Xenotransplantation – the Donor Welfare Perspective
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Acta vet. scand. 2002, Suppl. 99, 75-79. Xenotransplantation – The Donor Welfare Perspective By Svein Aage Christoffersen Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1023 Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway. Tel: + 4722850320, E-mail: [email protected] Introduction In this lecture xenotransplantation is considered swers just to get rid of ethical considerations. from the point of view of animal ethics. The When ethics is reduced to a simple yes or no, main point is to show that a specific cluster of then it is of no use and not worth taking into arguments commonly used in favour of xeno- consideration. So ethics is from this point of transplantation, simplifies the ethical questions view trapped in a "catch 22". If it can't deliver involved. This simplification may be favourable simple answers, it is of no use, and if it delivers for political reasons in a short time perspective, simple answers, it certainly is of no use. but may at the same time be disastrous from an Contrary to the demand for simplicity I there- ethical point of view in the long run. If the eth- fore want to say, using the words of the poet ical questions regarding xenotransplantation Søren Kierkegaard, "that in this day and age are reduced to a simple yes or no, this will over- when everybody is striving to make everything shadow more important questions of how xeno- more easy, my task is to make everything more transplantation may be implemented in an ethi- difficult", or at least as difficult as possible cally responsible way. Resisting this simpli- within twenty minutes. I am not doing this be- fication, we have to explore instead the neces- cause I love difficulties, but because I think we sary conditions under which xenotransplanta- have to consider more deeply what xenotrans- tion may be carried through or rejected. plantation is all about. Putting something into Ethics is often expected to deliver simple an- action, there is a world of difference between swers to complex questions. The bottom line of doing it with or without an extended conscious- an ethical argument is expected to say yes or no. ness of what we are actually doing. So let us This way of understanding ethical contributions look more closely into the matter of xenotrans- to the public and scientific discourse about plantation from the perspective of animal xenotransplantation, or any scientific and pub- ethics. lic discourse, is however not in accordance with the ethical point of view. People who expect Animal welfare and xenotransplantation simple and clear-cut answers to moral questions The main arguments in favour of breeding ge- do not - or at least not always – expect these un- netically modified pigs for xenotransplantation ambiguous answers because they want ethics to are summed up in the following statement from be of importance to the questions involved. the 1996 Nuffield Council Report (1) on the Very often they expect unambiguous answers ethics of xenotransplantation: for the opposite reason. They want clear-cut an- Acta vet. scand. Suppl. 99 - 2002 76 S. Aa. Christoffersen "While the pig is an animal of sufficient in- to choose between animal lives and human telligence and sociability to make welfare lives, human lives have the preference. considerations paramount, there is less evi- Secondly: From a biological point of view we dence that it shares capacities with human may prefer to use organs taken from primates beings to the extent that primates do. As for xenotransplantation. But from an ethical such, the adverse effects suffered by the pigs point of view primates are too close to human used to supply organs for xenotransplanta- beings. They may react and suffer much in the tion would not outweigh the potential bene- same way as human beings do. Restrictions put fits to human beings. It is also difficult to see on the use of human transplant may therefore how, in a society in which the breeding of apply also to the use of transplants taken from pigs for food and clothing is accepted, their non-human primates. Pigs, on the other hand, use for life-saving medical procedures such are different from human beings to an extent as xenotransplantation could be unaccept- that primates are not; hence, arguments stated able." against the use of primates for xenotransplanta- tion are not valid with regard to pigs. From this point of view xenotransplantation Thirdly: The use of animals is not at all ex- seems to be a clear-cut case. Of course, taken traordinary. The use of pigs for human benefits literally the Nuffield Council is not rejecting is established long ago by the breeding of pigs animal welfare considerations. On the contrary, for food and clothing. When this is so, the the statement says that animal welfare perspec- breeding of pigs for xenotransplantation may be tives are paramount. But put into practice it says just as, or even more, legitimate. that animal welfare perspectives may not be Let us consider these arguments more closely, given preference when at variance with human one by one, beginning with the second argu- interests. Or put more bluntly: we may put ment. What this argument says, is not just that weight on animal welfare, provided this does the arguments against the use of primates are not jeopardize human welfare. But considering not applicable to the use of pigs. It also implies animal welfare only when it is consistent with that the arguments against the use of primates human welfare is next to nothing. The problem are conclusive. This is why primates are not in is what we ought do when animal welfare is not use for xenotransplantation. But why are these consistent with human welfare. And in these arguments not conclusive as far as pigs are con- situations, the Council says, animal welfare has cerned? Of course there are differences be- to make way for human welfare. tween pigs and primates, but are these differ- Reading the statement more closely we may ences significant? Pigs may not possess the identify three main arguments for this point of same intelligence and sociability as primates; view. Firstly: Xenotransplantation has to do let us take that for granted, at least for the sake with the saving of human lives, and when hu- of argument. Does this imply by logic that pigs man life has to be weighted against animal life, do not have the same capacity for suffering, or then human life takes priority. Today people are that the suffering brought upon pigs does not dying because of the shortage of organs avail- count because they are not as smart and intelli- able for transplantation, so breeding and killing gent as primates are? Is the difference between animals for xenotransplantation will compen- primates and pigs lager than the difference be- sate for this shortage and therefore save the tween primates and human beings, regarding lives of human beings. In this situation, forced intelligence and sociability? Acta vet. scand. Suppl. 99 - 2002 NKVet Proceedings 2002 77 The question of suffering is a utilitarian one. to say that these experiments have caused ex- But utilitarianism is not the only perspective tensive animal suffering, and that they are likely relevant in this case. It is also possible or even to cause animal suffering in the future, too. But necessary to apply a deontological perspective this is not the main point in my argument, be- and ask whether a pig has any right to lead a cause the point is that these experiments are not pig's way of life. A pig is not just an isolated or- within the limits of what a farmer is allowed to ganism capable of responding to external stim- do to his animals. There is a basic difference be- uli. To be a pig is also to lead a pig's way of life. tween a farmer and a researcher, and if we take The word "rights" is, as you all know, contro- into consideration how the researcher is al- versial in animal ethics. My point of view may lowed to treat an animal, this is an exception to be phrased like this: Regardless of suffering I ordinary requirements regarding farm animals. think we have good reasons for saying that pigs So the ordinary use of pigs for food and cloth- have a right to lead a pig's way of life. But if the ing is not sufficient to make animal experimen- word "right" is offending you, I may just as well tation acceptable. say that we have a certain obligation to permit The second reason is that the use of pigs for pigs to lead a pig's way of life. This is not con- xenotransplantation requires transgenic pigs troversial with regard to primates, so why and hence genetic transformation of the pigs in should it be controversial with regard to pigs? use. But when we breed pigs for food and cloth- If we are not convinced by the reasons for treat- ing, genetic engineering is not permitted. This ing pigs and primates differently, conclusions has of course partly to do with food safety, but may be drawn in two different directions. We that is not all there is to it. The prohibition of may either lower the primates down to the pig's genetically modified farm animals is also meant level, permitting the use of primates for xeno- to protect animals against infringement and in- transplantation too, or we may raise the pigs to justice. So breeding pigs for food and clothing a higher level and say that pigs are to be pro- does not make genetic engineering legitimate.