Catholic Physicians\u27 Guilds

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 30 | Number 4 Article 9November 1963In Behalf of Research: A Word on VivisectionCatholic Physicians' GuildsFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationCatholic Physicians' Guilds (1963) "In Behalf of Research: A Word on Vivisection," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 30 : No. 4 , Article 9.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol30/iss4/9IN BEHALF OF RESEARCH: A Word on Vivisection THE promotion of medical research and medical science could be greatly curtailed and seriously hampered if the voices of the a n t i  - v i v i s e c t i o nists throughout the land are heard loudly enough in legislative halls. A number of organizations are working toward the outlaw­ing of animal experiments. Catholic medical colleges had asked the National Federation to give expression to the subject in its deliberations during the an­nual Executive Board meeting of the Guilds held this summer. The resolution that follows was prepared for publication: WHEREAS: Currently there are various or­ganizations working for legisla­tion that would seriously restrict the use of animals in properly conducted medical research, claiming, among other things, that such use of animals is against Catholic teaching, there­fore: BE IT RESOLVED that the National Federation of Catholic Physicians' G uild s meeting this 16th day of June, 1963 in Atlantic City, New Jer­sey, recognizing that research is an essential element of medical progress, and that the use of animals is frequently an essen­tial part of medical research, and that there is no moral ban against the use of animals in properly conducted research, go 168 on record of supporting the se of animals in such manner. Charles G. Wilber, Ph )., Dean of the Graduate Schoo of Kent State University, K 1t, Ohio has prepared a brocr tre entitled The Catholic Vieu ofVivisection, published by he National Society for Mee cal Research, Rochester, Minne• ita, from which we quote, with ,er­mission, portions to substan ate the convictions of those vho would work toward the co• tin­ued and proper use of ani aals in experiments to advancl re· search in behalf of human } ind: To clarify the matter o the use of animals in experim nta· tion, one should go to St. T,10m· as Aquinas whose view on fundamental matters of ,1an's relation to his surroundings form the basis of Catholi, phi­losophy. In discussing, in the Summa Theologica, the relation· ship of man to the animal world, St. Thomas points out that "The subjection of other animals to man is natural." He refers to Aristotle and points out that the great philosopher holds th�t "The hunting of wild animals 1s just and natural, because man thereby exercises a natural right." St. Thomas Aquinas clearly approves the use of animals by man for his convenience and pleasure. He uses as an example the fact that "fowl are given by man as food to trained falcons." And he presents this example in l..rNACRE QUARTEJILY answer to the objection that all animals are not under the mas­tership of man. It might also be pointed out that St. Thomas Aquinas clearly says that "Man needed animals in order to have an experimental knowledge of their natures." He reminds his readers that in Gen­esi_s God is pictured as leadinganimals to man so that he might give them names. This symbol­ism clearly indicates that man, as viewed in the Old Testament, controls and is master of ani­mals. For, according to the an­cient oriental idea, if one pos­sessed the name of a thing, he controlled and was master of that thing. Furthermore, the c o m m o n  teaching of authoritative Catho­lic sources has always been in favor of the use of animals for . experimental research. In A Catholic Dictionary the brief article on vivisection points out that vivisection is "the dissec­tion of an animal while still liv­ing, the better to study the phe­nomena of life: since the lower animals have no strict rights." It is emphasized that basic to all C:atholic teaching on the rela­tions of animals to man is the insistence that animals have norights. The article goes on fur­ther to say that such dissection "is not inlmoral provided that torture is not inflicted for its own sake." No respectable biologists or medical investigator is interest­ed in torture for its own sake. In fact, every effort is made in efficient laboratories to avoid J>ain and torture in experimental animals because these disrupt �e proper experimental condi­tions. Each investigator is in-NoVEMBER, 1963 terested in searching for the truth and if the animal is stressed with undue pain, obvi­ously the results of the experi­ment will be somewhat less than desirable. Whenever possible in respectable laboratories, anes­thetics are used in experimental animals. The Catholic Dictionary con­cludes its brief discussion of vivisection by pointing out un­equivocally: "The valuable as­sistance given to physiology and pathology by the practice of vivisection c o m p l e t e  1 y out­weighs the objections which are urged against it." The Catholic Church places no obligation whatever on any Catholic to take interest in so­cieties for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It is quite true that cruelty to animals is considered not in keeping with the dignity of man if this cruelty is wanton. However, if there is reason for it, then animals may be used in any way necessary for the welfare of man. Cardinal Newman w r o t e  against wanton cruelty and against excesses on the part of vivisectionists - especially on the part of those whose only motive for doing what they did to animals was curiosity. Cardi­nal Newman, the careful think­er that he was, would never h a v e  condemned vivisection when it is carried out with all reasonable safeguards against unnecessary pain and especially when the clear object in mind is the discovery of something truly of benefit to man and something which would alleviate untold human agony. During one of his lectures in the University of Ire­land, he said: 169 We have no duty toward the brutecreation.