Part Three: Should Animals Be Unprotected Personal Property When It Comes to Experimentation, Farm Stock, or Pets? What the Law Says.
According to ethologist Marc Bekoff, in his book The Emotional Lives of Animals; A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy—and Why They Matter, laboratory experiments on animals as far back as 2001 included “690,800 guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, in addition to 161,700 farm animals, 70,000 dogs, 49,400 primates, 22,800 cats, and 80 million mice and rats.” In most cases, animals used in laboratory experiments suffer horrendous pain and are killed. Yet, scientists agree that such research is vital to develop effective treatments for diseases and other maladies – which when necessary should be allowed.
On the other hand, should live animals be used to develop cosmetics or in psychological experiments—which also inflicts pain and often results in death? People need nutritious food, but should veal calves be confined to tiny crates their entire short lives (fortunately, conditions have improved somewhat in recent years). Is it morally justified for chickens and animals raised for furs, such as minks, rabbits, chinchillas, and foxes, to be crammed into battery cages just to provide expensive fur coats for wealthy people?
These are not small issues— nor can they be ignored in any consideration of biblical ethics. The History of animal rights laws has not been very helpful either—which may help to explain the rise of today’s radical animal rights activists. Generally, the law holds that people are more important than animals (which, of course, we are). But, it also allows animals to be used for non-medical research purposes, were extreme pain and death are usually the results. In other words, such practices are exempt from anti-cruelty laws.
What the Law Says
Generally speaking, animals have few legal rights. In fact, some wild animals have more legal protection than domestic animals. Although there are anti-cruelty statutes which protect “companion animals [e.g., family pets]. . . . from injury, pain, or suffering,” they are still considered the property of their owners and any legal standing they have revolves around their owners. For example, to sue a person who injures or kills a person’s dog, it must be proven that the plaintiff has been injured in some way as a result.
Despite a growing concern of the humane treatment of animals, ”the prevailing thought continues to be that animals only warrant the protection of the law to the extent that protection will not interfere with some more important [and I would add sometimes arbitrary] human interests.”
This raises the question posed in last week’s blog. Are animal protection laws in harmony biblical revelation? More to the point, as we’ll explore in next week’s blog post, do modern animal rights advocates have a just cause? ©
Note: My comments and quotes on animal law are from an article by Shanna Lisberg, “Animal Law; Five Things Every Lawyer Should Know,” in NW Lawyer, 2016.