Update: No Personhood for Chimps Yet

sciencehabit writes: In a decision that effectively recognizes chimpanzees as legal persons for the first time, a New York judge [Monday] granted a pair of Stony Brook University lab animals the right to have their day in court. The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention. The judicial action could force the university, which is believed to be holding the chimps, to release the primates, and could sway additional judges to do the same with other research animals. Update: 04/21 21:39 GMT by S : Science has updated their article with news that the court has released an amended order (PDF) with the words "writ of habeas corpus" removed, no longer implying that chimps have legal personhood. The order still allows the litigation to go forward, but we'll have to wait for resolution.

Comments

Habeus Corpus

[Drethon]

"The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention." While I question some of the treatment of research animals, what exactly did the chimps ask of the court?

Genius!

[Mashiki]

In other news, medical research slowly comes to a crashing halt in test phases. Millions of people die due to reactions which were not seen in simulations. Environmental moonbats everywhere cheer.

Re:Genius!

[cdrudge]

Chimps today...rats and rhesus monkeys tomorrow!

Re:Genius!

[AmiMoJo]

If millions of people die because of inadequate testing then that's the fault of the people who tested the drug. There are plenty of humans who would volunteer for tests with full knowledge and understanding of the risks. There are plenty of animals that don't suffer the same was a chimps to, such as mice, that can be used for a lot of the tests.

The argument is that while chimps are convenient test subjects, there are alternatives. More expensive alternatives, but we should at least think about what price we are willing to put on the suffering of highly developed animals.

Re:Genius!

[StikyPad]

we should at least think about what price we are willing to put on the suffering of highly developed animals.

We did. "Good drugs" seems to be the consensus.

Not every condition is life threatening, where humans would be willing to risk unknown side effects. And even if humans are willing to take that risk, there are bigger ethical concerns, like the potential for vulnerable people to be coerced into trials.

Re:Genius!

[DerekLyons]

If millions of people die because of inadequate testing then that's the fault of the people who tested the drug. There are plenty of humans who would volunteer for tests with full knowledge and understanding of the risks.

On your planet maybe. But here on Earth we don't allow human testing in the early phases of drug development. And even if they did allow human testing, the volunteers can't possibly have full knowledge and understanding of the risks - because at that stage of the game, that knowledge doesn't exist. That's why we test on animals in the first place.
 

There are plenty of animals that don't suffer the same was a chimps to, such as mice, that can be used for a lot of the tests.

Where they can be, they already are. Primates are among the expensive and difficult lab animals to maintain, and thus are only used where no other reasonable alternative exists. (Or, again, the world you describe is a very different one from Earth.)

Re:Genius!

[Anubis IV]

While I may not count myself on your side in this debate, I do think that your side has a number of decent arguments going for it. It's a shame that you've failed to provide any of them here.

A) You've lumped everyone who disagrees with you into the "we're superior creatures and can dispose of animals as we desire" crowd. That's a gross oversimplification of the alternative views to your own.

B) Claiming you have a moral footing is very different from actually having one. There are an abundance of well-established moral foundations on which you might have established your footing, but you didn't mention a single one. Instead, what you did provide was simply, "I'll believe what I want to believe and you can't convince me otherwise". Moreover, the moral discomfort you claim is undeniable would be denied by many here.

C) You're suggesting, without providing a basis for your assertion, that we're not treating the animals with enough dignity already, despite the fact that we have ethics boards in place to review research and ensure that animals are not being harmed unnecessarily, abused, or mistreated. Researchers are held to the highest standards and don't undertake their actions lightly. The only assumption we can make from what you've said is that you believe their use in research to be contrary to maintaining their dignity, suggesting that they are due a level of dignity that is typically reserved for persons.

D) Despite that, you acknowledge that they are not entitled to personhood. If non-persons are entitled to the dignity of personhood, then where do we stop? Are rhesus monkeys due the dignity of personhood? Rats? Leeches? Plants? Tree bark? Dirt? Water? Not only have you failed to establish a moral footing for your beliefs, you've actually established your beliefs on the side of a slippery slope.

Again, I do think that there's a case to be made for why we shouldn't use animals in lab tests, but saying that we're entitled to our opinions and that it won't change your unexplained "moral footing" is not the way to go about making your case.

Have we solved all human rights issues?

[sinij]

Have we solved all human rights issues so we now moved on to grant animals personhood?

Re:Have we solved all human rights issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes, we have solved poverty in the USA; we have not solved governmental dependence. The two are very, very different. Go visit Africa and you'll come back realizing that there are no poor people in the US. No, our "poor" aren't as rich as the "poor" in other western countries, but they have the opportunity for all of their basic needs to be met.

How long...

[gti_guy]

... before someone tries to marry a chimp?

It was New York, what did you expect?

[shellster_dude]

This is nothing more than a jobs program for lawyers. They get to make millions suing various pharmaceutical companies for years. In return, your drugs cost more, and are more likely to have unknown side-effects.