From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:45:35 GMT

In article <15SEP92.11304830@wums.wustl.edu> w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu writes:
>In a previous article, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) wrote:
>>  I eat meat regularly, and I love bowhunting, so killing is not what bothers 
>>me. Prolonged suffering does. There is, for everyone, a time to die. For some 
>>of us it will come sooner than for others. Although modern medical science has
>>worked wonders for some, I'm not sure it's worth the price we pay. I think our
>>efforts would be far more effective if spent on preventive health care for the 
>>poor kids who have never seen a dentist, for example. Medical care has become 
>>expensive beyond reach for many people today, and there are limited funds 
>>available. I do not subscribe to the belief that human life is priceless. Money
>>and effort spent on extraordinary means to extend the lives of individuals is 
>>money not available for many other worthy causes. We've gone way too far in
>>this regard. Hard choices for sure, but the choices must be made.
>
>I strongly agree with you that we need to place far more emphasis on 
>preventative health care in this country.  What you and the animal rights
>organizations need to realize is that preventative medicine REQUIRES animal
>research.  The development of vaccines to protect against disease REQUIRES
>the use of experimental animals.  The rise of AIDS and, more recently,
>bacterial strains with multiple resistence to antibiotics, makes these kinds
>of research projects all the more imperative.
>

So in your opinion, is there any limit to the amount of suffering inflicted,
animals killed, or costs incurred which you consider acceptable in developing
treatment for human afflictions?

>In addition, you have to realize that as we conquer more and more of the
>preventable diseases, we are forced to deal with diseases which cannot be
>prevented - especially inborn genetic defects.  
>

Forced to deal with them? I don't think so. Inborn genetic defects may be
fatal. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had a child laying dying in front of
me. I don't. I don't place as high a value on human life, per se, as one who
has devoted his life to saving it obviously must. Now understand, I'm talking 
human life in the abstract, like people I don't know. It's far easier to be 
rational about such things when you're not directly involved. Basically I feel
the biggest and most basic problem in the world today is overpopulation. I fail
to see the need to extend human life any longer when we may have long since 
passed the point of diminishing marginal returns. A better quality of life for
a shorter time would be preferable to me, personally. I have no desire to have 
my life extended with radiation, chemotherapy, and organ transplants. Neither
do I think that these things are worth near their cost to society at large. I
find that hospital care in my area runs about $1500/day. Am I wrong in thinking
that this price is helping to pay for all the neat new high tech toys the
doctors get to play with? Sure it's exciting and challenging for them, and I'm
sure the recipients of million dollar treatments are glad to have them, but I
don't think our society can afford them. 

>There is also a very strong mean streak in many animal rights groups.  The
>attitude I often observe is as follows:  if some guy develops lung cancer
>because he smoked for twenty years, it's his own fault - let him die rather
>than kill the animals to save his life.  This attitude is profoundly
>anti-human, and completely incompatable with the philosophy of medical
>practice which has existed for the last 5,000 years!
>

What will be the quality of this saved life? A guy with one lung, unable to do
half the things he did before the cancer? A longer life is not necessarily a 
better one. Maybe I'm just bitter because of experiences within my family, but
those who refused treatment and died more quickly at home seemed better off to 
me. And what is wrong with personal responsibility for one's own actions? If I 
crash my bike I don't ask for your pity or your money. It's my choice to ride 
and I'll live or die with the consequences. If a homosexual chooses to risk 
unprotected sex and contracts aids, that's his choice. If a smoker gets lung
cancer, too bad. How many animals will you kill, and in what manner to save 
his life? 
   The philosophy that human life is infinitely valuable and everything else
expendable in pursuit of extending it is beyond my grasp. Maybe because I have
no fear of death.
   I'm afraid I've really taken this thread off track. My argument is against 
the entire medical system, not animal research in particular. Sorry about that.

>Yes - prevention is important.  But it's only a part of the whole picture.
>Animal research is necessary and will continue to be so for some time to
>come.
>

Only if you concede the necessity for newer and better medical marvels in an 
already overpopulated world.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals