On Dogs Who “Donate” Blood
Last week there was a segment on my local news about a canine blood drive in Denver. Greyhounds make up the largest percentage of "donors" by breed, as most are universal blood donors (and are docile and easy to work with). Of course, there’s no "donating" going on, as the dogs have no choice.
Here’s my question: What do you think?
Know that some dogs who would otherwise be killed are kept alive to have their blood taken from them and then are adopted out, hopefully to good homes. So their lives are saved in order to use them.
Coincidentally, Bea happened upon this article, which provides details about how it all works.
The blood is used to save the lives of dogs, so it’s not like some vivisection where the ultimate goal is to help a different species (us).
When I watched all of the Greyhounds lined up to have their blood taken, I had mixed feelings. I guess my biggest objection was around the language of the story and the "heroes" and "volunteers" who "donate," when that’s not accurate at all as they have no choice.
Day-to-day veganism is something I don’t find difficult mentally. But I think there are shades of gray and nuances within the concept of animal rights, despite protestations to the contrary by some.
What do you think about using animals to help animals? In this particular case, rights are being violated from the concept of the "pet" to the taking of the blood. But is that maybe not so bad? And is it better, worse or neither to save the life of a dog to use her for her blood (and we’ll assume she gets adopted)? Would you call both scenarios abuse? And what of vivisection for veterinary purposes (that seems like the easiest one to object to, at least for me, but for all I know some of you are for it)?
What say you?
If dogs weren't domesticated in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. It's a tragic situation; it's sad to let dogs die, but it's unethical to take blood without their consent. I love dogs, and I would miss them if they were no longer domesticated, but it seems like the cessation of "pet ownership" is the only option we have.
Nick,
You are existing in the conclusion; however, you are forgetting about the premise that the conclusion is derived from. I agree with your argument about pet ownership. How can we, however, fail to recognize that consequentalist reasoning given certain realities – many dogs will be rescued from otherwise certain death on the condition that they supply blood – can be appropriate.
The dogs are harmed (their blood is taken to save other dogs) yes, however, in so doing, they are allowed to breath and continue to experience the world. This turns on whether or not these dogs are adopted, but assuming they do, as Mary does, it is only by arguing from the the abstract – theory – and thus failing to acknowledge the premise (suffering (and death) is intrinsically evil), that we would argue against this action because "it's unethical to take blood without their consent."
This can be framed within a "rights" conception of animal ethics. Our end can be succinctly stated while still acknowledging the real-world death and suffering that is occurring because of our actions. It isn't "black and white," they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
Following a surgery – and a subsequent error on the part of the surgeon resulting in a sponge being left in the chest cavity – my dog became quite ill and infected. She had three units of plasma over a period of five days. If my dog qualified for "donation," I would have lined her up. Unfortunately, a complete medical history is required thus meaning that any dog who had received blood could not subsequently put blood back into the system. Clearly, although I a vegan, I have no problem with this.
Nick's comment is ludicrous and borders on the incoherent. (If there weren't humans, there wouldn't be ethical problems at all – the worst sort of liberal nihilism.)
Animal Voices radio in Canada interviewed a veterinarian regarding vivsection in vet school back in May. I believe she is active in trying to get vet schools to offer alternatives to using live animals. Here's the link: http://www.animalvoices.ca/shows/erika_sullivan
I'm not in favor of vivisection. (period)
But, the less intrusive use of animal blood for other animal's lives is not as axiomatic for me. I have reservations, as some of the program's details began to sound like "buying" blood. With "free" health checks and "gifts"….. Most to my human benefit. But I guess that's marketing. And few "good deeds" occur without personal reward.
I'm not critical of anyone who "asks" from their dog, the limited discomfort that would save the life of another. In a Beatrix Potter sort of way, I'd like to think my dog would be generous and kind too.
For now, my "pet" is an extension of me. I have been a blood donor. I wouldn't feel like I was subjecting my companion to a procedure that I was unwilling to do myself. The program "perks" that seemed most attractive and convincing was the lifetime guarantee for future transfusions. This benefits the blood "donor" most directly. For me, the human "prizes" and monetary bonus keeps this an unreconciled grey area.
I think this subject deserves further thought and debate. Thanks Mary for opening the door.
Maybe I'm being utilitarian here, but it seems to me that the harm to the donor dog from having his or her blood donated is small compared to the harm to the dog who needs the blood if he or she can't get it.
I don't agree with vivisection in ANY scenario. Alternatives have been proven more effective anyway.
I've never heard a dog blood drive before, and I live in Colorado. But I found the whole topic interesting. But I think I am not wholly against it, especially since the donor dogs that would otherwise be put down have another chance at life. Therefore, wouldn't two lives (or more) technically be saved potentially? Since I have given blood myself, I agree with Bea when she states she wouldn't subject her dog to anything she wouldn't subject herself to. So I very much agree that dogs giving blood shouldn't be an abuse issue. Especially since I have little doubt that there would be nearly no pain involved. Also, considering how strongly we all feel for our dogs, would we ever agree that our dogs would NOT volunteer their blood if they understood the concept? Especially if for another dog they have grown up with etc? I think they would volunteer in a heart beat.
I do wonder though, can your dog "give" blood to be saved for a just-in-case situation for itself? People do that all the time, especially prior to surgeries. Is this an option for dogs as well? And if so, would that change how anyone felt?? Personally, there would be absolutely no hesitation for me in this situation.
The only problem I have with it is the fact that the dogs, as state, have no choice in the matter. I DO have a major problem with it if dogs that would otherwise be put down are simply used for their blood and THEN put down (although it was stated that this was not the case). That would be heinous and a definite case of abuse.
In the end though, I have no doubt that my dogs wouldn't fight for eachother's lives….so why wouldn't they be willing (if able to understand) to donate blood to save their friend (and others) too?
Also, would this topic be considered completely different if the animals in consideration were primates? Does it have to do with choice and/or intelligence to comprehend?
I'm torn. If another dog I was close to needed blood and my dog could donate it, I'd be very likely to force this on my dog. However, I'm not likely to bring my dog in to donate blood without extenuating circumstances.
I donate blood myself and it's not a big deal. It's not like medicating, imprisoning, or surgically altering someone. It's much less serious than that. And well, Floyd is neutered. He was surgically altered against his will. So…
The whole issue of pets/companion animals is a tricky issue. Virtually all solutions to current problems will be imperfect simply because of the history of human-dog relations.
Sorry I'm late to the party, but I really wanted to add my two cents on this topic…
I'm vegan, my canine companions are vegan, and the one who is a universal donor donates blood regularly. It's something that I've come to feel pretty strongly about. I would love to see enough volunteer blood banks operating to put the shelter/donor "blood farms" out of business. Of course, I realize that it's me that is doing the volunteering, not the dog, and I'm okay with that. If he ever needs blood himself, here's hoping that it comes from a healthy, loved donor dog just like him.
The "perks" for donors at our blood bank are: blood levels checked (which is awesome if your companion animal is vegan and invaluable in catching diseases early, especially in cats), a brief exam, ear and teeth cleaning, vaccines kept up to date, and flea treatment. I think I'd feel differently if the blood bank were paying in money or pet food as someone mentioned above.