Animal Rights Activist And "Recovering Objectivist" Cries Foul!
By Gayle Dean
“Goddamn...I'm gonna knock you out...you little bitch...you hateful ass you.”-- Senior Covance technician talking to a monkey he is restraining. 9/4/2004
In a recent op-ed, Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute attacks PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for its ongoing campaign against Covance Laboratories, a company that conducts bio-medical research on primates.
Perhaps believing that the best defense is a good offense, Epstein starts by calling animal-rights advocates “vicious”, “deceptive” and “anti-human” and says our goal “is not to stop sadistic animal torturers; it is to sacrifice human well-being for the sake of animals.”
As a recovering Objectivist, I'm offended when I hear this sort of irrational, baseless, rhetoric. I'm human and not at all vicious or hateful. I like well-being for myself, as much as anyone. I seek it out daily and don't want to “sacrifice” it to anyone, man or beast. And why would any of us wish to “sacrifice human well-being” anyway...are we all simply masochists? Epstein's “argument” amounts to not much more than name-calling.
Further, this is a perfect example of a false alternative – that we must choose between human well-being and animal well-being and cannot have both. Animal-rights advocates reject this false alternative. They believe that human-well-being subsumes respect for animal well-being. Concern for one's environment and fellow-beings is not only compatible with, but is an indispensable component of, human well-being, the Virtue of Selfishness notwithstanding.
When animal-abusers are caught red-handed, there's not much their apologists can do, except pretend that the abuses are rare and abnormal. Unsurprisingly, that is Epstein's tactic: He tries to minimize and dismiss the abuse as an aberration, an exception, saying the evidence amounts to a “mere handful of instances”, when in fact, the formal complaint filed with the Dept. of Agriculture details not “a mere handful” of abusive instances, but 272 pages worth.
You don't have to take my word for it. View the video at http://www.covancecruelty.com./ and judge for yourself: The way the Covance animals are restrained, caged, beaten, and tormented is neither necessary for research nor are these merely isolated incidents. While you're there, listen to Gordon Liddy's short public service announcement about Covance (on the same page). And if you have the stomach for it, read the
7-page summary of the formal complaint.
When Epstein says that humane treatment is the “scrupulously practiced policy of most animal researchers”, he is simply echoing the industry's public-relations propaganda.
Matthew Scully, former special assistant to the president and deputy director of presidential speechwriting for George W. Bush, had this to say in Dominion:
In its current form...the AWA [Animal Welfare Act – which governs the treatment of lab animals] is a collection of hollow injunctions, broad loopholes, and light penalties when there are any at all....
And in Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism – for Animals published in The American Conservative:
Our cruelty statutes are a good and natural development in Western law, codifying the claims of animals against human wrongdoing...Such statutes, however, address mostly random or wanton acts of cruelty. And the persistent animal-welfare questions of our day center on institutional cruelties—on the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see.
Another good indication that the abuses PETA has documented at Covance are not just isolated instances, is provided by the comtemptuous attitudes and abusive language that the technicians use with the animals. Epstein himself notes and seems disturbed by the technicians' “bizarre taunting of monkeys”:
“Goddamn...I'm gonna knock you out...you little bitch...you hateful ass you.”-- Senior Covance technician talking to a monkey he is restraining. 9/4/2004
“Yeah, I'm coming for you again today. Yeah. Yep. You again today. I'm gonna kick your ass again, too.” Female Covance technician speaking to a caged monkey. 9/25/2004
Clearly, those who would yell obscenities--at helpless animals-- are mean-spirited, with tempers out of control, and exhibit a fundamental contempt and hostility toward the animals. These low-lifes have no business acting as “caretakers” for any living creatures.
Driving the final nail in Covance's coffin are the court decisions, which unequivocally support PETA. Covance sought an injunction to prevent PETA Europe from showing the shocking video footage. The judge dismissed the request, calling the video “highly disturbing” and commenting on the “rough manner in which the animals [are] handled and the bleakness of the surroundings in which they are kept,” as matters which “cry out for explanation.”
Further, the judge held that since Covance “has fostered a misleading impression”, PETA is “entitled to correct it publicly,” and then ordered Covance to pay PETA for its legal costs. Covance appealed the judge’s decision, but the appellate court described their case as an “uphill task,” and Covance finally withdrew its appeal. Covance’s censorship attempts in the U.S. also failed.
So, anyone who examines the evidence objectively-- even those who disagree with the basic concept of animal rights – will have to agree that Covance is guilty of exactly what PETA claims. And unless Epstein is prepared to attach the “vicious, deceptive, anti-human” label to unbiased judges who examined and were appalled by the evidence, then this is a slam-dunk victory for PETA, as well as a repudiation of Epstein's assertions about the motivations of animal-rights advocates. In light of all of this, I wonder if Epstein even read any of the documents or watched the video.
Gayle Dean is a free-lance writer who constructs crossword puzzles for all the major media. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post Magazine, The New York Times, the L.A. Times, Simon & Schuster books, and Dell Puzzle Magazines. Gayle's puzzle book series, Wordplay Crosswords Volumes 1 & 2, was published by Merriam-Webster.
2 Comments:
I have trouble ceding the logical high ground to somebody so obsessed with how somebody talks to a monkey. But I'll gladly acknowledge that it's possible to do animal research without swearing at chimps.
