If a member of the public ill treats an animal he can be prosecuted by the SPCA; If an animal experimenter ill treats an animal, we pay him for the ‘privilege’.
The National Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) Annual Report was released July 15th 2008.
A new Code of Ethical Conduct has been issued this year. A significant feature of NAEAC’s work in 2007 was the review of a number of the codes of ethical conduct that govern the use of animals in research, testing and teaching.
Nine codes were recommended for renewal and one new code was approved. An important contribution to this process is the statutory review of each code-holder carried out by an independent reviewer.
All research, testing or teaching involving live animals in New Zealand must be approved by an Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). An AEC must include at least three independent members; an independent veterinarian, a person nominated by an approved animal welfare organisation, and a person nominated by a local authority.
NAEAC promotes the concepts of humane science and continues to pursue improvements through its promotion of the "Three R's", which encourage (Ed. my bold type):
• |
replacement of live and conscious animals in experiments with unconscious or non-living alternatives at every opportunity; |
| • |
reduction in numbers to the minimum; and |
| • |
refinement of experimental techniques so as to minimise or eliminate any suffering involved. |
Ed: Would NAEAC please supply evidence that they are pursuing these goals.
The Annual Report publishes the notification of the numbers of animals used in research, testing and teaching. The overall number of animals manipulated in 2007 has decreased from the previous year by 22.6% to 246,667. Year on year fluctuations can in large part be attributed to the three year reporting cycle for long term projects. A rolling average shows little variation from the previous three years.
Ed: So where is the application of the "Three R’s"
The figures show that nearly 80 percent of animals used were classified as experiencing ‘no’ or ‘little’ suffering. Just over eight per cent were in the ‘severe’ or ‘very severe’ grading. The majority of these animals — nearly all rodents — were used for testing the safety and efficacy of animal health products to meet regulatory requirements.
| Ed: |
| 1 |
Where are the published results that show animal experimentation made a positive contribution to the safety and efficacy of these animal health products; |
| 2 |
What type of experiment was used to obtain these results, and
|
| 3 |
What type of pain and suffering was necessary to obtain these results.
|
| 4 |
How is the data from the use of Rodents extrapolated to give the meaning of ‘safety and efficacy’ to consumption or use by other species.
|
| 5 |
Is the purchaser of these ‘animal health products’ aware that animals were experimented on in order to maintain the safety and efficacy claims made by the manufacturer; and
|
| 6 |
Is the purchaser of these ‘animal health products’ aware that tests were actually not carried out on the species for which these products were designed?
|
Only 17.2% of the total animals manipulated were used for testing. The principal purposes of manipulation in 2007 were: veterinary research, which almost exclusively used farm animals and rodents; basic biological research; and medical research for which rodents made up over 90% of animals manipulated.
| Ed: |
• |
What were the remaining 80.3% used for |
| • |
What type of farm animals were used;
- what was the purpose of the experiment (commercial sensitivities aside) and
- did any of these farm animals suffer a degree of pain that, compared to a human, would require some pain relief.
|
| • |
What criteria is used for extrapolating results from animal studies to apply to medical research — Science has demonstrated that animal experiments produce data that cannot be reliably applied across the species — there has been no data collected in any animal experiment that benefited either those experimented on or those who use the product/services resulting from those experiments; in fact often the reverse is true — look at Thalidomide — tested on animals — look what happened to the children! |
Chairperson, John Martin, said that in all projects all possible steps, including a high level of veterinary care, and pain relief, are taken to prevent pain and suffering.
Ed: If they required pain relief, what was the point of inflicting pain if only to be masked by pain killers — surgery aside.
All those who use animals in research, testing and teaching (RTT) follow the philosophy of the Three R's and comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, which requires that the benefits derived from the use of animals in RTT are not outweighed by the likely harm to animals.
Ed: The benefits to whom; death is not a beneficiary state unless it is to relieve intense suffering – ask the humans in concentration camps.
How often do these research, testing and teaching exercises need to be repeated; how often does it take before the experimenter, tester or teacher gets the message — e.g. it causes pain, it doesn’t work, we still can’t understand the mechanism!”
