Monday, September 03, 2001
How much is that doggie in the window - a question of ethics
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Speaking of bioethics. The discussion of the stem cells has progressed from the scientific into metaphysical, dealing with the definition of life. Does life begin at conception? I have a highly treasured friend and councillor, the Old Curmudgeon, who probably sees the Pope John Paul II as a left-winger, and maintains that no eggs that have been fertilized in vitro may be destroyed. That does away with the discard theory, there should be none. He sees the President as a political compromiser, not to be trusted, and Senator Trent Lott who thinks in vitro life begins only when the fertilized egg is attached to the mother’s womb as a trickster, not to be trusted either.
Given the above definitions of life, and the Vatican’s permission for couples to abstain from sex during the high fertility period (the "Vatican Lottery") , I have proposed that use of condoms is not much different, it does not destroy life. This runs into a much less pronounced objectios from the O. C., to the effect that use of un-natural means of inhibiting conception is not to be considered. But I’m working on the O. C., although, judging from past results, it is hopeless. Might be easier to talk to the Holy Father. Incidentally, the Vatican had announced, way back, that at some point in the overpopulation of the Earth, around time of 30 Billion souls, birht control may be permissible. That’s when people will have to sleep in shifts because there will not be enogh space for everybody flat down, as in Calcutta or the Chinatown illegat textile worker cribs.That’s also sort of like no longer arguing about the principle, only about the price, saying "ok, but not on my shift." The O.C. disputes my recollection, and, other than Paul Ehrlich or some similar prejudiced source, I have no one point of reference. Help from this erudite readership will be appreciated.
Now to dog bioethics. A lunch companion brought to the table a story of a wealthy dog lover couple, let’s call them the X family, one of whose animal companions had a kidney problem, requiring daily dialysis (this struck a deep cord, our last cat Missy lived for two years on our daily dialysis injections before succumbing). The dog’s vet recommended a $25,000 kidney transplant , to lengthen the beloved animal’s life. The couple went to an animal pond, to find a transplant candidate, offering guarantees that they would keep the donor dog and care for it as much as any other animal in their family. The pond refused, since the operation would be performed without the dog’s permission.
This gives a pause to reflect. Ponds usually keep neglected stray animals for 30 days before putting them away. Puppies and better animals bet more time to ingratiate themselves to potential owners (that is still the operative word, although there are laws that curb the owners’ rights). Would it not be better for the animal to stay alive, at the cost of a kidney, and be cared for and fed by a compassionate family? Well, the argument could not be shaken. A parallel was drawn to the human environment, where a bought kidney, from some poor person in Turkey or China who needed the @10,000 (at best, could have been as little as $1,000) to provide security for his family, is illegal to transplant. The suffering American must go to Mexico or Turkey or some such country, with a foreign doctor willing to break the American law, and get the transplant done, cash in advance, with no recourse in case of failure. Legal transplants, from willing accident victims, are not that easily obtained, and relatives willing to donate their kidneys do not come forth that frequently.
That’s the human situation. Going back to our poor doggie, the X family finally found a dog breeder who sold them an animal for transplant, to be a family pet after the operation. Why was ne willing/ A lunch companion, a sometime dog breeder, explained. "Backyard" dog breeders, after the picks of their litters have been sold, mostly turn the leftover puppies to a pet store, to be kept in the window until some child persuades a willing parent to acquire a companion. The high-class breeders, whose dogs fetch a high price, usually put away leftovers of the litter, the runts who do not find a buyer. The idea is to keep the breed not just pure, but also not devalued by runts and less desirable animals. Regular master race eugenics, reminding one of Hitler, who had the cripples done away with. Americans, thank be to the Lord, take care of their least, but it brings up a question of .
Sterilization. It is heard that children unable to support themselves are sterilized, at the request of their parents, or in their situations as wards of the state. Does that constitute permission?
Family X, with a donor doggie on hand, are still trying to legitimize their action, afraid of being slammed by the humane societies, despite the argument that the animal was doomed by its owner, and will have a new lease on life, after the transplant. Are we more careful of animal rights than of people’s rights? Feel free to comment.NP?
Speaking of bioethics. The discussion of the stem cells has progressed from the scientific into metaphysical, dealing with the definition of life. Does life begin at conception? I have a highly treasured friend and councillor, the Old Curmudgeon, who probably sees the Pope John Paul II as a left-winger, and maintains that no eggs that have been fertilized in vitro may be destroyed. That does away with the discard theory, there should be none. He sees the President as a political compromiser, not to be trusted, and Senator Trent Lott who thinks in vitro life begins only when the fertilized egg is attached to the mother’s womb as a trickster, not to be trusted either.
Given the above definitions of life, and the Vatican’s permission for couples to abstain from sex during the high fertility period (the "Vatican Lottery") , I have proposed that use of condoms is not much different, it does not destroy life. This runs into a much less pronounced objectios from the O. C., to the effect that use of un-natural means of inhibiting conception is not to be considered. But I’m working on the O. C., although, judging from past results, it is hopeless. Might be easier to talk to the Holy Father. Incidentally, the Vatican had announced, way back, that at some point in the overpopulation of the Earth, around time of 30 Billion souls, birht control may be permissible. That’s when people will have to sleep in shifts because there will not be enogh space for everybody flat down, as in Calcutta or the Chinatown illegat textile worker cribs.That’s also sort of like no longer arguing about the principle, only about the price, saying "ok, but not on my shift." The O.C. disputes my recollection, and, other than Paul Ehrlich or some similar prejudiced source, I have no one point of reference. Help from this erudite readership will be appreciated.
Now to dog bioethics. A lunch companion brought to the table a story of a wealthy dog lover couple, let’s call them the X family, one of whose animal companions had a kidney problem, requiring daily dialysis (this struck a deep cord, our last cat Missy lived for two years on our daily dialysis injections before succumbing). The dog’s vet recommended a $25,000 kidney transplant , to lengthen the beloved animal’s life. The couple went to an animal pond, to find a transplant candidate, offering guarantees that they would keep the donor dog and care for it as much as any other animal in their family. The pond refused, since the operation would be performed without the dog’s permission.
This gives a pause to reflect. Ponds usually keep neglected stray animals for 30 days before putting them away. Puppies and better animals bet more time to ingratiate themselves to potential owners (that is still the operative word, although there are laws that curb the owners’ rights). Would it not be better for the animal to stay alive, at the cost of a kidney, and be cared for and fed by a compassionate family? Well, the argument could not be shaken. A parallel was drawn to the human environment, where a bought kidney, from some poor person in Turkey or China who needed the @10,000 (at best, could have been as little as $1,000) to provide security for his family, is illegal to transplant. The suffering American must go to Mexico or Turkey or some such country, with a foreign doctor willing to break the American law, and get the transplant done, cash in advance, with no recourse in case of failure. Legal transplants, from willing accident victims, are not that easily obtained, and relatives willing to donate their kidneys do not come forth that frequently.
That’s the human situation. Going back to our poor doggie, the X family finally found a dog breeder who sold them an animal for transplant, to be a family pet after the operation. Why was ne willing/ A lunch companion, a sometime dog breeder, explained. "Backyard" dog breeders, after the picks of their litters have been sold, mostly turn the leftover puppies to a pet store, to be kept in the window until some child persuades a willing parent to acquire a companion. The high-class breeders, whose dogs fetch a high price, usually put away leftovers of the litter, the runts who do not find a buyer. The idea is to keep the breed not just pure, but also not devalued by runts and less desirable animals. Regular master race eugenics, reminding one of Hitler, who had the cripples done away with. Americans, thank be to the Lord, take care of their least, but it brings up a question of .
Sterilization. It is heard that children unable to support themselves are sterilized, at the request of their parents, or in their situations as wards of the state. Does that constitute permission?
Family X, with a donor doggie on hand, are still trying to legitimize their action, afraid of being slammed by the humane societies, despite the argument that the animal was doomed by its owner, and will have a new lease on life, after the transplant. Are we more careful of animal rights than of people’s rights? Feel free to comment.NP?
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 5:11 AM 
