AR-News: 'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being Human

[AAVS]

'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being
Human
>From the Association of American Medical Colleges Reporter website
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct03/animalrights.htm

Philosophers have grappled with these questions for millennia: What is the
essence of a human being? What is the difference between a person with
comparatively underdeveloped cognitive abilities and a primate? Now, relying
on the difficulties posed by such inquiries, some animal rights activists
have embarked on a crusade to define animals as worthy of certain
"personhood" rights.

The movement aims to incrementally grant rights to animals that could
redefine the way humans use and relate to them. Among them is a potentially
revolutionary concept: giving animals the right to not be viewed as human
property.

QUOTE: "We live in a litigious society, we live in an animal-loving society,
we live in a society that is largely scientifically uneducated and doesn't
really understand the role that laboratory animals play in improving the
quality of life of people and.other animals."
- Frankie Trull, founder and president, Foundation for Biomedical Research

An example of the increasing success of what has been termed the "animal
personhood" movement is the adoption by some jurisdictions of "pet guardian"
laws, under which the term "guardian" is used interchangeably with the word
"owner." Supporters argue that use of the "guardian" term will result in
greater responsibility and respect for pets without changing their legal
status, while opponents worry that the change in legal terminology might be
setting the stage for frivolous lawsuits and, ultimately, a legal challenge
to the status of pets as property.

The connotations such efforts hold for research involving animals are great,
as Frankie Trull, founder and president of the Foundation for Biomedical
Research (FBR), points out. If the "personhood" movement gathers momentum
and results in more stringent animal research laws, research facilities will
be subject to an increased number of lawsuits, says Trull. "The second thing
that will happen is that some species, such as non-human primates, probably
won't be allowed to be used for research at all." Such scenarios would carry
extraordinary cost implications, and the country's already financially
strained teaching hospitals and medical schools would not be prepared to
fight these battles, she adds.

"We live in a litigious society, we live in an animal-loving society, we
live in a society that is largely scientifically uneducated and doesn't
really understand the role that laboratory animals play in improving the
quality of life of people - and, I might add, other animals," says Trull.
"This is a very emotional issue, and it is driven by the heart, not the
head. That's what has eluded the scientific community since the very
beginning."

Matthew Penzer, legal counsel at the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), says that animal personhood laws are simply a "reflection of
social ideals." "We value kindness and compassion as ideals of our society,
and there's no reason why the law shouldn't reflect those ideals for
animals," Penzer says. "These laws are not necessarily a recognition that
animals are entitled to the same rights as people. Nobody would argue that a
dog is entitled to the right to vote, or to marry, but certainly as living,
feeling, fearing beings that are capable of suffering and knowing pain, they
should be protected under the law."

The animal personhood movement has the support of some legal luminaries,
including Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who argued for Al Gore in
the Supreme Court case against George W. Bush, and civil rights and
celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz. "Animal rights or animal legal courses are
being taught now in something like 26 U.S. law schools, and there are more
added to that list every year," says Trull. "We are also seeing chapters of
animal rights law in a number of state bar associations, as well as the
introduction of related resolutions within the American Bar Association that
are being brought to the house of delegates."
While these efforts have not yet gained considerable traction, Trull
believes there's cause for concern. "We've seen this in other aspects of
this movement where what appeared to be a 'ridiculous' proposal was brought
forth and everybody said that it was going nowhere, and the next thing that
happened was that it did go somewhere, and we were left standing, asking
'what happened?'"

Michael Socarras, a partner at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, who has represented
research interests in several animal rights cases, agrees. "There is a very
important shift under way in the manner in which many people in law schools
and in the legal profession think about animals," says Socarras. "This shift
has not yet reached popular opinion. However, in our country, social change
has and can occur through the courts, which in many instances do not operate
as democratic institutions. Therefore, the evolution in elite legal opinion
is extremely significant and raises an important challenge for the future of
biomedical research."

At the root of the animal personhood philosophy are questions that likely
cannot be answered empirically. "There's a wide range of learning and
thought on why human beings are different from animals arising in the fields
of philosophy, religion, and ethics," says Socarras. "The approach to that
question viewed from the standpoint of the humanities and philosophy is very
different from how you would approach it as a natural scientist. The
important point as far as biomedical research is concerned is that its moral
justification comes down as a humanities, religion, philosophy, ethics
argument, and less so out of natural science. At the end of the day, it's
impossible to prove empirically that there's such a thing as unique human
dignity or that it's absolutely certain that human culture has always been
based on that belief."

