I am torn.
 
Whether an animal should suffer
So that I may find relief,
I am torn.
 
Am I selling my soul
With each pill that I take?
I am torn.
 
Impressed upon my mind
A photograph that elicits my compassion,
I am torn.
 
A Rhesus monkey, kin to you and me
Sits on haunches, frozen and afraid,
I am torn.
 
Now suffering from PD, as do I
Substantia nigra damaged by MTPP,
I am torn.
 
As I gaze upon his image
Stomach turns, tears form,
I am torn.
 
To force upon another
This cross that I bear,
I am torn.
 
Looking into my dog's eyes for comfort
Seeing absolute trust and affection,
I am torn.
 
Knowing both of us out of love
Would sacrifice for the other,
I am torn.
 
Does this monkey know love
Or only fear?
I am torn.
 
Native American hunters prior to the kill
Ask the animal spirit's permission,
I am torn.
 
Once the animal's blessing is received
Respectful thanks are given for the gift,
I am torn.
 
Have we asked this monkey's spirit
For its permission?
I am torn.
 
Have we then honored him
For the gift he hath given?
I am torn.
 
Perhaps in knowing
That proper respect had been rendered
I could then find physical relief
No longer needing to say,
 
"I am torn."
 
) Wendy Tebay
 
 
**********************************
Although there is no easy, if any, answer to this issue, I can't help but
feel this way about the thousands of animals being tested and/or killed,
especially when the following scenario occurs:.  First, prior to a new
chemical product being released (especially for those in the case of
Parkinson's disease - chemicals such as pesticides, some drugs, some metals,
etc are thought to  possibly play a role), it undergoes extensive (?) animal,
not human, testing to prove its safety for our use.  The final stage of
testing, the double blind studies on humans, that a drug would normally be
subjected to are not done, for obvious reasons.  Years later it seems, we
have been possible test subjects after all as many humans, not to mention
wildlife, are succumbing to disease, many of which are occuring prematurely
in life (e.g., young-onset  PD).  So much for all the animals which died
proving these things "safe" for us.  So, because of the entrenched industry
which creates these "safe" chemicals, and due to the time-honored scientific
method where numerous tests are performed with varying parameters (this
sounds sarcastic, but  that is not the intent - I am also a
scientist/engineer and I respect this methodology as an integral part of
'good' science that is thorough and complete), more animals are sacrificed to
now prove beyond a doubt that these chemicals are truly "unsafe."  In  the
meantime, more are used in the  search for a cure/treatment.  (It seems to be
alot harder and requires more rigorous testing, to prove a substance unsafe
for use, especially after it's alreaddy in use, than it is to prove it's safe
initially.  One should think the opposite would be true - that proving safety
would require much more rigorous, 'beyond a doubt', testing than would
proving it unsafe.  I think after a few convincing results are obtained, that
should be all that's necessary to ban or at least restrict its use.  Call me
simple I guess - but I think the problem with this whole situation is
becoming rather obvious.)
 
I truly am torn on the issue of animal testing for medical reasons (on one
hand I am also 'for' it because in the long run it can potentially benefit
ALL life), but that is not really my point.  What I find disturbing is the
seeming waste of life that occurs in the process above.  Animals are
sacrificed to prove something safe, and then later unsafe, and at the same
time are used to save our lives or improve our lives' quality which has been
lessened by illness that perhaps has occurred in part due to these same
substances,  Doesn't this circle ever end?  This doesn't account for all the
potentially needless human suffering as well that could have been avoided had
these substances been proven unsafe from the beginning.  But  how can a test
of one chemcial at a time on animals of other species ever truly simulate the
real world effect on human and other life that is different physiologically
and is being subjected at any given time, to not one, but thousands of
potentially toxic chemicals that we've created, whose interactions with each
other inside and outside our bodies is barely understood at best.
 
It just makes me angry that my life and those of many others, human and not,
are being sacrificed for things, such as pesticides, which are unnecessary,
not even always effective for their original purpose, but often deadly to
more than just their intended victims.  The peregrine f alcon and the bald
eagle were decimated by the pesticide DDT, and are just now making combacks.
 If we're going to study animals, there are certainly enough ready-made
victims of these substances already out there in the wild and there is a
growing body of literature, some avilable over the 'net, about research being
done on these wild populations.
 
Well, I'll get off my soapbox now, but regardless of where one stands
regarding these issues, I believe it to be more 'unethical' to not even
address them at all and to take for granted the gift of life we are being
given by these many other lives, considering it our due as human beings,
rather than the gift it is.
 
That's enough controversy brewing for one night for me anyway.  I'm pooped!
 
Wendy Tebay