Month: February 2024

Image from: Animals Australia: Australia’s Secret Primate Experiments

Animal experimentation has always been vital to our survival and scientific advancement. During the Renaissance, trapping mice in vacuum seals led to the discovery of oxygen being the key to our survival, allowing doctors to better understand organ systems (Physiology In the Renaissance Period – Dr. Duffin). The rise of Positivism saw beliefs moving away from theology, toward real observations. Francois Magendie conducted experiments that involved removing animals’ organs and keeping them alive to see how their bodies adapted (Physiology In the Pre-Modern Period – Dr. Duffin). This progressed the field of physiology, and helped in the discovery of different disease treatments.

Image from: Animals in Biomedical Research: What They have Given Us and What We Owe Them

Animal experiments since, have saved lives around the world. For the anti-emetic Thalidomide, it was only after being tested on pregnant animals and observing babies born with severe deformities that the FDA banned its sale across America, saving many babies from lifetimes of suffering (Animals in Biomedical Research). This shows the unequivocal importance of animal experimentation to human life.

Past ethical failures like the Tuskegee experiments saw disadvantaged Black populations lied to about receiving Syphilis treatment. Public health services justified it as a “study in nature [of the disease]” and purposefully let hundreds of people die (McGill: 40 Years of Human Experimentation in America: The Tuskegee Study). Such events, along with eugenics-based genocide in Nazi Germany sparked the creation of strict regulations, such as the Helsinki Declaration, for human and animal welfare in modern clinical trials (Animals in Biomedical Research). Animal experimentation not only saves human lives, but we actively uphold animal welfare standards.

My opinion on this topic however, is that animal experimentation is generally wrong. I decided to talk to my friend about this issue, and here’s what she had to say:

I believe that animals have moral worth independent of their usefulness to humans, and that their basic interests should have similar consideration to ours (PETA – Why Animal Rights). This concept leads me to the three Rs of animal experimentation used today. They describe the need to reduce animal involvement, replace them when possible with other methods, and minimize their suffering (Animal Use Alternatives 3Rs). This proves that within the scientific community, people already acknowledge that animals are worthy of moral consideration. A researcher at a UK university said “I’d spend entire [days] just breaking necks…and being part of their suffering left me feeling like there wasn’t much point in my existence” (VICE news). Researchers suffering perpetrator-induced trauma gives me a glimpse into how violent experiments truly are which only strengthens my opinion against animal experimentation.

In my opinion, animals are fundamentally people. If we consider a person to be someone who can feel emotions, sensations and have complex thought, animals would have personhood, thus affording them more legal protection (TEDx Cambridge: Are There Non-Human Persons). But they don’t. Why? Peter Singer, a famous philosopher, said “if possessing a higher degree of intelligence [doesn’t] entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Britannica – Peter Singer). The speciesism prejudice humans show in treating other humans better than non-human animals, is no different than one type of human being owned and exploited by another, on the basis of race. I mean, how would you feel if your freedom was stolen?

Image from: Our Compass: The High Cost of Animal Testing

Image from: Cavendish Historical Society News

Alexis St. Martin was a Canadian indentured servant who was experimented on by physician William Beaumont (Alexis St. Martin: A Hole In the Stomach). Dr. Beaumont healed his abdominal gunshot wound, saving his life. Afterwards, he often forcefully experimenting on the fistula it left, making Alexis suffer. Alexis claimed many times that he didn’t want to live like a guinea pig, and that he owed Dr. Beaumont something but not his whole life (Physiology in the Pre-Modern Period – Dr. Duffin).  When researchers provide animals with “sanitary environments” or other basic needs as a sort of justification to experiment on them, how is that any more ethical than Dr. Beaumont saving Alexis’s life yet forcing him to endure what he had to?

Image from: Animal Research at Queen’s

When I went vegan, my shift in perspective scrutinized not just my dietary choices but how I supported industries that harmed animals. However, the only instance in which I do “support” animal experimentation is when it’s vital to our survival (American Psychological Association). Getting vaccinated, or taking certain medicines saves millions of lives, and the animals’ sacrifices are taken for granted. This is why I realize that my stance still causes immense suffering, and there are many limitations to it. How do researchers decide which types of medicine are worthy to be tested on animals, or how to quantify harms vs benefits?

Image from: Cruelty-Free Kitty: How to Spot a Fake Cruelty-Free Logo

In my daily life, I do my best in making mindful choices such as always buying cruelty-free personal products thus denying money to companies perpetuating unnecessary violence. As experimentation methods advance, animals’ roles in medicine will slowly be omitted. Until a “liberation” day arrives, I believe everyone must make ethical decisions, yet value human life.

Image from: (What Are the Benefits of Thinking About Your Own Death?)

Death is sacred. When someone dies, it reminds us all of the finite existence of our lives and helps put into perspective how much we matter to each other. I want to know, that my time on this planet, in some ways, left it a little better for others than before I was here. One way I plan on doing that is by donating my body. More specifically, for research and anatomical purposes (ex. practicing procedures in hospitals, and dissection in medical schools).

Video from: (Ted-Ed Video: Ancient Rome’s Most Notorious Doctor)

Throughout this module, I learned a lot about the evolution of human dissection and body donation trends, and attitudes. During the Renaissance, Vesalius’s contributions to the world of anatomy, defying Galen’s religiously believed observations highlighted anatomy’s importance in medicine. He claimed “You [can’t] rely on other people to do it for you [anatomical dissections], you will never make any observations” (Dr. Jackie Duffin, Anatomy in Renaissance Period). Yet, people were wary of donating their bodies for religious, and dignity reasons (due to the likes of Burke and Hare, body snatching, etc.). The shift in attitude toward dissection came within the past century, as medical schools and research facilities changed the narrative around body donation. After their use, bodies began being returned to the families, or if unclaimed, given honorific burials. Throughout history, without human dissections, countless surgical techniques, medicines, and more would never have been discovered. So many discoveries have yet to be made, so why should we assume the importance is any less today? “It’s a tribute to the [medical] profession that they’ve been able to reassure…[dissection] is an important and respectful activity” (Dr. David Jones, 500 Years of Human Dissection). This is important toward my decision as the mistreatment of my body is a big reason why I’m against using it for public education.

Image from:(Ontario Science Centre, Exhibitions)

Seeing mistreatment happening for myself, helped me decide against public donation. When I was around 8 or 9 years old, I used to love going to the Ontario Science centre with my family. One weekend, we happened to go during a Body Works exhibit. That day onward, human body models, Eyewitness books, and anatomy “label the blanks” filled my bookshelves. I can appreciate from my experience how important these exhibits can be in igniting a flame of passion within people.

Image from: (Ask Gramps, Is There an Official Position on Donating One’s Body to Science?)

That being said, my fear of misuse outweighs this benefit. These exhibits blur the line between art, science, and freakshow (Dr. David Jones, 500 Years of Anatomy). I would have to agree. I can still vividly remember all those years ago, people pointing to the exhibits at and laughing; making comments and mocking the way they looked. Continuing with the lens of misuse, I am particularly concerned about the actual misuse of my body, not just people’s perceptions. In 2016, Calgary opened Canada’s first “body coupling” exhibit showcasing human bodies recreating sexual acts (CBC News – Body Coupling). The vulnerable bodies in these situations were once people, who trusted their bodies would be treated with respect… clearly, they weren’t. Donating my body for medical purposes would omit this risk. I believe everyone is deserving of basic humanity, and I’m not personally willing to subject myself to the risk of not receiving it.

Image from: (Daily, Public Dissection)

When I was interviewing my friend, she asked me a question that took me aback. “Given that there already are very detailed anatomy textbooks and resources, is it still necessary to donate”? I remembered Dr. Mackenzie telling a story of how a surgeon asked a medical student to point out the ureter on an open body, but they couldn’t because they thought the ureter was yellow (how it’s commonly shown in anatomy textbooks and in virtual labs). (Dr. Les Mackenzie, Learning Anatomy). When I had my first ANAT100 cadaver lab, I was so captivated by the body, I instantly realized the important of hands-on training.

I attest to learning more realistically from the cadaver than our paperback content (ex. being better prepared for bellringers where real specimens are often used). That being said, there is a time and a place for easy to understand diagrams/models and I find them a necessity when first learning about anatomy. These situations played a role in my decision as educating our future doctors/health professionals is indirectly helping improve health care. This is something people don’t often think about as things like organ donation are widely more popular.

And while I acknowledge that my organs would save lives, I believe it’s equally important that doctors/students have opportunities to practice their skills. This is why I would prefer donating my body to more anatomical/medical purposes, and not just donating organs.

Image from: (TalkDeath, Donating My Body to Science)

I find solace, knowing that after death, I’ll still be contributing to better the world. They say “[a body donor’s] legacy is that they’re allowing skilled people to go on and… be able to [alleviate human illnesses]” (University of Newcastle representative, The Body Donors). If possible, donating body for anatomical, and then procedural purposes would be ideal!