Walking the Wall

I’m taking a class on writing about controversies, although it is more accurately a class about persuasion–a little bit about writing persuasively, but mostly about critiquing persuasive writing. As can be imagined, all sorts of interesting things to debate and discuss have already come up and I find the class enjoyable and challenging. I enjoy “pulling back the curtains on the Wizard (of Oz)” as my professor calls it and seeing ways the writer tries to pull people to his or her side. Sometimes effectively, other times decidedly not. Today one of the essays we discussed was entitled “A Scientist: ‘I Am The Enemy” by Ron Kline about the use of animals in medical experimentation. The essay is well written and convincing on several aspects, but for me he makes the grave mistake of playing the “either/or” game–ironically the very game he accuses (probably legitimately) some extreme animal rights groups of making–”if you are in any way accepting of animal experimentation–you are evil, you are the enemy”. What he essentially states in this article is that “if you are against medical animal experimentation, then you are a monster who has no compassion for children dying of leukemia”. Neither of these stances allows for the complexity of the issue and makes it very simplistic, as one classmate responded that if it is between a puppy and a baby, of course the baby is more important.

The problem I see is that the issue isn’t a direct correlation between one puppy and one baby, the issue for me is the mindset and the ripple effect that comes with placing intrinsic value on living beings. Some might be comfortable with a fruit fly, maybe even a mouse or a rat–start to get iffy with a cat, uncomfortable with a beagle, squeamish with a monkey–where is the line? If it starts with it being acceptable to cause deliberate pain and suffering to animals who are viewed as less valuable–where does that system of justification end? Is the suffering of one child acceptable if it saves the lives of five children…ten children? Is the life of an otherwise average child of more value than a child who has mental or physical deficiencies? I remember years ago when we thought our son was heading down a medical path that would lead to needing a liver transplant–calls were made by doctors about the possibilities of a donor organ only to be met with denial. Because of his other medical issues he would not be given a liver because they could place it, then a couple of years later one of his other medical issues could end his life and render the donated liver “wasted”. Unfortunately, life is terribly fragile and there are no guarantees to anyone how long they will live after a surgery of issues as completely unrelated as a car accident.  So while I understand how few organs there are, I find something frightening in people placing value on one life over another.

This, for me, is even tied into the concept of torture–when we start to delineate who it is acceptable to set aside the laws of human decency and resort to violence against, regardless of the possible information that is gained, we walk a very fine and dangerous line. We are forced to turn other people into the “other”, the bad guys, the monsters in order to justify many things. On the way home from class I listened to a Speaking of Faith podcast entitled “The Tragedy of the Believer” with Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor and author of over 40 books, understanding the furthest ramifications of devaluing life, speaks out adamantly against the use of torture for any reason. This doesn’t even address the issue of whether the information gained from torture is really effective or the possibly not so beneficial results of animal experimentation because that isn’t the point–it is what those actions do to us, to our spirits, to our core that is important.

I am certain that in all my son’s medical care that he has had medicines or treatments or benefits of some kind as a result of animal experimentation–according to  Kline, that should seem to seal my acceptance of those actions but it does not. I know my son would be horrified to know what happens to these animals–after all, he lead the campaign to save the sand dollars on our trip to Florida. I consider myself a compassionate person, but I have to admit that when the group of us started digging sand dollars out of the ocean, I didn’t even think twice about bringing them to shore so that we could leave them out to dry and take home. My son saw what we had when we met up with him and all the little spiney things waving and was horrified that we were going to kill them. I’m a vegetarian, I don’t eat things that were once alive, but it didn’t even cross my mind until I saw the look on his face.  We promptly took them back to the ocean. Certainly, some might call him overly sensitive to small animals–he does have and love every one of his 10 or so hermit crabs–on the other hand, there is something we can learn about valuing even the smallest of living things.

All this is not to say that people who are for animal experimentation are monsters, as Dr. Kline feels he has been made into by those opposed to it–that would be simplifying things too much. I concede that it is a complex subject and that many of the advances of medicine that we have today are a result of this experimentation, and that many people involved with the process feel they are doing their best to contribute to the health of people everywhere. Regardless, I cannot but feel a grave unease over the mindset that sets up a value system on life, that sets up an us/them dichotomy.

Life is fragile. Life is terribly, horribly, and beautifully fragile and there must be another way.