 |
 |
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