Ricardo Gonzalez
ID: L31156909
September 18, 2021
Journal Entry: Pain
Liberty University
Master of Arts in Medical Sciences
MSCI 640-B01
Introduction
This week's content was based on pain and animal rights. I am an avid animal lover myself, and
after much reading, I think I have a firm placement of where my ethics lies regarding animals
and the rights they should be afforded. Matthew 6:26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither
sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of
more value than they? The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was established
in 1980 to fight for and defend animal rights.2 When it comes to animal rights, it affects
everyone because we have domesticated animals and used them for research. That means we
have a moral obligation to treat these creatures with dignity and respect while following the 3
Rs outlined in Macrina.
There are three major views on animal rights: materialist, pantheistic, and theistic views.2 The
traditional Christian view held by the Roman Catholic church is that we have no moral duty
towards animals because they are lower creatures. I respectfully disagree with that ideology
because there is evidence that animals should be taken care of and treated correctly, even in
the scripture. Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the
livestock and all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female, he
created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill
the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the
heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Here our Lord and Savior have
given us the power to have dominion over animals illustrating that they are our responsibility.
Animals can not fend for themselves; they cannot speak or tell us if they are in pain. It is up to
us as human beings acting in God's grace to defend the creatures he created. Some argue that
their sacrifice has led to so much medical evidence; however, that is not the case.
The materialist view on animal rights is subdivided pre and post Darwin. Post Darwinism
thinkers suggest that there is no real difference in kind, only in degree. Those animals, like
humans, share love, emotions, memory, and curiosity.2 If this is so, then just like human animals
can feel pain. Obviously, it is known, but that basis of their rights must be established. One of
this week's case studies was about some research that involved injecting a drug that seems to
be killing the mice. It was up to the student to decide whether to report this or continue the
experiment even though they thought the rats were suffering unnecessarily. If I were to assume
a materialist view on animal rights regarding this case study, I would be on the same level as the
animal, just off by one degree. I would have to discontinue this experiment and report the
actions as so many of our classmates did. There was a consensus amongst as in favor of animal
rights, especially in pain and suffering. The materialist view keeps arguing that, like people,
animals can solve problems and behave socially.2 Rationality was not driven by evolution.
The pantheistic view on animal rights is concerned with living species being manifestations of
God. This means that there is no difference between what is divine and what is created.
Pantheists view all animals as divine. So all animals should be protected to preserve them and
protect the divine. People should revere all animals because they carry a living force that is
bond by God. As much as I love animals, it is hard to ignore the difference from this point of
view. We have to make a distinction between what is created and what is divine. Some people
might call this view antichristian.
Although there is not a complete consensus amongst all Christians regarding animal rights,
some arguments centered around how animals and people receive the same blessing.
Neoorthodox theists claim that humans and animals flow from the creator's hand and are
entitled to his love and acceptance. I vehemently agree with these theists that God did create
these majestic creatures for harmony and order, and we should treat them as such. Christ had
redeemed all of creation after the fall when Jesus was on the cross reversed the natural order of
mortality and death by his redemption of creation. With this view, animals are redeemed and
should possess equal value and rights in God's kingdom. Two here, the takeaway from all these
theological arguments is how one perceives the soul of an animal and how they look at
creatures. Darwinism and theological views still hold a degree of respect and dignity, although
they differ entirely.
All of our case studies this week were based on the use of animals in biomedical
experimentation. It seems that the text does an excellent job at displaying how separated
scientists are from animals mentally. Some scientists merely view animals as tools, while others
may allow despicable behavior using the means to justify the ends. Historically scientific
experimentation involving animals was brutal. For example, fully conscious dogs were nailed to
boards by their four paws.3 Thus, animal rights activists and organizations begin to take shape
in light of animal suffering. The two main views on animal rights in Macrina are utilitarianism
and deontological. In Sangers Utilitarianism, one of the biggest questions on animal rights is not
whether they can reason but whether they can feel pain. This concept will be the central basis
of his ideology. Singer argues that we should give equal considerations to those suffering
regardless of their species. The moral differences between man and beast are not relevant in
this case.3 Pain inflicted on anyone or anything that can feel pain bears the exact moral cost as
postulated by Singer, thus constructing a considerable barrier for justifying animal use in
research. In Regan's deontological view, animals possess an inherent value over the age of one.
He described it as a life criterion. I appeal to this particular view, especially when it comes to
research animals because I believe they all have inherent value, regardless of what kind of
species they are. The text outlined unsavory characters like an unscrupulous car sales, a robber,
and a fruit vendor all have the same right to life and deserve to be treated with respect, as
should all the animals being used. Those that argue against this use the greater good, that
sacrificing a small amount to save many more is justified. I believe this to be wrong and many of
our classmates feel the same way as we all shared similar opinions on all the case studies
assigned for this week.
Next came the U.S. legislative and regulatory histories regarding the use of animals in research.
In 1963 the National Institute for Health (NIH) published its first voluntary guide for the care and
service of laboratory animals. It was the beginning of many reforms that were later made into
law. The guide emphasizes how animal research should be conducted at institutions while also
having a committee known as the IACUC with a veterinarian on staff that oversees the animal's
welfare, housing, and evaluations. When universities submit their IACUC protocol to be
approved for research, the committee ensures that the study's overall design is to avoid or
minimize discomfort, distress, and pain.3 If pain is a part of the research design, appropriate
sedation or analgesia should be used. The goal of the IACUC committee is to help the animals
be treated as humanly as possible.
References
After much review of all the case studies stand with the deontological view on using animals,
believing that they possess inherent value that should be respected and that animals are
essential to a research experiment, they should not be used. I could not find any published
statistics on how much animal experimentation helped extend human life. In other words, it
seems that the use of animals in research has a minimal positive effect on science. That is not to
say that it is not helpful because breakthroughs happen all the time. I think from a different
perspective. We might be able to approach questions that arise in the lab that would otherwise
require and animal sacrifice.
1.King James Bible. Monroe Bibles 2010.
2.Geisler, N. L. (2010). Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options (2nd ed). Baker
Academic.
3. Macrina FL. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 4th ed.
Washington, DC: American society for microbiology; 2014.
