Human and animal subjects of research: The moral significance of respect versus welfare

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):305-331 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,088

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The sciences of animal welfare.David J. Mellor - 2009 - Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Emily Patterson-Kane & Kevin J. Stafford.
Animals matter: a biologist explains why we should treat animals with compassion and respect.Marc Bekoff - 2007 - [New York]: Distributed in the United States by Random House. Edited by Marc Bekoff.
On justifying the exploitation of animals in research.S. F. Sapontzis - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):177-196.
Attitudes to animals: views in animal welfare.Francine L. Dolins (ed.) - 1999 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
“Our fellow creatures”.Jeff McMahan - 2005 - The Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):353 - 380.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
224 (#84,375)

6 months
13 (#131,321)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rebecca Walker
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

References found in this work

Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by James F. Childress.
Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Oxford University Press USA.
Famine, affluence, and morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status.David DeGrazia (ed.) - 1996 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 12 references / Add more references