Vivisection

Encyclopedia : V : VI : VIV : Vivisection

Etymologically, vivisection refers to the dissection of, or any cutting or surgery upon, a living animal. More generally, it is used to describe any invasive experiment upon living animals, or any live animal testing, typically for the purpose of physiological or pathological scientific investigation. Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science: An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health, Zed Books, 1999. "Vivisection," Encyclopaedia Britannica. The term is generally used mainly by opponents of animal research. "vivisection n." The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed 3 July 2006 (http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t183.e85331)

Look up [[wiktionary:|}}}]] in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Contents

1 Animal vivisection
2 Debate
3 Human vivisection
4 Notes
5 References
6 See also
7 Further reading
8 External links

Animal vivisection

Modern codes of practice like those issued by the U.S. National Institute of Health or the British Home Office require that any invasive procedure on laboratory animals must be performed under deep surgical anaesthesia. These codes are legally binding for most organisations involved in vivisection in the western world (see, for example the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986). Welfare laws and accepted codes of conduct specify that the procedures carried out on laboratory animals should not be painful to them, although legislation does allow for anaesthetic not to be used if it will confound the results of an experiment. Opponents to vivisection claim that the law can fail to protect animals being vivisected [link] and point to undercover investigations showing that animals sometimes do suffer. [link]

Debate

Since the 19th century controversy regarding vivisection has centered on two issues: the factual issue about how useful or necessary it is for science and human interests, and the ethical issue about whether it is right or wrong to use animals for furthering human interests (or, occasionally, for furthering the interests of other animals).

One position is that the interests of human beings come first, and that it is fully justified to vivisect an animal, provided care is taken to eliminate/minimise suffering, if by doing so we may advance human interests, such as saving a life. Indeed, in some interpretations of Christian and Kantist doctrines, animal interests are often seen as carrying no weight at all by themselves:

"If a man's affection be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals, because God has subjected all things to man's power (...)." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part of second part, [question 102])

(However, the following paragraph from the Summa Theologica reads, "But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity is caused by the afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational animals are sensible to pain, it is possible for the affection of pity to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. [The Lord...] wished them to practice pity even with regard to dumb animals, and forbade them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to animals.")

"so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as means to an end. That end is man (...) Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity." (Immanuel Kant, Lectures on ethics, New York: Harper and Row, 1963, p.239)

The antispeciesist position challenges that point of view, regarding it as a manifestation of speciesism, a form of arbitrary discrimination similar to racism or sexism:

"I argue that there can be no reason - except the selfish desire to preserve the privileges of the exploiting group - for refusing to extend the basic principle of equality of consideration to members of other species." (Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Preface to the 1975 edition)

Some who argue the "antispeciesist" position demand that any difference in treatment be justified on the basis of morally relevant characteristics of the individual, and deny that the mere species of the individual counts as such. Peter Singer, whose 1975 Animal Liberation popularized the term "speciesism" claims to be a utilitarian, and consequently calls for equal weighing of the interests of all individuals; for instance, performing toxicology experiments on mice would be justifiable if and only if the expected benefits would equally justify inflicting the same level of pain on human beings. This would imply the abolition of the vast majority of current forms of vivisection, though not necessarily of all animal experimentation, depending on the comparative issue of how useful such experiments are. Other antispeciesists, following the animal rights approach, believe that utilitarian analysis is weak; and that all animals, or at least those who are subjects of a life, cannot be used as ends for means, whatever benefit we may expect to reap (Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights).

Human vivisection

Vivisection has long been practiced on human beings. Herophilos, the "father of anatomy" and founder of the first medical school in Alexandria, was described by the church leader Tertullian as having vivisected at least 600 live prisoners. In recent times, the wartime programs of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele and the Japanese military (Unit 731 and Dr. Fukujiro Ishiyama at Kyushu Imperial University Hospital) conducted human vivisections on concentration camp prisoners in their respective countries during WWII. In response to these atrocities, the medical profession internationally adopted the Nuremberg Code as a code of ethics. This code of ethics does not completely prohibit vivisection on humans.

Human volunteers can consent to be subjects for invasive experiments which may involve, for example, the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), or other procedures which require surgery on the volunteer. These procedures must be approved by ethical review, and carried out in an approved manner that minimizes pain and long term health risks to the subject [link]. Despite this, the term is generally recognized as pejorative: one would never refer to life-saving surgery, for example, as "vivisection." The use of the term vivisection when referring to procedures performed on humans almost always implies a lack of consent, as it does when it is practiced on non-humans.

Notes

References

Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science: An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health, Zed Books, 1999. ISBN 185649733X

External links

[Vivisections at Kyushu University Hospital in 1945]
["Vivisection - Absurd", a website that argues that vivisection is cruel, unscientific and a danger to human health]
[New England Anti-Vivisection Society]
[RDS online] in defence of vivisection for biomedical research

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.