In response to Quincy's post 'Where Do We Go From Here?' (3/20/2013):
Since many diseases and other problems which affect humanity today are not caused by bad nutrition, toxins, or unfortunate habits, but rather by variables outside human control (like naturally occurring bacteria and viruses), I do not think that we can avoid facing the issue of animal testing merely by improving our lifestyles. However, it is certainly true that the average lifestyle of a modern-day American, or (although often to a lesser extent) a modern-day resident of somewhere other than the United States is far from ideal in terms of health. That lifestyle has a heavy influence on susceptibility to disease and other problems is certain; statistics from many places around the world clearly illustrate the disadvantages of consuming toxins and lacking nutrition.
Thus, I think that a careful analysis of one's lifestyle can greatly improve one's chances of remaining relatively healthy. If everyone did this, it might limit the amount of animal testing 'necessary' (or perhaps not) to a very small minimum.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Q&A 5, Answer
My question is: Are terminal diseases which affect only the very
old inconveniences (since the very old do not typically have long to live
regardless of disease) or ailments serious enough to justify testing?
I do not quite have an answer to this question, because I think that the terms in it cannot become adequately specific without diluting the meaning of the question. It is also problematic in other ways.
Few ailments afflict only the very old, although many affect this age group more than any other. Should the latter type of terminal disease fall into the same category as the former, or are the few younger individuals enough to boost it into the realm of serious issues rather than mere inconveniences?
If they are, that sounds troublingly like ageism. It is true that younger people typically have more years left to them than older people, but this is not always the case; besides, it is not simply length of life which determines the value a person gets out of remaining alive, but content of life. Making a distinction purely on the basis of age is discriminatory and unethical.
Furthermore, exactly how old does one have to be before becoming 'very old?' This question is important because it determines which illnesses might fall into the category under discussion. Perhaps one must be eighty years of age or more? But this worsens the problem of ageism. The relevance of age is based in the supposition that younger people have longer to life, but this may not be so! As an example, the average life expectancy in the United States today is seventy-eight point two years. If we round this up to eighty, then a person of forty has, on average, forty years left to live. A person of forty is definitely not 'very old.' What of the eighty-year-old? They have already passed the average life expectancy. Yet the oldest person recorded in the world died at the age of one hundred and twenty two, meaning that the eighty-year-old person has the potential, with precedent, to also live forty more years! The chances are far lower, but we cannot gauge that person's potential based on probability. There is also the distinct possibility that, given recent and probably future advances in medical technology, that person may live even longer than forty years. As such, I think that distinctions based on age are not justified, turning my original question back into the issue we have been addressing all week: Is animal testing justified for the benefit of humans (regardless of age)?
I do not quite have an answer to this question, because I think that the terms in it cannot become adequately specific without diluting the meaning of the question. It is also problematic in other ways.
Few ailments afflict only the very old, although many affect this age group more than any other. Should the latter type of terminal disease fall into the same category as the former, or are the few younger individuals enough to boost it into the realm of serious issues rather than mere inconveniences?
If they are, that sounds troublingly like ageism. It is true that younger people typically have more years left to them than older people, but this is not always the case; besides, it is not simply length of life which determines the value a person gets out of remaining alive, but content of life. Making a distinction purely on the basis of age is discriminatory and unethical.
Furthermore, exactly how old does one have to be before becoming 'very old?' This question is important because it determines which illnesses might fall into the category under discussion. Perhaps one must be eighty years of age or more? But this worsens the problem of ageism. The relevance of age is based in the supposition that younger people have longer to life, but this may not be so! As an example, the average life expectancy in the United States today is seventy-eight point two years. If we round this up to eighty, then a person of forty has, on average, forty years left to live. A person of forty is definitely not 'very old.' What of the eighty-year-old? They have already passed the average life expectancy. Yet the oldest person recorded in the world died at the age of one hundred and twenty two, meaning that the eighty-year-old person has the potential, with precedent, to also live forty more years! The chances are far lower, but we cannot gauge that person's potential based on probability. There is also the distinct possibility that, given recent and probably future advances in medical technology, that person may live even longer than forty years. As such, I think that distinctions based on age are not justified, turning my original question back into the issue we have been addressing all week: Is animal testing justified for the benefit of humans (regardless of age)?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)