Et tu, BBC?
Just before midnight last night (so, what, around six AM their time?) the BBC World Service aired an opinion piece on animal testing/animal rights. It was so offensive I considered writing a letter to the company, but I'm just going to vent by posting it here.
The basic sentiment of the piece was this: Animal testing is Bad and should Never Ever be done, eating meat is Bad, wearing fur/leather is Bad, and anyone who does or benefits from any of these things is an Evil Person. Now, first off: I consider myself a fairly liberal person. I don't agree with sport hunting (i.e. not for sustenance) or cosmetic testing on animals. But saying that nothing -- not even medications and critical medical procedures -- should be made if it requires animal testing? That's offensive.
-----
Dear BBC World Service:
If you can stand to get off your high and pampered horse for a few minutes, do me a favor. Look my father in the eye and tell him that, if you had your way, he would not have access to his medications -- the medications that control his Parkinson's and allow him some semblance of independence and dignity. Tell my mother that, if you had your way, she would have died of her cancer years ago because the treatments she received were tested on animals. Tell me that I should be dead or homeless because the medications that helped me pull myself up out of the mud are immoral. Go to a children's hospital and explain to all those kids why their parents are Bad for allowing them to receive medical treatment. And hell, while you're at it, go explain to a black bear or a cheetah or two why killing other animals for food is wrong. Because if it's wrong for us to do it, it's wrong for them too, right? Until you can do all those things without a shred of shame, don't you dare tell me that animal testing is on par with child abuse and rape.*
Yes, animal testing is a slippery slope. The question of who gets to define what "essential" medical treatments are is a tough one. And there is no doubt that it should be done as humanely as possible, without any unnecessary suffering and with as few animal subjects as is practical. But to state flat-out that no animal should be used in medical testing, ever? That is ignorant and offensive to those of us whose lives and loved ones have been saved by modern medicine. Should we strive to move away from animal testing whenever possible? Of course we should. But not until we find viable alternatives for testing medications and medical procedures.
I challenge you to go a month--not a year, just a month--without taking advantage of any technologies, medications, or foods that exist because of human utilization of animals for our own benefit. I don't think many of you could do it. It's an uncomfortable truth, but truth nonetheless: the comfortable society you're living in wouldn't exist without it.
I have always looked to the BBC as a source of level-headed and unbiased reporting, and I was shocked to hear a story like this--opinion or no--coming out of my radio without so much as a disclaimer. Poor show, BBC.
* Note: They really did say this. The argument was something like "we don't advocate for humane rape or humane child abuse, so why should we advocate for humane animal testing?"
The basic sentiment of the piece was this: Animal testing is Bad and should Never Ever be done, eating meat is Bad, wearing fur/leather is Bad, and anyone who does or benefits from any of these things is an Evil Person. Now, first off: I consider myself a fairly liberal person. I don't agree with sport hunting (i.e. not for sustenance) or cosmetic testing on animals. But saying that nothing -- not even medications and critical medical procedures -- should be made if it requires animal testing? That's offensive.
-----
Dear BBC World Service:
If you can stand to get off your high and pampered horse for a few minutes, do me a favor. Look my father in the eye and tell him that, if you had your way, he would not have access to his medications -- the medications that control his Parkinson's and allow him some semblance of independence and dignity. Tell my mother that, if you had your way, she would have died of her cancer years ago because the treatments she received were tested on animals. Tell me that I should be dead or homeless because the medications that helped me pull myself up out of the mud are immoral. Go to a children's hospital and explain to all those kids why their parents are Bad for allowing them to receive medical treatment. And hell, while you're at it, go explain to a black bear or a cheetah or two why killing other animals for food is wrong. Because if it's wrong for us to do it, it's wrong for them too, right? Until you can do all those things without a shred of shame, don't you dare tell me that animal testing is on par with child abuse and rape.*
Yes, animal testing is a slippery slope. The question of who gets to define what "essential" medical treatments are is a tough one. And there is no doubt that it should be done as humanely as possible, without any unnecessary suffering and with as few animal subjects as is practical. But to state flat-out that no animal should be used in medical testing, ever? That is ignorant and offensive to those of us whose lives and loved ones have been saved by modern medicine. Should we strive to move away from animal testing whenever possible? Of course we should. But not until we find viable alternatives for testing medications and medical procedures.
I challenge you to go a month--not a year, just a month--without taking advantage of any technologies, medications, or foods that exist because of human utilization of animals for our own benefit. I don't think many of you could do it. It's an uncomfortable truth, but truth nonetheless: the comfortable society you're living in wouldn't exist without it.
I have always looked to the BBC as a source of level-headed and unbiased reporting, and I was shocked to hear a story like this--opinion or no--coming out of my radio without so much as a disclaimer. Poor show, BBC.
* Note: They really did say this. The argument was something like "we don't advocate for humane rape or humane child abuse, so why should we advocate for humane animal testing?"