The animal experiment within the human medicine

By Dr. med. Werner Hartinger

The subject of animal experiments is very complex and many-sided due to a lot of different interests: The politics legalizes the appalling exploitation of animals, the church and similar institutions deliver the moral justification, science justifies it »for the benefit of mankind", the industry threatens with a loss of employment, the economy says it is imperative, the researchers warn to move to foreign countries, the media warn of a chaos within the medical system, syndicates worry about millions of subventions and everyone justifies animal experiments with a benefit, use or advantage.

So legitimacy, necessity and usability of animal experiments are justified by statements of people who achieve personal, professional, economical and political advantages by this »exploitation" of our fellow creatures. But as well as you do not agree with the opinion of a butcher about vegetarian diet, you should build your own, impartial opinion about this field of research. Therefore three questions need to be answered:

1. Has man the right to let millions of animals live in agony, to treat and feed them in a cruel way and to kill them in a painful way, just to achieve an own benefit? And if so, what is this right based on?

2. Is the success regarding medicine really put down to animal experiments, like it is always claimed? And are animal experiments able to impart the researcher the knowledge about human illness as well as the prediction of effects and consumer safety of substances on human beings?

3. Can a scientific oriented medicine based on animal experiments lead to long-term improvement of the general health standard? And is it possible to heal illness by chemical substances when the illness was caused by an inappropriate behaviour over many years, by unsuitable nutrition and ways of living, as well as by environmental influences?

The answers to these questions can be summarized by the three »M" of the antivivisectionists.

»M« for moral

To the first questions or to the first »M«, it is to be said that every religion and moral philosophy prohibits the torture and the painful killing of animals - yes, the killing in general - and it is called immoral. But an immoral action is not turned into a moral action by justifying this with a benefit or advantages. Also it is not important if the experimentator can reconcile his actions with his conscience, but if these actions can be tolerated by the public at large, for whose welfare these actions are done allegedly. If every way of action which can be reconciled with the own conscience would be full of integrity automatically, then every infringement of the law would also have to be tolerated. In this case the person concerned also believes that he / she can reconcile his / her action with his / her conscience.

»M« for methodical

The »M« in the second question stands for the disapproval of animal experiments due to methodical reasons. There is no field of research where the animal experiment can make a usable statement, if and to what extent the human organism reacts in the same way as the animal organism. However, the same experiment with a non-calculable risk and an unforeseen result for man, has to be repeated on man. Only when the results of the human-medical experiment have come in so that they can be compared with the results of the animal experiment, then we are able to judge afterwards if man reacts and if so, to what extent, like an animal. Until this has not happened, every statement is just a speculation, at best a hypothesis with a non-judged usability for man, as the quotient of transfer is not known or not predictable. Also, you can not describe the animal as a »model«, because there is no predictable comparability whatsoever.

The legislator also thinks that simply carrying over results from the animal onto human beings is too much of a risk. Therefore he demands a proof about the effectiveness and safety on human beings for the admission of every medicine and every medical action.

Contrary to other claims it is obvious that the non-risky use of medicine, as well as the application of diagnostic and therapeutic measures are not put down to animal experiments, but only to the necessary lawful demanded clinical tests on man. Even the pre-tests of unknown substances for new drugs carried out on animals can not guarantee safety for the consumer. Even if such a substance is effective and harmless for the animal, this is no proof that it will have the same effect on man, because there it could have a similar, an opposite, a totally different or no effect at all. Therefore only the product manufacturer will achieve an 'application-safety', as he is de facto not legally responsible for possible side-effects.

Many illnesses are caused by the failure of the immune system of the organism and its abilty to regenerate. But both can not be simulated by the »animal model«, as the initially healthy animal has a totally different starting position for its healing than an ill human being. Besides, a lot of different causes for illnesses are reduced to a single one in this experiment and looking at it from this point of view, transferable conclusions on man can not be drawn.

The claim of an ethical weighing up between the suffering of the animal or its death and the alleged justifiable interest of man disguises that truly nothing can be weighted out between the agony, pain and death of the animals and the advantage and benefit of man. On the other hand the researcher imply incorrect misrepresentations to achieve human-medical knowledge by animal experiments.

»M« for medical

The third »M« stands for medical reasons against animal experiments and refers to the scientific medical idea and their possibility of statements about the process of illness and healing of a living being.

Now actually everything in our world has material structures, the living being, too, but they have hardly anything to do with the origin of illness and health of an organism. Its species-specific, often spiritual-mental controlled functions and reactions can not be comprehended or seized on a physical-chemical level. In this way only the occurred functional and structural diseased changes can be analysed, but not the occurrences which have led to these changes before the visible symptomatical illness.

Therefore this biological-medical type of research can not tell us about the real causes of illness and also the symptomatical treatment of illness can not lead to the prevention of their causes.

A lasting improvement of health can therefore hardly be expected by medicine based on animal experiments. This could only be achieved by a prevention of illness, but especially about those actions the scientific medicine can hardly acquire knowledge.

Due to this reduced contemplation by just looking at the material aspects, the living being is seen as a kind of biological machine and the treatment of illness is almost reduced to the level, to how a mechanic treats an object which is to be repaired. The social, mental and spiritual level of human beings are ignored, although they are important for the damage of the immune system, as well as for the healing process. Besides, it is very unlikely to heal symptoms of illness by a chemically effective substance when illness was caused by long-termed failure of behaviour, incorrect nutrition, inappropriate way of living and many environmental influences.

If this animal experiment ideology would have been introduced to medicine by Claude Bernrad about 150 years ago with the idea »Why think, if you can experiment?", then, for the welfare of mankind and animals, it is about time now to replace this medicine and moral opinion based on animal experiments and renunciation of thought into thinking and renunciation of animal experiments.

The author:

Dr. med. Werner Hartinger (1925-2000), Specialist for surgery and accident surgery

Dr. med. Werner Hartinger studied medicine and graduated from the University of Munich. After his exam and a thesis in 1953, his became a specialist for surgery and accident surgery in 1969 and 1970. Since his exam, Dr. Hartinger worked at different hospitals and from 1970 on he worked in his own practice for surgery and accident surgery.

Dr. Hartinger was an active member of Doctors Against Animal Experiments since 1981 and in 1988 he was elected chairman. Dr. Hartinger denounced constantly the unscientific way of the animal experiment everywhere in Germnay and in many other countries by countless scientific publications, leafelts, articles, statements and lots of TV appearances and lectures. His authority, his persuasive power and his constant commitment for the animals, made him a driving force within the antivivisection movement.