|
The Major Religions On Animal
Research
Courtesy of Andrew Blake, Seriously Ill for Medical Research, London
The use of animals for medical research is a
complex scientific and moral issue. It is easy to point to the
scientific and medical benefits that have been gained using animals,
but this does not resolve the unease that many people and researchers
feel about whether it is morally right to take the life of animals
in pursuit of scientific knowledge and better medical treatments.
Many people gain their moral values from the
organized religions, and even secular people would find it impossible
to deny the importance of religion to the social and political
lives of most countries. Sometimes a religious standpoint is clearly
given in the holy books, sometimes an interpretation or official
pronouncement is made by a religious leader based on a written
passage.
It is noteworthy that, while all religions recognize
the importance of animals in the world, none of the world's major
religions holds ceremonies to mark the birth or death of animals.
This point emphasizes the relative importance placed on animal
life compared to human life by the major religions. Nonetheless,
the morality of the use of animals is an important issue, and
the world's religions consider that it lies properly within their
domain.
The views of the world's great religions on the
use of animal experimentation for scientific purposes need to
be brought to the attention of both scientists and animal protection
groups.
Broadly, the major religions all propose the following points:
- That human life is more valuable than animal life. From the
religious perspective this is based on the belief that humans
are uniquely responsible and capable of salvation. This is quite
different from the philosophical view that human life is more
valuable because humans are more aware of pain and pleasure.
- That humans have a God-given authority over other animals.
Usually expressed as 'dominion' or 'stewardship' it implies
a position of trust and also responsibility.
- It is recognized that humans eat animals and use them for
other reasons such as work. The right to do these things is
enshrined in most religions.
- That cruelty to animals is to be abhorred because it displays
attributes that are undesirable in civilized societies. By this
is meant pointless acts that will cause an animal to experience
pain or suffering.
- Besides the previous point which condemns cruelty, most religions
positively urge kindness towards animals.
Protestant Christianity
Church of England
A key reference in the New Testament on this
topic is Matthew 10 vv. 29-31. All the Christian denominations
take this as a starting point.
A man is worth many sparrows, but not one sparrow can die unnoticed
in God's World
The Church of England has specifically made statements
about the relationships between humankind and animals. Mostly
these predate the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act and
arose from consultation between the church and the government.
The fact that animals may be used in scientific
procedures for the benefit of people shows that we believe that
human beings have more value than animals. But the fact that we
minimize the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that animals
may have to undergo shows that we regard them as having intrinsic
value.
Baptists
The Social Affairs office of the Baptist Church in a private
communication says:
[Most Baptists] would be sympathetic to the
use of animals in medical research, but less enthusiastic about
their use in cosmetic products.
Methodism
The Methodist church has issued a statement on the subject
of the treatment of animals.
It should be horrifying that millions of
animals are killed every year in laboratory experiments, but
most of them have been bred for the purpose and the outcome
of the experimentation is valuable advance in both human and
veterinary medicine.
Unnecessary or unjustifiable experimentation,
as on the effect of cosmetics; the use of numbers of animals
in an experiment far in excess of a reasonable control and check
number; excessive duplication of experiments in different laboratories;
the use of animals when valid results could be secured from
tissue cultures; are all to be condemned.
Some of these requirements are exactly those
of the current controls on medical research involving animals
in Britain. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 states,
among other things, that all such procedures require a license
that provides evidence of the need to perform those procedures,
and that no license will be issued if there is any valid alternative
to using animals.
Quakers
There is no tradition of authoritative statements from the organizing
body of Quakers, according to Beth Smith, General Secretary of
Quaker Social Responsibility and Education. She goes as far as
to say:
The most controversial area of animal exploitation for Quakers
is that of medical experimentation. There are many Quaker
doctors and some medical researchers who hold Home Office
licenses to experiment on live animals The latter would justify
their actions by citing the beneficial results which they
feel can be achieved for humans and animals through the knowledge
gained.
Quakers prefer to allow the individual members
to come to their own conclusions about the morality of animal
experimentation, but they are generally tolerant towards those
individuals who do support it.
Catholicism
An interpretation of the Catholic Catechism is offered
by Nicholas Coote, the Assistant General Secretary of the Catholic
Bishop's Conference of England and Wales. He stresses that the
Catechism should be seen only as a starting point for further
discussion.
Provided they remain within reasonable limits
medical and scientific experiments on animals are morally acceptable
since they may help to save human lives or advance therapy.
At the Fifth International Conference on the
Brain and Mind, the Pope himself emphasized the importance of
medical research to benefit humankind.
My praise and encouragement, then, go out
to all of you – scientists, doctors, researchers, scholars,
and pastors of souls who devote yourselves with impassioned
commitment to studying the very noble and profound subject of
the human mind.... The boundless field of the neurosciences
– from neurobiology to neurochemistry, from psychosomatic
medicine to psychoendocrinology – offers research the
possibility of approaching in a particularly penetrating way
the threshold of the very mystery of man. 7
Judaism
Judaism recognizes that animal experimentation holds many
benefits for humankind and animals.
Isserles (Ramah) states that anything necessary for
medical or other useful purposes is excluded from the prohibition
of cruelty to animals.
Rabbi John D. Rayner, Chairman of the Council
of Reform and Liberal Rabbis, offers this quotation from What
Does Judaism Say About..? by Rabbi Dr. Peter Jacobs.
A very good case can be made out for vivisection
of animals provided safeguards are taken to reduce the pain
to a minimum. Here the benefits to medical progress are considerable
and the price worth paying.
Rabbi Rayner himself adds:
[I] would regard any experimentation on animals
as ethically permissible provided (a) that it is done in such
a way as to cause the least possible suffering to the animals
and (b) that there is real basis for the hope that such experimentation
may lead to the saving of human life or the relief of human
suffering.
Indeed, I would be inclined to add a further
conditions namely that authority to permit such experimentation
should be vested in an ethics committee composed of persons
who have no interest in the potential commercial value of any
pharmaceutical products that may be [the] result from such experimentation.
Islam
An interpretation of the statements about animals in the
Qur'an is given by the author and Qur'anic scholar Al Hafiz B
A Masri:
Some research on animals may yet be justified, given the
traditions of Islam. Basic and applied research in the biological
and social sciences, for example, will be allowed, if the
laboratory animals are not caused pain or disfigured, and
if human beings or other animals would benefit because of
the research.
Actions shall be judged according to intention. Any kind
of medical treatment of animals and experiments on them becomes
ethical and legal or unethical and illegal according to the
intention of the person who does it.
Hinduism and Sikhism
Hinduism and its close relative, Sikhism, are different
from Judaism, Christianity or Islam in that they have no 'bible'
or 'rule book' giving instruction. The sacred texts, for example,
the Sri Isopanisad, require some interpretation by the reader
or a priest. Any quotes from Hindu religious writings should
be read with this in mind. There are many ways in which Hinduism
or Sikhism may be practiced and this can vary greatly between
communities and individuals.
There are central tenets to the Hindu faith most notably the
belief in reincarnation, sometimes as an animal. All animal
life is revered because in the eyes of a Hindu all animals are
the receptacles of souls. Consequently, Hindus have a general
aim to be vegetarian, but many are not. There are also many
Hindu doctors and medical researchers who use animals in research.
Any decision about the morality of animal experiments is left
to the individual. While some followers of Hinduism would not
choose to perform animal experiments, most would be tolerant
of it because of its value to humans and animals.
One interpretation of the Sri Isopanisads is
given by His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,
writing on the subject of animals:
A human life is distinguished from animal
life due to its heavy responsibilities.... ' The human being
is given all facilities for a comfortable life by the laws of
nature because the human form of life is more important and
valuable than animal life.... as human beings we are not meant
for simply solving economic problems on a tottering platform
but for solving all the problems of the material life into which
we have been placed by the laws of nature.
This extract comments upon the burdens placed
upon humankind by virtue of being different from animals. According
to the text these difference impose a duty on humankind to solve
all the problems of the material life. This must logically include
curing diseases, those most material of problems, and presumably
acknowledges any reasonable use of animals in this respect.
Buddhism
Buddhism draws largely from Hinduism. The most devout –
Zen Buddhists – believe that all life is sacred. More ordinary
Buddhists will probably admit the necessity of taking animal life
under certain circumstances. The Buddhist standpoint is embodied
in the first Precept:
I undertake the rule of training not to do any harm
to any living (breathing) thing.
This precept implies something more than simply
not harming living things. It includes actively helping people
or animals suffering from misfortune or disease and this process
may involve the use of animals. In a personal communication, Ronald
C Madden, General Secretary of Thc Buddhist Society, says:
All of us, it has to be admitted, have probably
benefited in some measure from animal experiments and their
suffering. Some Buddhists may up to a point be willing to accept
this in the interests of humanity. Others may themselves reject
this and be fully willing to forego any potential benefits.
Conclusion
All the world's major religions either actively support
the use of animals in medical research, or they are tolerant towards
those who conduct such research. Pronouncements about this subject
are always accompanied by a long tradition of concern for animal
welfare, or statements which make it clear that medical research
must be conducted with a high degree of concern for the welfare
of the animals.
References
[]
|
