Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):305-331 (2006)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Human beings with diminished decision-making capacities are usually thought to require greater protections from the potential harms of research than fully autonomous persons. Animal subjects of research receive lesser protections than any human beings regardless of decision-making capacity. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely animals’ lack of some characteristic human capacities that is commonly invoked to justify using them for human purposes. In other words, for humans lesser capacities correspond to greater protections but for animals the opposite is true. Without explicit justification, it is not clear why or whether this should be the case. Ethics regulations guiding human subject research include principles such as respect for persons—and related duties—that are required as a matter of justice while regulations guiding animal subject research attend only to highly circumscribed considerations of welfare. Further, the regulations guiding research on animals discount any consideration of animal welfare relative to comparable human welfare. This paper explores two of the most promising justifications for these differences␣between the two sets of regulations. The first potential justification points to lesser moral status for animals on the basis of their lesser capacities. The second potential justification relies on a claim about the permissibility of moral partiality as␣found in common morality. While neither potential justification is sufficient to justify the regulatory difference as it stands, there is possible common ground between supporters of some regulatory difference and those rejecting the current difference
|
Keywords | human subjects animals animal subjects ethics guidelines moral status autonomy research protections respect for persons welfare justice capacities |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11017-006-9008-7 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status.David DeGrazia (ed.) - 1996 - Cambridge University Press.
View all 11 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Can a Chimp Say "No"? Reenvisioning Chimpanzee Dissent in Harmful Research.Andrew Fenton - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (2):130-139.
Societal Sentience: Constructions of the Public in Animal Research Policy and Practice.Ashley Davies & Pru Hobson-West - 2018 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 43 (4):671-693.
The Emergence and Development of Animal Research Ethics: A Review with a Focus on Nonhuman Primates.Gardar Arnason - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2277-2293.
Should Protections for Research with Humans Who Cannot Consent Apply to Research with Nonhuman Primates?David Wendler - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2):157-173.
Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research.Elisa Galgut - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):5-19,.
View all 10 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect.Marc Bekoff - 2007 - Distributed in the United States by Random House.
On Justifying the Exploitation of Animals in Research.S. F. Sapontzis - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):177-196.
Human and Animal Research Guidelines: Aligning Ethical Constructs with New Scientific Developments.Hope Ferdowsian - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (8):472-478.
Animal Research, Non-Vegetarianism, and the Moral Status of Animals - Understanding the Impasse of the Animal Rights Problem.Hon-Lam Li - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):589 – 615.
Lives in the Balance: Utilitarianism and Animal Research.Robert Bass - 2012 - In Jeremy Garrett (ed.), The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy. MIT Press.
On the Need to Redress an Inadequacy in Animal Welfare Science: Toward an Internally Coherent Framework.Andrew Fenton - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):73-93.
Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare.Francine L. Dolins (ed.) - 1999 - Cambridge University Press.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
202 ( #58,363 of 2,519,686 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,314 of 2,519,686 )
2009-01-28
Total views
202 ( #58,363 of 2,519,686 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,314 of 2,519,686 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads