3 ms·

I have stupid question Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well being of those chimps and claim such elevation meets law requirements?

liveoneggs 4y ago
animals are property - this property was contracted to move into facility X. Failure to do so is a contract breach.
- joxel 4y ago
  I guess the fact that treating the animals like property leads to unwanted effects begs the question on whether we should be treating animals as property. Clearly there is a difference between an animal and an inanimate object. We have animal welfare and cruelty laws, etc. While this may be legal, whether it is ethical is a more important question. Seems to me it’s time to update the laws that describe living beings the same way as pencils.
- PhasmaFelis 4y ago
  This is true but not really relevant, in a "you're in an airplane" sort of way.[1] The chimps in question have no remaining value as property; both parties involved are acting out of their perception of what's best for the animals. [1] https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/10155481346940508 https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/101554813469405...
- kelnos 4y ago
  No, this has nothing to do with contracts or property. A federal law enacted with the intention of protecting post-experimental chimps requires labs (regardless of their other contractual obligations) to relocate chimps to a government sanctuary upon retirement.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
I wonder how NIH requirements compare to farmers' requirements for animal welfare? My uneducated guess is that NIH is less compliant, and have lower consequences.
jherskovic 4y ago
The 'caregivers' in this case are professional veterinarians who think the cure can be worse than the disease. The caregivers allege that the chimps are being cared for at a standard that is as high as the one they'd get at the Federal facility, without needing to move them, which causes stress and jeopardizes their well-being as well. Part of the problem here is that the law seems to say "they will be moved to the Federal sanctuary," not "they will be cared in [list of appropriate ways]". To fully comply with the law, you need to move them even if they're sick, have social bonds in their current place, or are perfectly happy. Disclaimer: I've visited one of the non-federal facilities and I've seen retired chimps that looked content. I have zero experience in animal welfare.
alistairSH 4y ago
Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well being of those chimps? Where are you reading this? The current caregivers are professional veterinarians and believe the chimps are too sick/elderly to be moved. The law requires the chimps to be moved regardless of their well-being. The judge has followed the letter of the law, but not the intent (because the intent wasn't codified in a way that was clear). Congress wrote a shitty law; the judge is following it.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Why do you presume to know the intent? The law may have been written to ensure the chimps are out of their experimenters’ confines, regardless of how good said experimenters claim the chimps had it.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    If that's the intent, then that's a stupid, vindictive intent. The law should be written to protect the well being of the animals, and ensure the best outcome for them. Anything else is not something I'd care to support, anyway. > regardless of how good said experimenters claim the chimps had it. Had is not the operative word here: have is. The veterinarians at the lab claim that they currently receive as good or better care than they'd receive at the sanctuary. Certainly that claim should be evaluated by an independent third-party, but, frankly, the chimp's quality of life in the past (such as when they were experimental subjects) isn't particularly relevant now. All that matters (ethically) is the level of care they get now, and the likely negatives to their well being that moving them would cause. Sure, one can reasonably disagree with the lab vets' assessment. But I don't think any of us here are in the position to have an informed opinion on that. All of it is pretty moot, though, as the law doesn't seem to provide any exceptions. If that is indeed the case (and the NIH either chooses not to appeal, or does and fails), they'll be forced to relocate... assuming they live that long, anyway.
dirtybirdnj 4y ago
Because the people who've been doing the work caring for the chimps before this ruling probably have a good idea of what will / won't work with the individual animals. Some people decided to make laws with hard and specific rules without considering the downstream ramifications. It's a social failure to adapt to the situation. We must ignore the experts because the rules say so. We must kill the chimps from stress by moving them because what the caretakers have to say has no standing in the legal world. If "the law" is on your side there is no slope too slippery that can't overcome pesky constraints of morality or reality.

liveoneggs 4y ago

animals are property - this property was contracted to move into facility X. Failure to do so is a contract breach.

joxel 4y ago
I guess the fact that treating the animals like property leads to unwanted effects begs the question on whether we should be treating animals as property. Clearly there is a difference between an animal and an inanimate object. We have animal welfare and cruelty laws, etc. While this may be legal, whether it is ethical is a more important question. Seems to me it’s time to update the laws that describe living beings the same way as pencils.
PhasmaFelis 4y ago
This is true but not really relevant, in a "you're in an airplane" sort of way.[1] The chimps in question have no remaining value as property; both parties involved are acting out of their perception of what's best for the animals. [1] https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/10155481346940508 https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/101554813469405...
kelnos 4y ago
No, this has nothing to do with contracts or property. A federal law enacted with the intention of protecting post-experimental chimps requires labs (regardless of their other contractual obligations) to relocate chimps to a government sanctuary upon retirement.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

I wonder how NIH requirements compare to farmers' requirements for animal welfare? My uneducated guess is that NIH is less compliant, and have lower consequences.

jherskovic 4y ago

The 'caregivers' in this case are professional veterinarians who think the cure can be worse than the disease. The caregivers allege that the chimps are being cared for at a standard that is as high as the one they'd get at the Federal facility, without needing to move them, which causes stress and jeopardizes their well-being as well. Part of the problem here is that the law seems to say "they will be moved to the Federal sanctuary," not "they will be cared in [list of appropriate ways]". To fully comply with the law, you need to move them even if they're sick, have social bonds in their current place, or are perfectly happy. Disclaimer: I've visited one of the non-federal facilities and I've seen retired chimps that looked content. I have zero experience in animal welfare.

alistairSH 4y ago

Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well being of those chimps? Where are you reading this? The current caregivers are professional veterinarians and believe the chimps are too sick/elderly to be moved. The law requires the chimps to be moved regardless of their well-being. The judge has followed the letter of the law, but not the intent (because the intent wasn't codified in a way that was clear). Congress wrote a shitty law; the judge is following it.

kortilla 4y ago
Why do you presume to know the intent? The law may have been written to ensure the chimps are out of their experimenters’ confines, regardless of how good said experimenters claim the chimps had it.
- kelnos 4y ago
  If that's the intent, then that's a stupid, vindictive intent. The law should be written to protect the well being of the animals, and ensure the best outcome for them. Anything else is not something I'd care to support, anyway. > regardless of how good said experimenters claim the chimps had it. Had is not the operative word here: have is. The veterinarians at the lab claim that they currently receive as good or better care than they'd receive at the sanctuary. Certainly that claim should be evaluated by an independent third-party, but, frankly, the chimp's quality of life in the past (such as when they were experimental subjects) isn't particularly relevant now. All that matters (ethically) is the level of care they get now, and the likely negatives to their well being that moving them would cause. Sure, one can reasonably disagree with the lab vets' assessment. But I don't think any of us here are in the position to have an informed opinion on that. All of it is pretty moot, though, as the law doesn't seem to provide any exceptions. If that is indeed the case (and the NIH either chooses not to appeal, or does and fails), they'll be forced to relocate... assuming they live that long, anyway.

dirtybirdnj 4y ago

Because the people who've been doing the work caring for the chimps before this ruling probably have a good idea of what will / won't work with the individual animals. Some people decided to make laws with hard and specific rules without considering the downstream ramifications. It's a social failure to adapt to the situation. We must ignore the experts because the rules say so. We must kill the chimps from stress by moving them because what the caretakers have to say has no standing in the legal world. If "the law" is on your side there is no slope too slippery that can't overcome pesky constraints of morality or reality.