Brom Frans W A
Centre for Bioethics and Health Law, Utrecht University, NL-Utrecht, The Netherlands.
ALTEX. 2002;19(2):78-82.
The use of live animals for experiments plays an important role in many forms of research. This gives rise to an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, most of the animals used are sentient beings who may be harmed by the experiments. The research, on the other hand, may be vital for preventing, curing or alleviating human diseases. There is no consensus on how to tackle this dilemma. One extreme is the view taken by adherents of the so-called animal rights view. According to this view, we are never justified in harming animals for human purposes - however vital these purposes may be. The other extreme is the ruthless view, according to which animals are there to be used at our discretion. However, most people have a view situated somewhere between these two extremes. It is accepted that animals may be used for research - contrary to the animal rights view. However, contrary to the ruthless view, that is only accepted under certain conditions. The aim of this presentation is to present different ethical views which may serve as a foundation for specifying the circumstances under which it is acceptable to use animals for research. Three views serving this role are contractarianism, utilitarianism and a deontological approach. According to contractarianism, the key ethical issue is concern for the sentiments of other human beings in society, on whose co-operation those responsible for research depend. Thus it is acceptable to use animals as long as most people can see the point of the experiment and are not offended by the way it is done. According to utilitarianism, the key ethical issue is about the consequences for humans and animals. Thus it is justified to use animals for research if enough good comes out of it in terms of preventing suffering and creating happiness, and if there is no better alternative. In the deontological approach the prima facie duty of beneficence towards human beings has to be weighed against the prima facie duties not to harm animals and to respect their integrity. By weighing these prima facie duties, the moral problem of animal experimentation exists in finding which duty actually has to be considered as the decisive duty. It will be argued that these three views, even though they will all justify animal experimentation to some extent, will do so in practice under different conditions. Many current conflicts regarding the use of animals for research may be better understood in light of the conflict between the three bioethical perspectives provided by these views.
使用活体动物进行实验在多种研究形式中都起着重要作用。这引发了一个伦理困境。一方面，大多数用于实验的动物都是有感知能力的生物，它们可能会因实验而受到伤害。另一方面，这项研究对于预防、治疗或减轻人类疾病可能至关重要。对于如何解决这一困境，人们尚未达成共识。一种极端观点是所谓动物权利论支持者的看法。按照这种观点，我们永远没有理由为了人类目的而伤害动物——无论这些目的多么至关重要。另一种极端观点是冷酷无情的观点，按照这种观点，动物可以任由我们随意使用。然而，大多数人的观点处于这两种极端之间。人们承认可以将动物用于研究——这与动物权利论观点相悖。然而，与冷酷无情的观点相反，这只有在特定条件下才被接受。本演讲的目的是介绍不同的伦理观点，这些观点可以作为确定在何种情况下使用动物进行研究是可接受的基础。起到这一作用的三种观点是契约主义、功利主义和道义论方法。根据契约主义，关键的伦理问题是关注社会中其他人的情感，进行研究的人依赖这些人的合作。因此，只要大多数人能明白实验的意义并且不会因实验方式而感到冒犯，使用动物就是可以接受的。根据功利主义，关键的伦理问题是关于对人类和动物的后果。因此，如果从预防痛苦和创造幸福的角度来看，使用动物进行研究能带来足够多的益处，并且没有更好的替代方案，那么这样做就是合理的。在道义论方法中，对人类的首要行善义务必须与不伤害动物和尊重其完整性的首要义务相权衡。通过权衡这些首要义务，动物实验的道德问题在于确定哪项义务实际上必须被视为决定性义务。将论证这三种观点，尽管它们都会在某种程度上为动物实验提供正当理由，但在实践中会在不同条件下这样做。根据这些观点所提供的三种生物伦理视角之间的冲突，或许能更好地理解当前许多关于使用动物进行研究的冲突。
