwork.

The reason we term this “meta-suicidefood” is that the commercial does not intend to sell dead animals at all. It profits only indirectly from the themes so common to suicide food analysts. And it is precisely that casual reference that renders it so insidious. For it assumes—rather than asserts—the primacy of suicidefoodism’s central tenet: animals are honored through being killed and consumed.

In this commercial spot, two pigs dine on another. “I like a nice ham,” one of them tells us, before asking, “Do you think that’s wrong?” He then brushes aside any concerns of morality or decency with the pat non sequitur “We’re just enjoying the flavors of a fallen friend.” Only in a world tainted by suicidefoodism’s sickly vapors could that proposition be conceived, uttered, and embraced. Enjoying the flavors of a fallen friend? Who but a monster would say this? (And who but a fool would think this addressed the issue of morality?)

If your friend died, would you eat him? As the police subdued you, with unconcealed disgust, would you remind them that you were only “enjoying the flavors of a fallen friend”?

Oh, but don’t worry. The announcer informs us that the pig is “unwronged.”

That’s all, folks! What else can we say? The virus of suicidefoodism has spread so far and infected so many that it has become a cultural touchstone, something requiring no context at all. It just… is. As unremarkable as the air.”

Lost in translation

Dear concerned individual,

For some reason when I said “I think that “sporting” events in which animals are routinely abused and/or die are ethically problematic and we need to seriously rethink the rational behind them, and remove them from our culture,” you heard, “I’M COMING TO TAKE YOUR DOGS AWAY AND SEND YOU TO JAIL FOR TAKING THEM ON BIKE RIDES!”

Perhaps you should have your vision checked, as this is not at all what I said or meant.

Love,
Jen