That doesn't mean we can find common ground however, as your article's misplaced focus utterly evades PeTA's actual goals and demands. PeTA seeks to hobble or eliminate all kinds of animal testing and research -- to sacrifice the many great advances that come from animal research. In other words, PeTA seeks to sacrifice the betterment of man to the fortune of unthinking animals.
Having worked with live animals for over a decade at Tyson, and at more than one plant, I can say that cruelty is anything but rare. It's all part of a day's/night's work. Even when you get past the various cruelties defined and accepted as "standard industry practice," (like how many chickens are allowed to be scalded alive) there are still more equally "bizarre" (to use Epsteins word) acts done to them. Things like stompiong them, kicking them, throwing them into fans, dry ice bombing them, making a train of them by sticking the head of one up the other's rump on down the line, and so on. I could write (and have) pages on these practices. I eve swore out a formal compaint. but, alas, nothing was done. Even the toothless AWA or Humane Slaughter Act doesn;t cover them, so you can do pretty much anything you want and get away with it. The AWA likewise doesn't cover mice and rats, who are used in 80-90% of experiments.
Even for animals to whom the Animal Welfare Act applies, the regulations in place are sorely deficient. Indeed, federal regulations do not prevent any
experimental procedure, regardless of how painful it may be. Animals may be burned, maimed, and killed without anesthesia. While the Animal Welfare Act encourages the
use of pain killers, experimenters can omit their use if they so choose. Additionally, enforcement of laws that do exist is woefully inadequate. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is responsible for enforcing the AWA, admits that nearly half of all facilities are in violation of the law.6 With only 73 inspectors for approximately 10,000 sites, inspections are rare and do not provide a real picture of a facility's animal use programs. Ron DeHaven, APHIS Animal Care Acting Deputy Administrator, admits that the agency's "intent is not to punish" facilities that violate animal protection laws, but rather to "work with them."
Anyone who works with live animals and treats them as "things" for our own use grdually becomes desentizied to their suffering. This is a fact, not an opinion. and guess what? It doesn't stop there. Because once you are desensitized to suffering of living, feeeling,sentient beings, you also are many times more liely to act out in violent ways toward other humans. Most people I worked with did at some point. Even I did.
Luckily, all of that is behind me now. Today I spend my life saving chickens, not killing them. I speak out on their behalf, exposing the industry for what it is - merciless, cruel, and downright evil.
Most of the videos I have seen that have been put out by the animal rights movement are actually quite tame compared to thhe things I saw during my days in those hellholes they call slaughterplants.
I would think that the same phenomenom that occurs in those palces occurs in any palce where animals are treated as "things," including laboratories. And from the mounting evidence coming out of those places, that does indeed seem to be the case, just as in circuses, rodeos, zoos, the horses killed making the movie "Flicka," and any other place that humans put their own selves above animals to that degree.
if people are uysig animals to make a profit, you can bet that there is cruelty going on. It's not rare. The only people believing so are the ones with their heads stuck in the proverbial sand. Most people don't want to belive it because then they might have to focus on their support of it through the purchases of those products made from cruelty. There is a huge industry whose interest lie in maintaining the status quo, even when better alternatives exist, like using human tissue cultures and studying actual humans with the disease in question who would lie up to try a new medication on the off chance it might help.
Here are just a few examples where using animals failed to help humans:
Animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, they also fail to predict the effects of drugs on people, with tragic consequences. Here are a few examples of drugs which have caused horrific damage to humans, despite being `safety tested' on animals.
· Thalidomide: Sedative. Given to pregnant women suffering from morning sickness. Caused around 10,000 birth defects worldwide.
· Opren: Anti-arthritic drug. Withdrawn after more than 70 deaths and 3,500 other serious side effects, including damage to the skin, stomach, liver,
kidneys, eyes and circulation.
· Chloramphenicol: Antibiotic. Caused fatal blood disorders in humans, but not in laboratory animals.
· Teroptren: Anti-cancer drug. After a project using 18,000 mice this drug was used to treat acute childhood leukemia, but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated.
· Clioquinol: Anti-diarrhoeal drug. Caused 30,000 cases of blindness in Japan alone and thousands of deaths worldwide. This drug caused a new disease SMON.
· Osmosin: Anti-inflammatory drug. Withdrawn after 650 reported serious side effects and 20 deaths.
· Dosulepin: (Prothiaden) Boots anti-depressant drug. Side effects include; jaundice, anaemia, short term memory loss, convulsions, slurred speech and postural hypotension.
· Manoplax: Boots heart drug. Withdrawn in 1994 less than a year after its launch following clinical trials, which suggested a link to increased rates of death and hospital admissions. Extensive animal studies including tests on cats and dogs failed to predict this problem in human patients.
· Eraldin: Heart drug. Given to patients for 4 years before the horrific side effects were identified, including blindness, stomach troubles, joint pains
and growths.
· Ibuprofen: Boots anti-inflammatory drug & painkiller. Caused gastro intestinal disturbances, peptic ulceration, intestinal bleeding, liver abnormality, aseptic meningitis, depression, drowsiness, impaired renal function, insomnia and blurred vision.
And, for good measure, since Epstein used a couple of quotes, here is one for you:
"I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil." -
Dr. Charles Mayo, Founder of the Mayo Clinic
Post a Comment
<< Home