Bioethics Discussion Blog: A True Bioethical Dilemma: Questionable Best Interest for Birds or Known Best Interest for Humans

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

A True Bioethical Dilemma: Questionable Best Interest for Birds or Known Best Interest for Humans




With the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the reactive response, there is a true bioethical dilemma that is arising. It has to do with the use of resources to rehabilitate and support those who are injured or will be injured as the oil spill continues or after the spill is stopped.

The issue of the cleaning of the birds contaminated with oil was brought up in a June 14 2010 presentation on National Public Radio. The debated issue is regarding the outcome of those birds rescued and cleaned and whether they are saved from death, can live and reproduce normally into the future. The research evidence seems to be equivocal. A nurse ethicist writing on a bioethics listserv today wrote the following which sets the ethical issue:


“I … heard the NPR piece about the oily gulf birds. And I was perplexed about defining our moral obligation to clean the birds. Being a nurse, I'd start by looking at the scientific research. If I remember correctly, NPR said that the research on cleaning the birds varies widely. The birds may survive being scrubbed of the oil only to die a few days or weeks later because of the oil they ingested. The studies that followed the birds for longer periods also varied widely with some birds surviving for months, but then not reproducing. So the science may not be helpful. I'd have to look into it much more deeply.... and not being a biologist, I might not be a good consumer of the research. However, birds are birds. People will be suffering from this oil spill as well. Should scarce resources be focused on the current bird problem or should we prepare for the future and help the tourist industry or the fishing industry? The financial circumstances for families could be devastating - through no fault of their own. Does our moral obligation change depending upon the funds distributed by BP to various people/industries? Just first thoughts about something that will play out for all of us, especially those near the gulf.”

So the issue is clear: Do the American people and government focus on using all the limited resources available for a known benefit to aid the rehabilitation of humans or continuing to use part of these resources for a scientifically as yet unproven benefit to rehabilitate birds? Any answers? ..Maurice.


Graphic: Widely distributed AP photo modified by me using ArtRage 3

posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 8:17:00 AM   3 comments

3 Comments:

At Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I subscribe to the position that minimisation of suffering, our own or other species, is a moral good. I also believe that we as human beings have moral capability in a way animals do not, and we also create an extra burden of responsibility to the environment with our exploitation of it.

This makes my position on this matter fairly simple: While the birds may die or not breed even with cleaning the oil off them, cleaning the oil off them reduces their suffering and therefore is a moral good. Counterbalance this against the suffering that humans may experience: I'm sure there will be plenty of economic pain to go around, but very little suffering (if any) on the part of humans will be physical. We have the responsibility to bear the economic pain due to our consistent demands for cheap oil, and (in the US in particular) refusing to make dirty companies clean up after themselves.

Harm minimisation means my belief must be that our first responsibility in a situation like this is to the environment, we can look after the pockets of human beings later.

 
At Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:29:00 AM, Anonymous jac said...

I have never known a bird to desecrate the environment or destroy the lives of others on service to abject greed.
It is our duty to protect these creatures from the evil among us.
Better a gulf of drowned politicians and oil executives than one harmed bird!

 
At Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This makes my position on this matter fairly simple: While the birds may die or not breed even with cleaning the oil off them, cleaning the oil off them reduces their suffering and therefore is a moral good"
Except that:
1. cleaning the birds may be stressful in itself, as it necessarily involves lots of restraint, handling, and probably the use of further chemicals - degreasing solutions, soaps, etc., and
2. at the end of it all they may still have a very much reduced life expectancy, or may be otherwise internally unwell because of oil ingestion.
So, cleaning the oil off them may make them *look* better, and may therefore relieve the *perceived suffering*, and hence may make the people involved feel better, but may not result in an improved quality of life for the birds.
From my perspective as a veterinarian (in suburban Australia) the end goal of all wildlife rehab should be an animal that is returned to its original habitat, able to function normally. This means fully able to find and consume food, find a mate, reproduce, bring up young, and escape from predators.
Johnvet.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home