Attempting to answer these questions using arguments about human cognition
and rationality can be problematic, as researchers themselves know. Studies
have shown the ability of many primates to remember past events and to have
an idea of the future. Scientists have taught chimps to communicate in sign
language, use tools, and solve problems, behaviors that have been
traditionally associated with humans.

Unwelcome comparisons
Despite such scientific findings, the American public has not welcomed all
comparisons between animals and people. PETA launched a controversial
campaign earlier this year titled "Holocaust on Your Plate," comparing the
plight of Jews and other groups during the Holocaust to the suffering
undergone by slaughter animals. The campaign incited the fury of Jewish
groups, and one of its commercials was banned in many TV stations around the
country.

QUOTE: "These laws are not necessarily a recognition that animals are
entitled to the same rights as people.but certainly as living, feeling,
fearing beings that are capable of suffering and knowing pain, they should
be protected under the law."
- Matthew Penzer, legal counsel, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

In the TV ad, the world is seen through the slats in the side of a truck, as
a man's voice intones, "They came for us at night. Beat us. We cried out in
the darkness. With no food, no water, and barely air to breathe." The ad
ends with the tagline, "Each age has its own atrocities. End the animals'
holocaust. Please become a vegetarian."

PETA's campaign also consists of an exhibition of eight 60-square-foot
panels, each showing photos of factory-farm and slaughterhouse scenes side
by side with photos from Nazi camps.

A PETA statement said that the organization "wants to stimulate
contemplation of how the victimization of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and
others, characterized as 'life unworthy of life' during the Holocaust,
parallels the way that modern society abuses and justifies the slaughter of
animals." Another PETA statement explained that such comparisons were the
only effective way to make people understand and relate to the suffering of
these animals. "We have no recourse but to compare the barbarity inflicted
on animals with similar and more familiar extremes of human suffering in the
hope that it will finally become comprehensible to all and inspire action."

Animal personhood advocates have made similar comparisons between domestic
violence, slavery, and animal abuse. "The fact that such comparisons have
even been made would make the vast majority of American women indignant,"
says Socarras. "Most people would rapidly agree as a matter of common sense
that violence against a woman is not remotely on the same level as violence
against an animal, even though both are completely unacceptable. The dignity
of a woman as a human being is infinitely superior and not simply a matter
of degree."

Commenting on the related comparison concerning slavery, Socarras opines
that "African Americans would be right to be offended by the comparison
between the mistreatment of people on the base of race and the mistreatment
of animals."

Why use animals in research?
"The human is the ultimate animal model, but in this society, as a result of
the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, we do not use humans
first - we use them last," explains Trull. "So the process is such that when
you can use a non-animal methodology and in vitro technique - whether that'd
be a computer model, a mathematical model, a cell culture, or a tissue
culture - you do so prior to pursuing an investigation into a whole living
system.
"There are quite a few in the know who believe that the governance of
animals in research is more stringent than the governance of humans in
research," Trull continues. There are a number of laws and federal
regulations in place that oversee the use of animals in biomedical studies,
and every AAMC member involved in animal research has to comply with them,
she explains.

One such regulation is the Animal Welfare Act, which applies to all research
facilities using animal species designated by the US Secretary of
Agriculture. The species that are currently designated are guinea pigs,
rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, marine mammals,
farm animal species, and warm-blooded wild animals. Birds, mice, and rats
are not covered.

Despite the sensitivities and controversies surrounding such practices, many
scientists continue to hold that animal research is the best means to
achieving a very worthy end. "Science currently agrees by consensus that
using animals in this manner is important for the development and
dissemination of therapies to treat human illnesses," says Socarras.

Animal research has led to the advancement of our knowledge of the human
body and its processes, and the development of vaccines for smallpox (the
world's first vaccine), polio, and yellow fever, among many others. The use
of rats, rabbits, and hens in research resulted in the development of
hormonal treatment for cancer, while research with dogs, rabbits, and fish
led to the discovery of insulin and the mechanism for diabetes.

Scientists are currently using and developing alternative research methods
that don't rely on animal use, but many areas of study depend on the use of
animal models. Efforts to change the legal status of animals and to
consequently outlaw their presence in all types of research could have dire
consequences for science, according to Trull. "While this may seem
far-fetched, it's a very real issue and a very major potential problem for
the research community," she says. "There comes a point of no return, when
it becomes cost prohibitive and time prohibitive to turn a situation around.
We need to ensure that these efforts get stopped in their tracks early or
otherwise there will soon be no research with animals."