Reading: July 2008 Archives

Euthanasia is when one brings about the death of another person because it's believed that the latter's present existence is so bad that she would be better off dead, or believes that unless someone intervenes and ends her life, it will become so bad that she would be better off dead.

The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. The individual who is suffering has an exceedingly poor quality of life, for example, and is, therefore, the direct object of concern. I repeat: The interests of the person being euthanized are the impetus for the act, as opposed to economic motives or mere convenience.

Thanks go out to Creature Talk for finding the following essay:

When I was a puppy, I entertained you with my antics and made you laugh. You called me your child, and despite a number of chewed shoes and a couple of murdered throw pillows, I became your best friend. Whenever I was "bad," you'd shake your finger at me and ask "How could you?" ­ but then you'd relent, and roll me over for a bellyrub.

My housebreaking took a little longer than expected, because you were terribly busy, but we worked on that together. I remember those nights of nuzzling you in bed and listening to your confidences and secret dreams, and I believed that life could not be any more perfect. We went for long walks and runs in the park, car rides, stops for ice cream (I only got the cone because "ice cream is bad for dogs," you said), and I took long naps in the sun waiting for you to come home at the end of the day.

Gradually, you began spending more time at work and on your career, and more time searching for a human mate. I waited for you patiently, comforted you through heartbreaks and disappointments, never chided you about bad decisions, and romped with glee at your homecomings, and when you fell in love.

She, now your wife, is not a "dog person" ­ still I welcomed her into our home, tried to show her affection, and obeyed her. I was happy because you were happy. Then the human babies came along and I shared your excitement. I was fascinated by their pinkness, how they smelled, and I wanted to mother them, too. Only she and you worried that I might hurt them, and I spent most of my time banished to another room, or to a dog crate. Oh, how I wanted to love them, but I became a "prisoner of love."

As they began to grow, I became their friend. They clung to my fur and pulled themselves up on wobbly legs, poked fingers in my eyes, investigated my ears, and gave me kisses on my nose. I loved everything about them and their touch ­ because your touch was now so infrequent ­ and I would have defended them with my life if need be.

I would sneak into their beds and listen to their worries and secret dreams, and together we waited for the sound of your car in the driveway. There had been a time, when others asked you if you had a dog, that you produced a photo of me from your wallet and told them stories about me. These past few years, you just answered "yes" and changed the subject. I had gone from being "your dog" to "just a dog," and you resented every expenditure on my behalf.

Now, you have a new career opportunity in another city, and you and they will be moving to an apartment that does not allow pets. You've made the right decision for your "family," but there was a time when I was your only family. I was excited about the car ride until we arrived at the animal shelter. It smelled of dogs and cats, of fear, of hopelessness. You filled out the paperwork and said "I know you will find a good home for her." They shrugged and gave you a pained look. They understand the realities facing a middle-aged dog, even one with "papers." You had to pry your son's fingers loose from my collar as he screamed "No, Daddy! Please don't let them take my dog!" And I worried for him, and what lessons you had just taught him about friendship and loyalty, about love and responsibility, and about respect for all life. You gave me a goodbye pat on the head, avoided my eyes, and politely refused to take my collar and leash with you. You had a deadline to meet and now I have one, too.

After you left, the two nice ladies said you probably knew about your upcoming move months ago and made no attempt to find me another good home. They shook their heads and asked "How could you?"

They are as attentive to us here in the shelter as their busy schedules allow. They feed us, of course, but I lost my appetite days ago. At first, whenever anyone passed my pen, I rushed to the front, hoping it was you ­ that you had changed your mind ­ that this was all a bad dream...or I hoped it would at least be someone who cared, anyone who might save me. When I realized I could not compete with the frolicking for attention of happy puppies, oblivious to their own fate, I retreated to a far corner and waited.

I heard her footsteps as she came for me at the end of the day, and I padded along the aisle after her to a separate room. A blissfully quiet room. She placed me on the table and rubbed my ears, and told me not to worry. My heart pounded in anticipation of what was to come, but there was also a sense of relief. The prisoner of love had run out of days. As is my nature, I was more concerned about her. The burden which she bears weighs heavily on her, and I know that, the same way I knew your every mood.

She gently placed a tourniquet around my foreleg as a tear ran down her cheek. I licked her hand in the same way I used to comfort you so many years ago. She expertly slid the hypodermic needle into my vein. As I felt the sting and the cool liquid coursing through my body, I lay down sleepily, looked into her kind eyes and murmured "How could you?"

Perhaps because she understood my dogspeak, she said "I'm so sorry." She hugged me, and hurriedly explained it was her job to make sure I went to a better place, where I wouldn't be ignored or abused or abandoned, or have to fend for myself ­ a place of love and light so very different from this earthly place. And with my last bit of energy, I tried to convey to her with a thump of my tail that my "How could you?" was not directed at her. It was you, My Beloved Master, I was thinking of. I will think of you and wait for you forever.

May everyone in your life continue to show you so much loyalty.

The End

Jim Willis 2001

This is not euthanasia; it's killing out of convenience. Our species' efforts to collapse these two distinct actions into a unified concept in our dealings with animals are pathetic. We try to make ourselves feel better about doing something we know, intuitively, is plain wrong. Stop lying about what we're doing. Don't confuse the language. Indeed, we have misused this term so frequently that it has lost its meaning entirely.

Similar actions are (and ought to be) illegal in the case of human beings. They're also immoral. Likewise in the case of our companion animals and all those other nonhumans we kill because it's more convenient than allowing them to breathe and experience this world.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox   

Green Is The New Red:

As both the US and UK governments (and many others) are cracking down on animal rights and environmental activists, labeling them as terrorists and hitting them with outrageous prison sentences, supporters say it is for a few reasons. First, they say that these activists are national security threats. Second, they say that this boot-on-the-throat approach will deter future illegal activity by underground, "eco-terrorist" groups like the Animal Liberation Front.

But here's a recent example of how this "Green Scare" plays out in real life.

A UK activist named Sarah Whitehead was just sentenced to 2 years in prison for rescuing a beagle from an abusive home. That's right, two years. Neighbors had filed complaints with the police and the RSPCA, to no avail. When Whitehead rescued the dog, cops pounced surprisingly quickly: it turns out Whitehead, like many activists, was already under police surveillance. So has this use of police resources, to crack down on a woman rescuing an abused dog, deterred illegal activity by "eco-terrorist" groups like the Animal Liberation Front?

Far from it.

In response to Whiteheads sentence, animal liberationists rescued 50 turkeys from an Eastern factory farm.

Will Potter writes,

"But lets stop for a moment so we can truly appreciate the absurdity of this situation. This is what the global "War on Terrorism" has become: an "animal rights terrorist" sentenced to two years in prison for rescuing a dog, and the method of retaliation chosen by the "terrorists" is... saving more lives."

Sarah was already on a suspended sentence for rescuing several hundred animals from a notorious puppy farmer in West Sussex, which authorities argue accounts for the severity of this punishment  

Reports say that the dog was living outside in a wooden cage, and was muzzled at all times except for when he got to eat. The dog was made to wear an electric shock collar and the neighbors informed Sarah that they had witnessed beatings. The neighbors had also heard the dog screaming on many occasions. The RSPCA had been called numerous times, but they failed to help this dog and left him with his people who had on occasion tied him to a radiator.

What would you do if you saw this animal suffering? If you saw (and heard) this helpless animal being tortured with no help from those charged to provide aid and support in these situations? 

She's a "terrorist" because she acted. So it goes.   

Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox

From Think Progress

Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) staff recently contacted the U.S. embassy in Chad to see whether he could visit the country and distribute food at a refugee camp. He said he wanted to hunt wildebeest and then distribute the meat to the refugees. The embassy, however, wasn't too happy with this idea - especially because there are no wildebeest in Chad: 

• [The Embassy welcomes] Congressman Hunter's interest in food assistance to Darfur refugees in Chad. Given the significant quantities of U.S. food aid programmed for distribution to these refugees through the World Food Program (WFP), Embassy Ndjamena would encourage the Congressman to time his visit to coincide with an already scheduled food distribution. Embassy Ndjamena can make the necessary arrangements for the Congressman to observe a WFP food distribution, which will include U.S. food aid, in one of the refugee camps.

Nope! Not as fun.   

In light of this, Duncan Hunter would very much like to go hunt wildebeest in Kenya and then donate their dead bodies to refugee camps in Chad.

Why hunting? Is orphaning a baby wildebeest truly an answer to global hunger? This ridiculous argument is only made more amusing because of the seriousness with which Mr. Hunter espouses it.   

The fact that wildebeest aren't native to Chad merely makes Mr. Hunter sound stupid, but I digress.

Oh yes, it appears that wildebeest are currently more endangered than usual. Due to political unrest in Kenya, 

"[The wildebeest] annual migration is under threat from poachers. "When the animals come into Kenya there is this big influx of poachers," says Brian Heath, CEO of the Mara Conservancy that manages animal protection in the border regions of the park. "Unless we control it we are in danger of the number of animals being poached not being able to sustain the population."

I ask Mr. Hunter this, why do you hate wildebeest so much that you want them to go extinct? What did they ever do to you? I know its fun to kill - power make's me excited down there too. (Oops!)    

Here's a better idea:

"[Mr. Hunter] could be really useful by advocating in Congress policies that provide meaningful economic development support and trade incentives to Kenyans and other Africans, and policies that provide more financial support to refugees and increase options for refugee resettlement."

Of course we could make sensible use of current feed staples such as corn or soy. Imagine the excess plant protein and calories that would be made available to the world community if that 15 pounds of feed being funneled through a hog to produce a single edible pound of flesh as I write this was instead distributed to three, four, five starving individual men, women and children. By aggregating this gluttonous excess and waste, the possibilities are endless.

But the idea being suggested by a Representative of the United States of America is let's round-up a few carcasses.      

I was speaking with a friend today about the issue of animal rights and he re-articulated a cogent argument that I wanted to very briefly reproduce, and apply to the issue of fishing.

Harm is bad

Consider any concept of ethics you've heard proffered - from the Stoics to Rawls - and you will notice that the belief that "harm is bad" is either explicitly stated, is implied in the argument itself, or follows. Think about your own beliefs: Shouldn't suffering be limited; don't you accept the premise that pain, for example, should be reduced as a matter of ethics?  

Now, to what principle can we appeal when attempting to defend the position that the harm suffered by certain groups doesn't matter ethically - or when we imply that while harm is bad, harm to some groups of people is worse than others? The answer is simple: prejudice. And it's not a defensible position.

The follow example is illuminating: from P.E.T.A. - 'Fishing Hurts'

Because no U.S. law regulates the treatment of fish, both commercial fishers and fish farms treat fish in ways that would warrant felony cruelty-to-animal charges if the victims were dogs or cats instead of fish.

Dragged from the ocean depths, fish undergo excruciating decompression - often the intense internal pressure ruptures their swimbladders, pops out their eyes, and pushes their stomachs through their mouths. Then they're tossed on board, where many slowly suffocate or are crushed to death. Others are still alive when their throats and bellies are cut open. Remarkably, fish farming is even worse because farmed fish are fed 5 pounds of commercially caught fish (species not eaten by humans) for every 1 pound of fish flesh produced.

Factory-farmed fish are subjected to extreme crowding and filthy conditions, which spread infections and parasites. Farmers use antibiotics and other drugs to keep the fish alive and to make them grow, but because the conditions on factory fish farms are so horrendous, up to 40 percent of farmed fish die even before slaughter.

Consider further the issue of "sport" fishing. As opposed to allowing an individual fish to suffocate to death, some people prefer to crush their skulls with a rock. Imagine that; failed attempts aside (although that's just disgusting to think about), consider the fear, distress and pain of that experience.

So, returning to this prejudice: What we say when we are eating animals is that our gastronomical interest - "Fish flesh tastes good" - ought to trump or at least count for more than the fish's fundamental interest in not being harmed (e.g, suffering, pain, death).

But why? Evidence supports the belief that fish can suffer in many of the same ways that I can - including psychologically; they can be harmed to the same degree and intensity, and yet, that doesn't matter to us.  

This is a prejudice; it's similar in kind to racism, classism and sexism. Our defense of this prejudice is as base as bigotry: "They're not humans" - meaning, "They don't belong to our group, so their harm doesn't count." 

How can we implicitly accept this premise while attempting to counter the arguments of the racist for example, who argues that blacks aren't a part of our group, therefore, their interests - no matter how fundamental - ought to be trumped by the interests of the group-members.

It's speciesism. It's as indefensible, ethically, as refusing women entrance into the community of those who matter because they don't have a penis.       

Despite opposition by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Army is moving forward with its plan to shoot live pigs and treat their gunshot wounds in a medical trauma exercise Friday at Schofield Barracks for soldiers headed to Iraq.

Maj. Derrick Cheng, spokesman for the 25th Infantry Division, said the training is being conducted under a U.S. Department of Agriculture license and the careful supervision of veterinarians and a military Animal Care and Use Committee.

"It's to teach Army personnel how to manage critically injured patients within the first few hours of their injury," Cheng said. The soldiers are learning emergency lifesaving skills needed on the battlefield when there are no medics, doctors or facility nearby, he said. PETA, however, said there are more advanced and humane options available, including high-tech human simulators.

In a letter, PETA urged the Army to end all use of animals, "as the overwhelming majority of North American medical schools have already done." "Shooting and maiming pigs is outdated as Civil War rifles," said Kathy Guillermo, director of PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department.

The Norfolk, Va.-based group demanded the exercise be halted after it was notified by a "distraught" soldier from the unit, who disclosed a plan to shoot the animals with M4 carbines and M16 rifles.  

Cheng said the exercise is conducted in a controlled environment with the pigs anesthetized the entire time. He had "no doubt whatsoever" in the effectiveness of the instruction, which he called the best option available at the base.

"Those alternative methods just can't replicate what the troops are going to face when we use live-tissue training," he said. "What we're doing is unique to what the soldiers are going to actually experience."

Cheng didn't have details about the number of pigs, how they were acquired or the weapons involved in the training.

"We understand (PETA's) concerns and point of view. At the same, the Army is committed to providing the soldiers with the best training possible," Cheng said.

The pigs are anesthetized therefore the pain should be minimized. However, according to P.E.T.A.'s Shalin Gala,

"The pigs will be released in a field and shot by high powered M-16A2 and M4 rifles...They are being shot while fully conscious and they're fully aware of the pain"

This dispute aside (although if they're experiencing pain, have we really left the Dark Ages?), we do know that suffering in its other forms - distress, frustration, and other psychological manifestations - will not be neutralized by medication. Each individual pig will be conscious of this experience.  

PETA is urging the Army to use advanced human simulators like those seen at the University of Hawaii Medical School. The University of Hawaii Medical School told KITV that U.S Navy medics have used its robot patients for training in the past. The Army responded by arguing that simulators are not adequate. (It's okay for Navy medics though, who also deal with in-the-field trauma and battle conditions?)  

I don't know whether or not these alternatives are sound; however, it's reasonable to believe that given the necessary impetus adequate alternatives would be created. As Francione has argued,

if a mechanic uses the same gloves everyday and finds success, how are we to know whether it is the gloves themselves that allow for this success, as opposed to the mechanic himself (or some other tool), unless this same mechanic either does a job glove-free or with a different brand perhaps?  

As we are talking about sensitive creatures, individual animals that experience the world in which they live, we ought to - morally speaking - see if it's the "gloves" that allow for a successful test.

Medical schools once said they couldn't do without the torture of animals; today, the world over sees "animal models" going by the wayside (although not all of them have been enlightened). The Army simply needs a reason to look for an alternative - as opposed to relying on past methods because it's easier and cheaper.  

Let's predicate this impetus for action on what justice requires of moral people - on what I believe to be the core of the animal rights movement and our commonly held system of ethical constraints: Jeremy Bentham wrote,

"...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes..."

"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line" between those whose interests count and those whose interests do not? Species membership perhaps? Why not race? How about gender? Left-handed or right-handed? or any other arbitrary grouping that just so happens to include the people defining the group. Just push impartiality and full reasonableness (therefore morality) to the side.       

Take action on this issue here.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

Vegetarians Live Longer 

The battle has long been waged, and will certainly continue in spite of this study. Are humans designed/evolved to eat everything and at risk of malnutrition as vegetarians? Or is vegetarianism the healthy and ethical choice? The most impressive data arises from a study of 1904 vegetarians over 21 years by the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsche Krebsforschungszentrum). The study's shocking results: vegetarian men reduced their risk of early death by 50%! Women vegetarians benefit from a 30% reduction in mortality. 

Long-term Study of Vegetarians 

The participants of the the German Cancer Research Center study included 60 vegans (no animal products consumed), 1165 vegetarians (eating eggs, milk but no meat) with the remainder described as "moderate" vegetarians who occasionally ate fish or meat. The health of these study participants was compared with the average German population. Living longer seems not to be exclusively related to eating meat, though, as the results for moderate vegetarians was not statistically different from those for vegan or strict vegetarian diets. 

To the argument that it is not vegetarianism but a general interest in a healthier lifestyle which leads to such notable results, scientists reply with evidence that the majority of vegetarians do not cite health reasons for their lifestyle, but make their choice based on ethical commitment, environmental concerns or simply personal taste. 

Vegetarians and Malnutrition 

Research by a team led by Professor Ibrahim Elmadfa at the University of Vienna found a much better than average intake of Vitamin C, Carotinoides, Folic acid, fiber and unsaturated fats. Where shortcomings may arise is for Vitamin B12, calcium und Vitamin D in a vegan diet. Astoundingly, however, study participants did not suffer from diseases, such as osteoporosis, typically related to inadequate intakes of these micro-nutrients. 

GoVeg.com:

Video footage obtained in an investigation revealed horrific cruelty to mother pigs and their piglets on a farm owned by Murphy Family Ventures, LLC, which supplies the largest pig-killing company in the world, Smithfield Foods.

In addition to the confinement of mother pigs to cruel "gestation crates" so small that the animals can't even turn around or lie down comfortably, the following cruelty was documented at Smithfield supplier Murphy Family Ventures, LLC:

• Workers dragged injured pigs out of the facility by their snouts, ears, and legs before killing them with a captive-bolt gun. Some of the pigs had "KILL" spray-painted on their backs.
• A farm supervisor admitted that he violently beat pigs, saying of one that he "cut the shit out of his god damn nose with a fucking gate rod."
• Workers cut off piglets' tails and pulled out piglets' testicles--without using any pain relief--as the baby animals screamed in pain in front of mother pigs.
• Two workers and a supervisor hit and jabbed pigs--sometimes in their faces and near their ears--with 2-foot-long metal gate rods on 31 of the 41 days that PETA's investigator worked.
• A worker gouged the eyes of four pigs with his fingers. Pigs suffered from ailments including cysts, sores, and a uterine prolapse for which they were denied treatment.

Update:

Several employees were fired in response to PETA's laudable efforts.

North Carolina officials have filed six cruelty-to-animals charges against one of the individuals documented dragging and beating pigs and abusing them in other ways in a 2007 PETA undercover investigation of a sow farm. Charges are pending against a second man who has apparently fled the state.

That worker faces six misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals for actions documented by PETA's investigator, including dragging pigs by the ear, striking a pig in the face with a handling board, and poking a pig in the eyes with his fingers. If he returns to North Carolina from out-of-state, a second worker will face one count of cruelty to animals for also dragging a pig by the ear.

This was probably just an isolated incident though, right?

Many cite evidence documenting the fact that pigs are more intelligent than human infants, are far cleverer than many other animals (humans and nonhumans alike), are naturally very clean, etc. However, this matters not when challenging the moral justifiability of castrating a feeling being without anesthetics for example, with the goal of turning him into a food item that as a matter of chance conditioning some happen to believe "tastes good."

Remember, suffering any harm on a being capable of experiencing said harm without a sound reason for doing so - thus excluding "because my ma gave me bacon every morning" -  is not justifiable.  

This said I am quite literally ecstatic that those who have done these terrible acts are going to be punished. I'm equally saddened by the minimal charges. But it's to be expected, yes, given that "workers cut off piglets' tails and pulled out piglets' testicles--without using any pain relief--as the baby animals screamed in pain in front of mother pigs" as common practice; therefore it is judged according to what the industry deems "necessary."

"Necessary" for what? Because ham sandwiches strike a pleasing cord in your mouth: Pain, sadness, distress, and frustration...trumped for mere taste.  

Gandhi said,

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Where do we currently reside on the "moral progress scale"? Somewhere between Adolf Hitler and the Saudi Arabian monarchy perhaps?