A flimsy case for the use of non-human primates in research: a reply to Arnason

Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (5):332-333 (2018)
The Weatherall Report claims that research on non-human primates is permitted and morally required. The argument rests on the following thought experiment: > The hospital fire : A hospital is on fire. Some of the residents are humans and others are non-human animals. You can only save one group. What do you do? Some people have the intuition that we should rescue the humans. According to the report, if we accept that human lives have priority over non-human lives in this case, consistency requires us to support the use of non-human animals in research. This is because both cases are about saving human lives at the expense of the lives of non-human animals. Two critical replies appeared in the literature, by E J Moore1 and Muireann Quigley.2 In a recent paper3 Gardar Arnason claims that such objections fail. I will argue, however, that his assessment is unconvincing. The first objection pressed by Moore is that there are fundamental disanalogies between The hospital fire and biomedical research. In that scenario we face a life-or-death emergency situation whereas in biomedical research we do not. In such situations it may be justified to prioritise those closest to us (eg, species …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2017-104444
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,545
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Scope of the Argument From Species Overlap.Oscar Horta - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):142-154.
Marginal Cases and Moral Relevance.Mark Bernstein - 2002 - Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (4):523–539.
Non-Human Primates: The Appropriate Subjects of Biomedical Research?M. Quigley - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (11):655-658.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Objections Still Fail: A Response to Faria.Gardar Arnason - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (5):334-335.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Non-Human Primates: The Appropriate Subjects of Biomedical Research?M. Quigley - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (11):655-658.
The Prior Question: Do Human Primates Have a Theory of Mind?Robert M. Gordon - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):120-121.
Nonhuman Primates, Human Need, and Ethical Constraints.David DeGrazia - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (4):27-28.
The Role of Executive Control in Tool Use.Gijsbert Stoet & Lawrence H. Snyder - 2012 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35 (4):240-241.
Human Tool Behavior is Species-Specific and Remains Unique.Susan Cachel - 2012 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35 (4):222-222.


Added to PP index

Total downloads
2 ( #936,349 of 2,287,891 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #393,176 of 2,287,891 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature