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

被引:19
|
作者
Walker, Rebecca L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Dept Social Med, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
human subjects; animals; animal subjects; ethics guidelines; moral status; autonomy; research protections; respect for persons; welfare; justice; capacities;
D O I
10.1007/s11017-006-9008-7
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
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 difference 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 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.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 331
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] HSUS report on animal welfare in research
    不详
    ATLA-ALTERNATIVES TO LABORATORY ANIMALS, 2000, 28 (04): : 554 - 554
  • [42] Ensuring animal welfare is at the heart of research
    Bradbury, Guen
    VETERINARY RECORD, 2015, 176 (26) : I - U82
  • [43] Major pitfalls in animal welfare research
    McGlone, J. J.
    Hulbert, L. E.
    Krebs, N.
    Sutherland, M. A.
    Dailey, J. W.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2007, 86 : 417 - 417
  • [44] Major pitfalls in animal welfare research
    McGlone, J. J.
    Hulbert, L. E.
    Krebs, N.
    Sutherland, M. A.
    Dailey, J. W.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2007, 90 : 417 - 417
  • [45] Major pitfalls in animal welfare research
    McGlone, J. J.
    Hulbert, L. E.
    Krebs, N.
    Sutherland, M. A.
    Dailey, J. W.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2007, 85 : 417 - 417
  • [46] The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research
    Rollin, Bernard E.
    HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 2012, 42 : S4 - S6
  • [47] Moral community and animal research in medicine
    Frey, RG
    ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 1997, 7 (02) : 123 - 136
  • [48] One Welfare - a platform for improving human and animal welfare
    Pinillos, Rebeca Garcia
    Appleby, Michael
    Manteca, Xavier
    Scott-Park, Freda
    Smith, Charles
    Velarde, Antonio
    VETERINARY RECORD, 2016, 179 (16) : 412 - 413
  • [49] CONCERN FOR ETHICS OF TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN AND ANIMAL SUBJECTS VOICED
    EDELMAN, P
    VETERINARY AND HUMAN TOXICOLOGY, 1986, 28 (06) : 589 - 589
  • [50] Morality versus science in the animal welfare debate
    Clary, Erik M.
    JAVMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2011, 239 (01): : 44 - 45