Should great apes have 'human rights'?

Celebrating 60 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an opportune moment to ask whether it is time for the other great apes to be granted ‘human rights’. Nonhuman great apes are not human beings and therefore ‘human rights’ is inappropriate terminology in this context. Nevertheless there is a strong argument for granting great apes fundamental legal rights such as bodily liberty (freedom from slavery) and bodily integrity (freedom from torture). For some readers this suggestion may seem odd or laughable. But John Stuart Mill astutely recognised that “each time there is a movement to confer rights upon some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable. This is partly because until the rightless thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’—those who are holding rights at the time” (Mill J (1859) p.126). Although Mill’s words related to the controversial debate of his time – whether women were rational beings deserving of a legal right to vote – the wisdom of his words ring true to the current controversial debate – whether great apes are rational and emotional beings deserving of a legal right to freedom from torture and slavery. This debate is not pure academic speculation. Questions as to the legal personhood of chimpanzees have recently arisen in international cases

For the Love of Darcie: recognising the human-companion animal relationship in housing law and policy

This paper identifies the law’s failure to recognise and protect the human-companion animal relationship in the housing arena. The nature of the human-companion animal relationship has striking similarities to human-human relationships in the socially supportive aspects of the relationship such as attachment, nurturance and reliable alliance. This contributes to the social life and sense of well-being of the owner. There is also evidence that the human-companion animal relationship can have physical health benefits such as lowering the risk of death by cardiovascular disease. It is clear that society benefits from the human-companion animal relationship, which many owners perceive as akin to family, in the form of healthier, less isolated people with better social networks. Yet in the key area of housing, the law does nothing to protect or even recognise this relationship. In consequence, every year thousands of tenants in both the public and private sector are faced with ‘no pet’ covenants in their leases and grapple with difficulties such as reduced housing options, higher rents or the traumatic decision to give up their companion animal for rehoming or euthanasia. This is especially prevalent amongst vulnerable people, like the elderly and mentally ill, who are more likely to need to move into supported accommodation. This article examines housing law in countries, such as France and Canada, that prohibit ‘no pet’ covenants in residential leases and provides arguments for the effective formulation and implementation of such law in the UK

‘More-than-human’ families in multi-species tenancies: A critical analysis of ‘no pet’ covenants and the law

‘No pet’ covenants restrict or prohibit the keeping of companion animals in rented housing. They affect millions of tenants across the United Kingdom and yet have received very little consideration in the academic law literature. My research seeks to address this knowledge gap by understanding the lived experience of ‘no pet’ covenants for pet-owning tenants. By reference to different models of family including Morgan’s ‘family practices’ approach, my research shows how people construct companion animals as family members. I argue that the human-companion animal relationship falls within the meaning of ‘private life and family’ under Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights. The depth of analysis with which I examine human rights arguments in the context of ‘no pet’ covenants is an original contribution to the field. Embracing qualitative research methods, I conducted seven in-depth interviews with petowning tenants adversely affected by ‘no pet’ covenants to assess the type and magnitude of the harm they endured. I used three methods of data analysis: firstly, thematic content analysis of the interviews; secondly, narrative analysis of stories I crafted from four of my interviews; thirdly, black letter law analysis of the current law affecting the use and enforcement of ‘no pet’ covenants in England. My findings provide a framework for Parliament to assess the need for legislation to regulate the use of ‘no pet’ covenants. The paucity of academic research makes it difficult for politicians to engage in an informed debate. My research provides understanding of how the covenants affect one of the key stakeholders, namely pet-owning tenants. Since companion animals are perceived as family members, the covenants can result in significant harm to tenants sometimes having life-changing consequences. I suggest a reconceptualization of ‘no pet’ covenants from controllers of risk to contributors of harm. My empirical study constitutes a valuable exploratory pilot study that paths the way for a more comprehensive study to investigate the experience of all the stakeholders, including landlords. I present a Fair Housing framework to guide Parliament in balancing the disparate rights of all those affected. Drawing on Mill’s harm principle as developed by Feinberg, I propose a balancing strategy within the context of a Harm Assessment

The welfare of wildlife: an interdisciplinary analysis of harm in the legal and illegal wildlife trades and possible ways forward

Wildlife trade—both legal and illegal—is an activity that is currently the focus of global attention. Concerns over the loss of biodiversity, partly stemming from overexploitation, and the corona virus pandemic, likely originating from wildlife trade, are urgent matters. These concerns though centre on people. Only sometimes does the discussion focus on the wildlife traded and their welfare. In this article, we make the case as to why welfare is an important component of any discussion or policy about wildlife trade, not only for the interests of the wildlife, but also for the sake of humans. We detail the harm in the trade as well as the current welfare provisions, particularly in relation to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which guide global transport and trade. There are a number of ways that the current approach to wildlife welfare could be improved, and we propose ways forward in this regard

Teaching Animal Law in UK universities: the benefits, challenges and opportunities for growth

Animal Law is an emerging field of law both in university teaching and in legal practice. However, it is still relatively unknown in UK universities with only a small percentage offering a course in the subject. Given the growing interest in environmental protection and animal welfare, it is hoped that more universities will develop modules in Animal Law. This article aims to assist in this by answering the why, how and what of Animal Law teaching in UK universities: Why teach Animal Law? How can it be taught within law programmes and what is currently happening? Animal Law is ideal for exploring the interconnectedness of law and ethics and engages students in applying philosophical theories to some of the real-life dilemmas they face. It is also an excellent subject for developing key transferable skills for law students such as critical analysis, research and mooting. The results from a small survey are presented, outlining how Animal Law is currently taught in UK universities and discussing the potential risks Animal Law modules may face due to the imminent changes in legal education. From this analysis, conclusions are drawn on the future of Animal Law teaching in the UK

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Who Gets Charlie? The Emergence of Pet Custody Disputes in Family Law: Adapting Theoretical Tools from Child Law

The article examines disputes over the residency of a family pet on the breakdown of a relationship between a married or co-habiting couple.It looks at the tests the courts have applied in the USA and Israel and uses tools from Child law to advocate a suitable test for deciding pet custody cases in England and Wales