· There is no relation ofjustice between them and us. Ofcourse, we are bound not to treatthem ill, for cruelty is in a senseagainst the Holy Law which our Maker has written in our hearts . But they can claim nothing at ourhands; into our hands they are ab­solutely delivered. We may use them, we may destroy them at our pleasure, not our wanton pleasure,but still for our own ends, for our own benefit or satisfaction, provid­ed we can give a rational account ofwhat we do. This is a clear and unequivo­cal expression of the views ofone of the great Catholic intel­lectuals with respect to the useof animals by man. It is a pointof view which the Catholic sci­entist and any scientist can ac­cept without question.It is important to emphasizethat if the welfare of mankindcan benefit by experimentalprocedures on living animals,then such procedures and exper­iments are lawful, ethical, andmorally justified provided thatreasonable measures are taken,by the use of appropriate anes­thetics, to prevent unnecessarypain in the subject animals.There is no question that ob­servations which are made on170 the reactions of living anir alslead to improved surgical op ra­tions and other manipulat mson human beings which elpman to avoid pain and to in .irehealth. Various factors w ichcontribute to disease and thesuccessful treatment of t esediseases have been discoverc I asa direct result of the stud ofliving animals. If one will ,on­estly face up to the result , ofanimal experimentation, henfrom the Catholic point of iew the inflicting of pain on 1 weranimals is fully justified.Fundamental Catholic t, 3Ch­ing on the matter is quite < !ear.In every Catholic universit� and seminary in the world the irin­ciple is taught that animals 1aveno moral rights in thems !lves and consequently there a � no duties on man towards an nals.We do have a duty towarc Godand toward our own h 1mandignity to treat animals J· ndly and to spare them suf 2ring which is wanton or unnece sary.But the welfare of humankindclearly and without qu•'stion justifies as a necessary thing theminimum amount of un·1void­able pain which is involved inthe use of animals for ma1,.LlNACRE QUARTERLY Current Literature: :Jul:i anJ At6lracf6 • Material appearing in this column is thought tobe of particular interest to the Catholic physic­ian t eca•1se of its moral, religious, or philo­iophic content. TJ,e medical literature consti­tutes the primary but not the sole source of.such material. In general, abstracts are intend­ed to reflect the substance of the original arti­cle. Parenthetical editorial coro"n<'nt may followthe abstract if considered desirable. Books arereviewer/ rather than summarizeJ. Contribu­tions ar rt ·omments from readers a, e invited. • • larael, S. L.: Therapeutic abortion. ( fdl­torlal) Postgrad. Med. 33:619-620 June 1963. Specifically medical indications fortherapeutic abortion in the UnitedStates have markedly diminished,but this is not so for psychiatric and eugenic indications. Current laws J>ermitting therapeutic abortion onlyto "preserve the life of the mother"do not take into acount the de facto broadening of indications for thisProcedure on psychiatric and eugenic grounds. T�e deci�ion to perform thera­J)eut.1c abort10n on the actively psy­chotic patient poses no great prob­lbecem, but the mere threat of suicide a.us� of. pregnancy is not per se an .md1cation. Concerning rubella �uri.nir Pregnancy, there is no legalJUSbf1cation for therapeutic abortion � prevent the birth of a malformed tfant. Since this indication accounts !'.)r nearly 30% of therapeutic abor­tio� performed in recent years, themedical staff of each hospital ac­�Pbng this philosoohy "must jus­tify Stich an action through properly elan1:1nciated, officially adopted regu-bons." ,·J · right to break the law than .,�, ., t c·lsc in our society. With few c, ,,· ion,. there is good biological,l , ,,,ogi�a, ,nd moral justifica­t1n1 r , t11e: «bNt on law as it stands.-P.J.K. Burch, T. and G1bbnns, W, ( S.J.): Demog. raphtc revolutic,n� ltJ social and moral lmplicatlons. Chicago Studies 1 :204-224 Fall 1962. If world population continues toincrease at the present 1.8%, our present three• billion population wilI become fifty billion in two hundredyears, and twu hundred billion inthree hw1dred Also, the problemmust be considered on a regional,as well as world, basis; for in manyunderdeveloped areas the food short­age is acute today. Man's respon�e to the problem hasbeen migration, increased produc­tivity (the chief stress of serious thinkers today), and limiting thebirth rate by various means ( espe­cially prevalent in advanced coun­tries). The solutions offered by some Catholic circles-that Naturewill inevitably correct the rate and that a greater percentage of agedwill slow it down - are essentially incorrect. loiter, S.: The psychiatrist's role In thera­P9Utlc abortfon: the unwitting accom­Pllce. Tlie American Journal of Psy• clilatry 312-316 October 1962, Increasing demands are being ":13.de upon psychiatrists to make de­t1S1ons concerning therapeutic abor-on. Psychiatrists should do all they can to discover reasons for not inter­rupting pregnancy. They have noNovntBER, 1963 A comprehensive Catholic answer to the problem (which so far has not been given) must stress the place of prudence, <!nd r�cogn.ize the rational element mixed m with the errors of Protesta�t a�d. secul<!rist teaching. Further, ngonshc OPI';'IO';'S on the valid reasons for per10d1c continence (whose spiritual advan-171 

In Behalf of Research: A Word on Vivisection

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4060&amp;context=lnq

In Behalf of Research: A Word on Vivisection

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette