A while back I told the story of the lady who jumped in the river to save the muntjac deer. She did not succeed and instead nearly drowned. I've seen Joan around for years but now that I walk more often near my house I come across her more often.
Today I was thinking about how I would argue against medical research using animals. I have decided that I would not say it is unethical but nor that it is ethical. I would create a category of morally problematic permissibles. These would be acts that are not ethical but are allowed either in an emergency or temporarily.
This I felt would track better the alleged aim to ultimately reduce the use of animals to virtually zero - or absolutely zero.
But then there's Joan. She has Parkinson's. She was diagnosed 30 years ago and still walks a good few miles every day. Not that long ago she was breathless and it turned out she had these growths in her lungs. They are not carcinogenic but had to be removed. Now I think she has just one properly functional lung. The problem is that the growths were caused by the medication she has to take to manage her Parkinson's.
So, how will new drugs be developed without animal models?
Well, right now, they wouldn't be. Hence the permissibility.
But emphasising that this is not categorically ethical might increase pressure to find alternatives.
Consider the COVID vaccines. Usually it takes about seven years to develop, test and produce a vaccine. We have three in a year. Increased investment added to urgency changes the paradigm.
Joan feels self conscious about her tics and clumsiness when walking. She feels ashamed when she falls down in the supermarket. The blossoms on the cherry tree in front of her flat though give her pleasure. 'I look outside,' she said, ' and the world has a pink glow.'
Comentarios