Did it ever occur to any of you that you;
a |
Don’t know what you’re doing, |
| b |
Don’t know what you’re looking for, |
| c |
Don’t know a result when you see one, |
| d |
Hate animals (and probably have a pretty low opinion of yourself ,deep down), |
| e |
Don’t care as long as you get the money, |
| f |
Or, God forbid, actually enjoy what you are doing! |
“It is important to remember that the treatment and cure for many diseases rely on animal research. And research is not just about developing new drugs for humans – many of the drugs tested on animals are being developed for animals,” Mr Martin said.
Ed: Would Mr Martin please supply evidence that the treatment and cure for many diseases have benefited from animal research?
We have a right to know Mr Martin — we are paying your wages and for many of us, we don’t think you should even be in a job.
I often wonder how a laboratory experimenter can drop acid in rabbits eyes, watch a dog scream in terror as it has screws placed in its skull without anesthetic, live dissect rats and then go home, kiss the wife, cuddle the cat, play with the children and sleep well — but then Hitler’s henchman did something like that, didn’t he Mr er, Martin?
Is the public aware that a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty is on the Board of NAEAC !
This is the eighth Annual Report since the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) became a statutory committee in 2000. A copy of the report is available at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/pubs/naeac/naeac-ar-07.pdf [480K PDF]
Ends.
Issued by: Helen Keyes, Senior Communications Adviser
Ph: (04) 894 0161 or 029 894 0161
Email: helen.keyes@maf.govt.nz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greens Condemn Animal Experiments
NZPA
Tuesday July 15 2008 - 08:26pm
Nearly a quarter of a million animals were used for experiments last year and thousands suffered severe pain, the Green Party said today citing the latest report from the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.
Animal welfare spokeswoman Sue Kedgley said it made grim reading.
"The report shows th ere suffering and a further 3217 suffered severe suffering," she said.
"National animal experimentation guidelines say that animals experience pain in a manner similar to humans.
"One can only imagine the sort of pain and suffering 16,000 animals were forced to endure last year."
Ms Kedgley said the European Union prohibited experiments on animals which caused severe pain, distress and suffering.
"Why on earth is there not a similar prohibition here?" she asked.
She said a large number of the experiments were carried out by government-funded organisations and the Green Party wanted the committee to explain how the suffering was justified.
The National Anti Vivisection Campaign said the situation was deteriorating.
"Every time they release the vivisection statistics they claim they are committed to reducing the cruelty but things just get worse and worse," said campaign spokesman Mark Eden.
"The Government keeps saying we have the strictest animal research regulations in the world but it's simply not true."
Ed:The National Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC).
Perhaps we should consider what the term ETHICS means, in particular medical ethics, as this SHOULD apply to animal experimentation. After reading it, one realizes that the NAEAC view of an animal is far removed from anything like a living being; and NZ’s are PAYING TAXES to support animal concentration camps.
Six of the values that commonly apply to medical ethics discussions are:
• |
Beneficence — a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.) |
| • |
Non-maleficence —"first, do no harm" (primum non nocere). |
| • |
Autonomy — the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.) |
| • |
Justice — concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality). |
| • |
Dignity — the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to dignity. |
| • |
Truthfulness and Honesty — the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors' Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee Syphilis Study. |
Informed Consent in ethics usually refers to the idea that an uninformed agent is at risk of mistakenly making a choice not reflective of his or her values. It does not specifically mean the process of obtaining consent, nor the specific legal requirements, which vary from place to place, for decision-making capacity. Patients can elect to make their own medical decisions, or can delegate decision-making authority to another party. If the patient is incapacitated, laws around the world designate different processes for obtaining informed consent, typically by having the next-of-kin make decisions for the incapacitated patient.
The value of informed consent is closely related to the values of autonomy and truth telling.
Ed: Animals obviously cannot give informed consent however NO animal would willingly subject itself to manipulation, pain or distress and NO person who respects animals would give their consent on behalf of the animal to intentionally inflict manipulation, pain or distress.
ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO AVOID BEING EXPERIMENTATED ON — the Jews knew this in Concentration Camps.
Confidentiality is commonly applied to conversations between doctors and patients. This concept is commonly known as patient-physician privilege. Legal protections prevent physicians from revealing their discussions with patients, even under oath in court. Confidentiality is challenged in cases such as the diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease in a patient who refuses to reveal the diagnosis to a spouse, or in the termination of a pregnancy in an underage patient, without the knowledge of the patient's parents.
NAEAC maintain confidentiality about the suffering of the animal; this should surely be challenged if the public were to suspect that the animal is subjected to pain; or is this not as important as a pregnancy termination.
Beneficence : The concept of doing good to humanity in general. This is the principle of taking actions that benefit the patients, and that are in their best interest. It is not an absolute principle in that it only applies to your patients, unlike the principle on non-maleficence.
Ed: Humanity is only as good as it treats itself AND its environment ; Read ‘animals’ instead of ‘humanity’
Autonomy: The principle of autonomy recognizes the rights of individuals to self determination. This is rooted in society’s respect for individuals’ ability to make informed decisions about personal matters. Autonomy has become more important as social values have shifted to define medical quality in terms of outcomes that are important to the patient rather than medical professionals. Respect for autonomy is the basis for informed consent and advance directives. Autonomy can often come into conflict with Beneficence when patients disagree with recommendations that health care professionals believe are in the patient’s best interest. Individuals’ capacity for informed decision making may come into question during resolution of conflicts between Autonomy and Beneficence. The role of surrogate medical decision makers is an extension of the principle of autonomy.
Obviously the animal experimenters are more important than those they experiment on; Non-Maleficence: The concept of non-maleficence is embodied by the phrase, "first, do no harm," or the Latin, primum non nocere. Physicians are obligated under medical ethics to not prescribe medications they know to be harmful. American physicians interpret this value to exclude the practice of euthanasia, though not all concur. Probably the most extreme example in recent history of the violation of the non-maleficence dictum was Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who was convicted of second-degree homicide in Michigan in 1998 after demonstrating active euthanasia on the TV news show, 60 Minutes.
Non-maleficence is a legally definable concept. Violation of non-maleficence is the subject of medical malpractice litigation.
Ed: NAEAC obviously do not know about this principle. Lack of knowledge is no defense; deaths occur; euthanasia is permitted on animals at anybody’s whim.
Double Effect : Some interventions undertaken by physicians can create a positive outcome while also potentially doing harm. The combination of these two circumstances is known as the "double effect." The most applicable example of this phenomenon is the use of morphine in the dying patient. Such use of morphine can ease the pain and suffering of the patient, while simultaneously hastening the demise of the patient through suppression of the respiratory drive.
Ed: NAEAC maintain that all animal experiments are purported to be done for some ‘beneficial effect’; the outcome of the experiment was positive, the patient died in agony.
Not so long ago I actually had to go before an Animal Ethics Committee to apply for permission to handle a dog in a teaching exercise. The Board looked friendly enough, ordinary decent people condoning ordinary decent things. Although successful in my application I came away wondering how jolly they would have appeared if I had actually needed to euthanase my dog after the exercise because of the pain and suffering I had caused. I will never know but … they are the ‘rubber stampers’ — and 17,000 animals suffered badly last year.
Suggested good evidence-based Reading:
• 'A Cat in Hell’s Chance' – Editor, A Malle
• 'Slaughter of the Innocent'— Hans Ruesch
• 'Animal Research Takes Lives'— Betty Overell
Acknowledgement to Wikipedia for assistance in this article.
Animal experimentation in New Zealand is regulated by Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 entitled;
‘The Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching’.
This section exempts persons who experiment on live animals from all the other requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.
Most importantly, it exempts animal researchers who experiment on live animals from being prosecuted for
animal cruelty. |
Approximately 300,000 live animals are experimented on each year in New Zealand. Of those, approximately 17,000 are subject to very severe suffering.
Is this ethically acceptable in our society? Email: nzarinfo@gmail.com for more information.
www.arlan.org.nz
www.stopvivisection.org.nz
|
