4/29/2024 0 Comments Animal law in a nutshell![]() ![]() EU Regulation 1009/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing allows, in turn, for animals to be induced to experience ‘pain, distress, fear or other forms of suffering’ (OJ L 303). The European Union (EU) Directive 63/2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific or educational purposes declares that it has laid down rules for the protection of animals due to their ‘capacity to sense and express pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm’ (OJ L 276). As a rule, the relatively new Swedish law (2018) uses only the concept of suffering, which in some cases is supplemented with ‘diseases’, as an alternative to ‘hurt’ or ‘discomfort’. In the Netherlands, pain, injury, physical and physiological discomfort, fear and chronic stress are mentioned separately. Similar terms are proposed in Swiss law, which, however, replaces the word ‘harm’ with the word ‘fear’ in many cases ( Schmerzen, Leiden oder Ängsten). In comparison, the German Animal Protection Act (2004) quite consistently uses the term ‘pain, suffering or harm’ ( Schmerzen, Leiden, Schäden). In contrast, the US Animal Welfare Act does not contain any definition, and instead uses the concept of suffering as an alternative to distress (e.g., referring to ‘alleviating pain or distress’) or hurting (‘suffering or hurting’). 18), defining it as ‘physical or mental suffering’. The UK Animal Welfare Act uses the concept of suffering and seemingly equates it with distress (Art. Several examples may serve to illustrate the inconsistency in legal acts. Its letter is always the point of departure and reference for interpretation and is often used as a criterium of the interpretive correctness. Even if the interpretation of law is often able to overcome the inconsistencies of the language used by the legislator and improve the coherence and clarity of the conceptual apparatus of the law, the manner in which the terms are used in the legal texts is by no means immaterial. Inconsistency in their use and the lack of clarity regarding the relations among respective terms may hinder the development of coherent foundations for the legal protection of animals. Terms such as ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘distress’, ‘anxiety’, ‘fear’ and ‘harm’ are the most commonly used within the different European and American welfare laws. But what we thought was particularly interesting is PETA’s use of the rhetoric “mass killing spree” in light of what goes on in its own facility in Norfolk, Virginia.A review of the terminology appearing in animal welfare legislation across many countries indicates that there is no well-established, uniform or commonly accepted conceptual apparatus of the legal language relating to animal sensations, nor are there agreed-upon definitions of key terms. ![]() It was not humane to allow the animals to go without food, water and other husbandry. Social distancing requirements that forced animal care personnel to stay out of the labs, precluded the delivery of proper animal care. ![]() ![]() In its zeal to attack the use of animals in medical research, PETA described this as a “mass killing spree.” What this ignores, however, as reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2020 when all this happened, is that universities made these difficult decisions because they had no choice. Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) recently posted the “news” that it had “newly obtained public records” showing that certain research universities had euthanized laboratory animals during the COVID-19 pandemic and that PETA had complained about this to the National Institutes of Health. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |