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?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Ol Olsoc]

While I question some of the treatment of research animals, what exactly did the chimps ask of the court?

They want people to stop saying we are related to them.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Richard_at_work]

The Judge did nothing of the sort, the chimps were the ones named in the case by the animal rights activists, the Judge had to direct any motion at the chimps for the owners of the chimps to respond - and thats what he did here. He asked the owners to respond, via the Habeus Corpus motion - he had no other recourse.

The activists are claiming something that didn't happen.

Re: Habeus Corpus

[jythie]

*nod* that is the legal strategy they are following, treating chimps as 'people' but not people with the ability to exersize their legal rights, so like children or mentally impaired individuals.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[AmiMoJo]

Actually it's the headline that makes that claim, not the activists. They are being quite careful to clearly state the legal position and their reasons for doing it.

The problem is US law is pretty weak on animal rights in general, and doesn't have clear mechanisms for dealing with situations like this. So, they tried something unorthodox, and it has at least got them a hearing.

That's why it is important, even if you don't agree with their position that the university should not keep the chimps captive in the way it does. It is creating a legal framework for deciding these things, because the law currently lacks one.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[painandgreed]

"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?

Careful what you ask for. I knew some of the people involved with an old program at OU teaching chimps sign language. They eventually had the vocabularies of human 3 year olds. The program was eventually cancelled and the chimps split up to other research facilities. I've heard the stories from the grad students involved about how they would go visit those chimps, and they would sign "I'm in pain. I want to go home." while in the cages.

Ah, these activist judges!

[rmdingler]

Despite making poor judicial precedent, I see a great Disney movie blossoming out of this.

What's next? A judgement against the internet on behalf of cats everywhere?

Re:Ah, these activist judges!

[kaizendojo]

Despite making poor judicial precedent, I see a great Disney movie blossoming out of this.

What's next? A judgement against the internet on behalf of cats everywhere?

I can haz a cut of da profits?

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!

[Kierthos]

Nonsense. We can always test new drugs on creatures that absolutely no one cares about.

Lawyers.

Re:Genius!

[HornWumpus]

Animal rights activists.

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?

Habeus Corpus

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't even have this right for humans (sitting in Gitmo ) in this country, but they considering to grant monkeys this right? Unbelievable.

How long...

[gti_guy]

... before someone tries to marry a chimp?

Summary is wrong

[jbolden]

The summary is wrong or at the very least highly misleading. What the judge did was allow the argument for chimp personhood to go forward. In other words the court did not find that chimps were unquestionably merely property. That's much weaker than deciding they are actual persons or legal persons. So yes there was a step forward for Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) but nowhere near as big a step as the summary implies.

IRS

[jfdavis668]

The IRS will now show up and demand that they file their taxes.

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.

Plants are people, too!

[argStyopa]

Precisely why are we stopping at recognizing chimps as people, except some sort of gross, obvious anthropocentrism?

Let's point out that there is an entire class of life forms on this planet that have ALSO gone through millions of years of evolution to reach where they are, and yet they are continually exploited, manipulated, and murdered on behalf of humans whims: that's right, I'm talking about plants.

There is no question that they live, breed, and grow. There is ample evidence that they feel pain, and even communicate with each other in ways that we barely understand. In many ways, they are far more in touch with their environment than we are, yet we chop vegetables up for food, we decapitate grass by the billions every week because they had the audacity to try to flourish, heck, we RIP THEM UP BY THEIR ROOTS and chemically sterilize them simply for living in the wrong place, dismissing it by calling them "weeds". We annihilate them, and even have the gall to use their corpses for DECORATION.

We are perpetuating a moral crime, yet nobody can be "bothered" because they don't have fur, a face, or make cute baby pictures.

#stopthehate
#lawnmowersaregenocide
#christmastreeisahatecrime

Re:Plants are people, too!

[Neil Boekend]

Lawnmowers are hardly as nice as genocide. They are tools of mass torture that leave the victim alive for as long as possible, drawing out the torture for as long as possible.

Sanctuary?

[morgauxo]

They are people being unlawfully detained so the fix is to send them to a sanctuary? Wouldn't that be like sending groups of humans to reservations? What's next? Smallpox bedding?

Obviously they can't be left to just roam the city. Maybe that's a clue that they are still animals...

What did the chimps ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape!

To set the record straight

[RivenAleem]

For the most part we don't use their whole corpse as decoration, just their genitals.

Re:Catch 22

[HornWumpus]

Single feral children don't talk. But groups of children, held in isolation without any language contact, develop their own invented language.

The Catholics did it in the middle ages. Apparently they expected the kids to spontaneously start speaking Hebrew. Experiment couldn't be ethically repeated today.