3 ms·

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 veteri

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.

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.