Causing Disease in Animals: Are they God's pets?

[blueshells]

While awaiting a response from contacting the National Catholic Bioethics Center (I emailed the address given out on “Catholic Answers Live” many days ago), I thought I would ask a new question here as a followup to my previous thread. Instead of trying to tackle the issue head-on as I did there, here I’d like to pose a question which seems to guide one in obtaining the answer: Are animals to be regarded as God’s pets (i.e. respecting their nature as animals at all times)?

I may soon begin biological experiments giving mice cancer, etc. Trying to justify this practice, I supposed it could be justified as long as I regarded them as mice, rather than as objects (e.g. a glass vial containing a solution). It seemed to me perhaps the sin was objectifying the mouse to be nothing more than a solution – or tissue matrix – for the item of interest. For example, I saw a photograph in a presentation of what the researcher described as “a cost-efficient way to irradiate mice”: The experimenter had basically lined them up in a constricted fashion like a series of vials and shot the radiation beam through them all linearly. In his case, he was giving them brain damage to see how radiation could kill brain cells and affect cognitive function (particularly memory loss). I found the image profane, shocking, offensive: It was very easy to forget they were actually mice, because of their sprawled out limbs rigidly constrained essentially tied to poles – they were, as I said, being treated as nothing more than chemistry vials. (See this image for clarification, from a Google Image search for ‘chemistry vials’.)

So, if we answer the aforementioned question as, “No, they’re here for us to do whatever we want with,” then we can justify basically anything. If we answer that question as, “Yes, but God has given us permission to eat them,” then it seems more difficult to justify damaging them – but that we could proceed with God’s permission after prayerful consideration asking for it with the understanding that we’re respecting His property.

Does this distinction make sense? Am I communicating clearly? It’s one thing to harm animals for science while respecting their nature as animals; it’s another thing to regard them as “useful objects”. Perhaps it is as subtle as the sin that can occur in natural family planning: If you approach it with a contraceptive mentality, then you’re sinning by abusing (misusing) the fertility cycle God gave women, but if you approach it as a physical prayer for God to withhold additional children, but willing to accept them if God deems otherwise, then it’s fine.

So it seems to me now that if you give animals cancer but maintain a certain empathy and respect for the animal as an animal, that it won’t offend God – that what offends God is disregarding the animal’s nature, its needs, and treating it as an object. Do you agree?

I’ve done animal research. Be a responsible steward of the animals, since they’ve been entrusted to us by God. Most animal protocols will help you do this (at least from what I’ve experienced in the United States): you have to defend why you need to use live mice rather than a tissue sample, exactly how many you need to do the experiment, how you’re going to prevent undue suffering, what humane method of euthanasia you’ll use, at what point/under what conditions you’ll determine an animal is suffering too much to continue experimentation (e.g. if they exhibit signs of distress such as squeaking, whimpering, extreme lethargy, weight loss or dehydration), etc. If it would set your mind at ease, you could ask your PI for a copy of the animal protocol.

There will need to be a certain amount of emotional detachment for you, since it becomes increasingly hard to conduct your research if you’re invested in the animals. You may need to think of them as objects to do your research (as I did) but make sure the practices are in place prior to that so that you can be an emotionally detached responsible steward.

 

[SighGuy]

black sphere,

I attempted to counsel you charitably, but you intend to respond by spitfiring insults such as the clear implication that I was replying emotionally (which I was not), or somehow opposed to logic. Ironically, such insults betray emotion on your part.

Unfortunately for your position, it is both illogical and in contradiction to the Magisterium of the Church. I will make bold the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church most suited for the subject at hand.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

There is a marked clause here: “within reasonable limits”. Your doctrine imposes no such reasonable limits and is in contradiction to the Church, as you have said “whatever the cost.” Nor have I “drawn conclusions,” because you put in your original post that it is only bad to kill animals when it causes detrimental effects to other humans. You even bold the word “only” to emphasize the completeness of your opinion.

Regardless of this evidence, apparently unable to defend your position, you completely ignore the teachings of the Church which I have provided, as well as scriptural references, in order to maintain a broken position, whilst firing off one-liners to call my objectivity into question. Bravo.

 

[St_Redemption]

Of course they can feel pain. I don’t think causing pain during testing is bad, however. I care about animals as much as not to kill them without purpose. How is that inhumane? What would be considered humane in your view?

Okay, sometimes I take people too literally perhaps. Sorry. But still, “I don’t think causing pain during testing is bad,” needs to be specified as there are different levels of pain and suffering and there are different levels of feedback to be derived from that pain. To me, the research needs to be extremely valuable and potentially lifesaving to merit even a little bit of pain from an animal. Almost certainly there have been prolonged testing procedures incurred upon animals for prolonged periods with very little net value to the information gleaned within. This sort of thing needs to be frowned upon, and frowned upon severely. My God does care about His animals and delights in them, about that I have absolutely no doubts whatever. People have a tendency to even abuse and mistreat other people to horrifying extents. So if done to people, how much worse than animals. No doubt high levels of unwarranted cruelty occur in laboratories. So we need to “care” about what happens in laboratories because as caring people, and more-so, as loving imitators of Christ, it hurts us to see sentient creatures suffer.

 

[black_sphere]

black sphere,

I attempted to counsel you charitably, but you intend to respond by spitfiring insults such as the clear implication that I was replying emotionally (which I was not), or somehow opposed to logic. Ironically, such insults betray emotion on your part.

I’m sorry but you were the one that accused me of being inhumane? It looked like it was too much for you to witness the existence of differing opinions.

Unfortunately for your position, it is both illogical and in contradiction to the Magisterium of the Church. I will make bold the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church most suited for the subject at hand.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

This is so very true. Our moral imperative is to improve the quality of human life. Animal testing does that and respect is being shown by employing animals the way they were meant to - again, to improve the quality of human life. Obviously our dominion over animals is not absolute, that’s why we are not allowed to hurt animals merely for fun, for example.

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

Correct. To show kindness one needs not cause more suffering than an experiment requires.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

There is a marked clause here: “within reasonable limits”. Your doctrine imposes no such reasonable limits and is in contradiction to the Church, as you have said “whatever the cost.” Nor have I “drawn conclusions,” because you put in your original post that it is only bad to kill animals when it causes detrimental effects to other humans. You even bold the word “only” to emphasize the completeness of your opinion.

Exactly. That’s where you fall back to “measure twice, cut once”. Each experiment’s benefits must be assessed accordingly. If a test brings us closer to finding cure for cancer, then such test is permissible “whatever the cost”, because it helps humanity in the long run. This is within reasonable limits. To perform a test that causes great discomfort to test subjects and does not advance our knowledge in any way (for example, only confirming what we already know) would not be within reasonable limits. Do you see the difference?

Regardless of this evidence, apparently unable to defend your position, you completely ignore the teachings of the Church which I have provided, as well as scriptural references, in order to maintain a broken position, whilst firing off one-liners to call my objectivity into question. Bravo.

I fail to see my ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Regarding scriptural references, they only strengthen my position.

 

[black_sphere]

I’m sorry but you were the one that accused me of being inhumane? It looked like it was too much for you to witness the existence of differing opinions.

Sorry, it was the other guy, but you said something similar: “gone down a dark and sinful path”. I don’t think so.

 

[SighGuy]

Your position, unless you are retracting it, is still now as it was: that

it is only bad to kill animals when it causes detrimental effects to other humans.

The scriptural reference of Jonah does not lead us to an understanding similar to this. Nor does any of the CCC. This stands apart from the other question, whether or not there are limits in experimentation on animals. But you keep avoiding this question. Either retract your previous stance on animals, or reconcile it with the CCC and the Scriptures. Again, let me emphasize: I am in reference not to experimentation on animals. I am calling out your initial affirmation. If you have recanted it elsewhere, I apologize for missing it.

As for the question of what is within reason. Again, I believe you are mistaken.

Here is the quote from CCC:
if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

Here is your response:
If a test brings us closer to finding cure for cancer, then such test is permissible “whatever the cost”, because it helps humanity in the long run. This is within reasonable limits. To perform a test that causes great discomfort to test subjects and does not advance our knowledge in any way (for example, only confirming what we already know) would not be within reasonable limits. Do you see the difference?

I admit that you make a logical response, and thought-out, but it is still incorrect.
Note the CCC: remains within reasonable limits AND contributes to caring for, etc…

If what you affirm is true, I could trim the first half of that sentence away. You are equating reasonable limits WITH contributing to caring, etc… it may as well say “it is morally acceptable if contributing to caring, etc…”

However, a closer look reveals that it says more than this. It says “if it is within limits AND contributes, etc…” This implies a necessary distinction between the two conditions “reasonable limits” and “contributes to…”, a distinction which, again, you are failing to make.

I apologize for getting a little heated last post, although I was a little piqued by your unfair remarks. For my part, in my initial post, I meant no offense to you (the second one I did mean to take some chips at you though )

Furthermore, I do not accuse you of going down a dark and sinful path. If you behaved in ways that your doctrine permitted, this would be true. For my part, I know not and assume you do not act as your doctrine permits, that it is only immoral to kill animals when it is detrimental to other people. I consider it more likely that you are a well-meaning person who holds a skewed understanding of theology. The fact that you don’t actually think it’s okay for people to destroy creation for their own amusement, so long as it does not harm people, testifies to the intuitive knowledge within you that creation requires more respect than that which is afforded it by its utility.

