Animal testing doesn’t just hurt animals

Animal testing for the sake of scientific advancement and human benefit is controversial to say the least. One side arguing that without an extensive history of experimentation on animals we, the human race, would not be benefiting from our current good health and long life. That being said, many more life-saving lessons and advancements in health have been learned by experimenting on humans during such dark periods of history as during Hitler’s Nazi Germany. And we’re no longer doing that, yet progress marches on. The other side is staunchly opposed, more so when these tests are being conducted in the development of a new brand of perfume or kitchen cleaner.However, whether it’s right or whether it’s wrong is a choice each person needs to make for themselves, and now there’s another voice in this sordid affair that needs to be heard. A recent article in the New Scientist shed light on the mental and emotional strain suffered by lab animal carers, people who tend to the animals as they follow a ‘research programme.’ And it is also these same carers who need to end the suffering and take the lives of these animals once, due to age or illness, they are no longer viable test subjects.

Taking away the horribly cold, bureaucratic language, designed to make us feel that animal testing is a natural part of everyday life, what we’re really dealing with are a group of people who have to kill their friends and companions once their usefulness expires. While in the captivity of the lab, animals are tended to by trained professionals who feed, clean and care for them as best they can. Providing as comfortable a life as circumstances allow. Feelings of attachment and affection are natural in these situations, much as anyone with a pet at home who they care for can attest to.

Therefore, with a routine part of the carers job being to end the life of an animal they’ve cared for there’s bound to be some unresolved internal struggle and conflict. Especially when the modes of euthanasia administered include: lethal injections, suffocation by carbon dioxide or breaking the neck of the animal.

There is an expected notion in the scientific community that discourages open discussion about the psychological effects of killing of lab animals. For if the people doing the killing suffer and the animals suffer, maybe the animal activist groups are on to something. This leaves people feeling a mix of guilt, grief and remorse but no outlet for them. Add their own feelings of shame, these same people are often cast as the embodiment of heartless murderers by the animal rights community. However, it seems the time has come to allow the carers to grieve.

As this has long been a taboo topic, with animal care technicians offered no training on how to cope with their feelings or any relevant emotional support from their employer or colleagues, the idea that these people experience any emotional side effects from their job is a rather new discovery.

To illustrate these feelings further a direct example has been borrowed from The New Scientist article previously referred to:

“LARRY will always be in my heart,” says Sally Walshaw. “I cried before and after the euthanasia session, but I didn’t want to upset Larry by crying during the session itself. I spent a lot of time with him on his last day, and gave him lots of treats. Then Larry received a sedative, and about 10 minutes later the euthanasia was administered.” Larry was a 10-year-old rabbit and one of Walshaw’s favourite charges in a lab at Michigan State University, where she cared for animals. Larry had become uncontrollably wheezy from a cancer he had developed due to old age following a research programme and it was up to Walshaw to end his suffering.

So far there have been no solutions proposed or grand gestures extended to ease the inner turmoil of these people with such an ugly side to their job. An unviable solution would be to stop animal testing altogether, thereby sparing the animals and their carers this painful process. But as this is not a realistic solution with the scientific community still championing the need for animal research, the least that can be extended is a professional shoulder to cry on for those who care for animals before they kill them.

Comment via Facebook