by Alisha Fournier

Created on: October 14, 2007   Last Updated: January 11, 2008

The End Never Justifies the Means

I'm sitting here writing this paper beside my best friend's dog. I ask him "can I use you for medical research?" He cocks his head and gives me a lick on the cheek and I know he understands. If saving my life meant risking his, Sparky would do it in a heartbeat even though he's not mine. However, does this make it okay? Upon asking Sparky's owner if she would let me use him for medical research, the answer was an outspoken "No!" However, when asked if she cared if mice were used in labs, she responded with less force and a simple "I don't care."

Let's explore an example. Perhaps Sparky is old and soon to die. Upon asking his owner if she would then allow him to be used for medical research, the answer was still a resounding "No!" Yet, if it was someone else's dog that was old and dieing, it would be much easier to say yes; especially if the research would benefit someone you care about deeply. This brings me to the conclusion that it may not be the morally corrupt nature of medical research on animals that bothers people, it is the attachment that many people have towards these animals.

This leads me to share my own input on the matter. Before I continue, a little background information is needed, I believe, to support my theory. As I child, I always loved animals. However, I was only able to love these animals at the house of other owners never being aloud to have my own pet. Despite even, being scared to death of cats for years because of one cat that bit as well as scratched me, I must admit I could not permit any cat to be used in medical testing. This is such a grey area however, akin to the age old philosophy question: A building is on fire and you can only run in once. Who do you save? You're two siblings, or five strangers? Does the end ever justify the means? Speaking from the heart, as a woman whose aunt is dieing from the deadly disease ALS, I'm still not sure I could allow even one dog to die in search of a cure. However, if mice were used, perhaps I would say yes. I question myself over and over and come back to the conclusion that it is the attachment to house-warmed pets, and not rats and mice that leaves us with less guilt about using rodents in research. How can one feel guilty about using an animal that they can not identify with? You cannot cuddle these little rodents, nor can you take them for walks, or play fetch with them. Does saving one human life justify the murder of 50 mice?

Despite not being a very religious person, I believe in a higher power, and I have endless amounts of faith in the idea that everything happens for a reason. Who are we to attempt to defy death? Here I come to my own personal issues with animal research. I refuse to look at this matter in a purely scientific perspective. Looking at animals from the perspective as beings; beings that live, and breathe, and feel pain; how can you kill one being to save another? My problem with the medical system is this: Who are these scientists and doctors to say that they are better than any other living beings on this planet? Perhaps we do have the intelligence to conquer all animals; however we were also born with the gift of conscious and morals and values. As humans, we were born with the gift to fight for those beings that can not fight for themselves. What makes an unborn fetus worth fighting for and a small little puppy not?

Learn more about this author, Alisha Fournier.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.