 

[ethereality]

This morning I received this response after emailing the NCBC the analysis of my previous thread’s OP (review it for context, since it differs slightly from what I posted in this thread’s OP):

Thank you for contacting us. I think your analysis is plausible. The Church teaches that the created order must be respected and cared for. People often misinterpret the term “Dominion” in the Genesis account to mean use and abuse. However erroneous critics’ interpretations of the Church are, the term Dominion means to be a governor over the created order in the way that God would be. The treatment of animals as objects would seem to be inconsistent with this governorship we have been tasked with. But then so would be treating early human lives in a destructive way. But regarding animal research the Church has not declared that it is intrinsically immoral. I suppose if the animals are cared for otherwise, it might be permissible. But I am venturing past what the Church says specifically.

He is indicating that one must proceed with caution and be sure to not objectify the animals.

 

[truetofaith]

Of course they can feel pain. I don’t think causing pain during testing is bad, however. I care about animals as much as not to kill them without purpose. How is that inhumane? What would be considered humane in your view?

To set a person’s broken arm, a doctor must inflict pain on the person for the greater good result.

 

[black_sphere]

it is only bad to kill animals when it causes detrimental effects to other humans

The Church says:

CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Notice how nowhere in this exert is it mentioned that “to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly” is bad for the animal itself. Humans are the key here. As you’ve said, one can not gun down a dog for the heck of it, because if he were asked why he did it, no rational response would be conflated. In such a case, an action was taken without a reasonable purpose. A person’s dignity was marred. That is detrimental.

 

[St_Redemption]

The Church says:

CCC 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Notice how nowhere in this exert is it mentioned that “to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly” is bad for the animal itself. Humans are the key here. As you’ve said, one can not gun down a dog for the heck of it, because if he were asked why he did it, no rational response would be conflated. In such a case, an action was taken without a reasonable purpose. A person’s dignity was marred. That is detrimental.

Maybe we are just not understanding each other completely. I just hope you are not saying that it doesn’t matter if animals needlessly suffer, or suffer to an extent that is not warranted by the ends.

Church teaching does not contain a judgement on every single possible act of morality. This is why so many questions arise. It’s the same way in a court of law. There are far too many possible circumstancial events concerning morality for any one document to cover. The document would need to be a million pages long in order to be completely exhaustive.

Irregardless of whether a person is affected or not. Being an immatator of Christ, I cannot seriously believe that you think that its okay to torture animals for no reason whatever just so long as no person is affected. Just because the document does not specify that it’s bad for the animal. It should probably go without saying that it is not GOOD for the animal. We need not be completely callous because Church doctorine is not completely exhaustive on all matters. We know whats right and whats wrong. People nitpicking phrases like this while ignoring what is a clearly right and humane action is what has led to some of the horrible crimes of Christians in the past ie-burning heretics, justifying slavery etc. These people also found ways to make it appear that certain Biblical passages condoning this behavior. In in most cases, a quite literal reading could draw one to that conclusion. But we are not robots. We do not operate upon the strict logic of words in a mathematical sense. It’s sad that people feel that if a particular action is not completely spelled out to be wrong, then it must not be wrong. Again, no document could be so comprehensive.

You probably agree with me, but we are most likely talking in circles past each other. Such is the basis for most common human misunderstandings. I pray that this is the case. I shudder to imagine that it is not.

 

[St_Redemption]

I somehow missed the last couple of sentences of your previous post Sphere. My apologies. You clearly do not think its okay to needlessly attack animals. I guess the difference lies in my belief that animals do matter. Whereas you do not. But I find this position completely indefensible. If one were to take a few minutes to observe a an elephant mother grieving the death of her calf as tears roll down her eyes, and then say that this is not bad for the animal, and then draw the conlusion that it simply does not matter whatever, that it is not sad, that the elephants suffering and sadness should not be viewed with a level of empathy within yourself, then I have to conclude that that person has a cold sense of callous deep within them.

 

[black_sphere]

If one were to take a few minutes to observe a an elephant mother grieving the death of her calf as tears roll down her eyes

I’m sorry, but you cannot be serious.

I do understand where you’re coming from with this thinking and it is commendable to be sympathetic towards other life forms, but it is superfluous in this case. The harsh reality is that animals are not what you think they are. I’m sure you’ve heard this one before but you’re essentially anthropomorphizing animals. And I’m not surprised, lots of people do that, it is our tendency to relate ourselves with other creatures that have familiar characteristics.

It is because of our brain which is extremely complex and because of that complexity we are able to do things no other creature can do: create art, for instance. However, there is also a drawback. Sometimes we are prone to fooling ourselves by misinterpreting reality. Animals don’t have this problem but they are also unable to create.

and then say that this is not bad for the animal, and then draw the conlusion that it simply does not matter whatever, that it is not sad, that the elephants suffering and sadness should not be viewed with a level of empathy within yourself, then I have to conclude that that person has a cold sense of callous deep within them.

I used to have similar feelings when I was a little kid. I always felt bad whenever my teddy bear fell on the ground or otherwise got knocked over - I imagined it felt pain and distress. But i was wrong.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Are you living in the real world???

Kid who kills animals for fun is = equal to a scientist trying to find a cure for cancer by experimenting on mice

So, a rapist murderer is = equal to a soldier who kills while defending his country! WOW

You are not seeing what I am seeing.

Of course finding a cure for cancer is a noble thing.

Treating an animal as an object and not paying attention to the suffering you may be causing it is just as evil as the proverbial kid doing the kinds of experiements he wants to do on an animal. There are limits to what we are allowed to do. You don’t completely bypass one moral for some perceived outcome that might be good. I can remember reading a story about a child who was caught torturing an animal to death with fire. His answer to what he was doing was “I juts wanted to see how the animal might react”. So, how would that be different? After all the kid was just learning something about animals reaction to fire. It was wrong of him to do that none-the-less!

My point was also directed towards the scenario that the OP outlined. She was uncomfortable with it. So was I just reading about it. I was also answering the other poster in that he said if it causes grief. Are we not grieved? These mice are not our pets, but we have empathy for them. No doubt those animals in that experiment were feeling tremendous pain and suffering. Should I ignore pain and suffering? From any creature?

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Proverbs 12:10 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

12:10.** A godly man would not put even an animal to needless pain**. But the wicked often speak of others as well used, when they would not endure like treatment for a single day. 11. It is men’s wisdom to mind their business, and follow an honest calling. But it is folly to neglect business; and the grace of God teaches men to disdain nothing but sin. 12. When the ungodly see others prosper by sin, they wish they could act in the same way. But the root of Divine grace, in the heart of the righteous, produces other desires and purposes. 13. Many a man has paid dear in this world for the transgression of his lips.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Genesis 1:28 (ASV) And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

God certainly put humans above animals, but this does not mean that we get to do anything we want with them or ignore suffering in them. It would be good for science to make sure they abide by God’s laws so that the ‘answer’ they might find will not lead to more suffering since they went outside God’s laws to find it.

(Is not going outside God’s laws occult? Does it not lead to more suffering even though it may seem right at the time?)

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…The harsh reality is that animals are not what you think they are…

Wow, that’s kind of bold, don’t you think? HOW DO* YOU* KNOW either?

The fact is, we don’t know. But I’m not going to ignore something that looks like shared human emotions “JUST” because its an animal. I’m not going to say its indeed shared human emotions either. But you have no right to say “THE HARSH REALITY IS”, because YOU do not know that either! !!

Why would God say that the just treat their animal rightly, humanely if animals were just brainless organisms? I’d think he’d not even make mention of it if that were the case.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

AS in most Topics on Cath. Ans. Forums…this is how I feel…:banghead:

Just complete and utter sadness from this end. Not frustration.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…then I have to conclude that that person has a cold sense of callous deep within them.

Seared consciences? Hardened hearts? Turn a blind eye to suffering?

 

[SighGuy]

black sphere

I understand what you are saying. For my part, although years ago, when I was a secular, I did consider animals in the misguided way of anthropomorphism. But I understand now that they do not have an intellect, but rather a pseudo-intellect, and not a will, but a pseudo-will, as they do not have spirits, but merely material, sensitive souls, the vivifying principle of their body.

They react, but they do not contemplate. This is what the “sensitive” means, of course, as it regards the senses.

The problem I continue to see is this… as the CCC states " Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness."

Now, animals do not demand of us that we owe them kindness. That would just be silly. Do men demand that we owe animals kindness? Some do, but this would be the laws of man, and not God. But what we have here is God’s dictum, interpreted through the Church, that we do owe animals kindness.

Furthermore, the statement is predicated not on their utility to man (e.g. one may argue I should treat a hammer well so that it continues to function well for my purposes, a sort of “owed kindness” according to man’s judgment), but merely on the fact that they are God’s creatures and give him glory by their existence.

Again, it does not say “give him glory because they exist to aid those men who give God glory,” but, independently of man at all, they “give him glory” in and of themselves.

If a thing gives glory to God in and of itself, that is, independent of man or the angels but only dependent upon God, then we really have to understand that they are worthy of our respect. This, again, is not why we have human respect for a hammer (it gets the job done for us), rather, we have Godly respect for creation because it does a job for God, independent of man.

Peace.