On Dogs and Diabetes
To the anonymous commenter, "m," who left m@m.com, which is not a valid e-mail address, if you would like to criticize me about using Vetsulin for Violet, in a reasonable, non-offensive way, have at it. And please leave a valid e-mail address.
And Ellie, sorry I deleted you too in the mix.
I have a suggestion. Why don't you stop using "valid email address" as a crutch every time someone makes an argument you wish to censor? I have now provided a valid email address.
It doesn't change the content of what I said about vetsulin and the amount of hogs who need to die to keep your one dog alive, not to mention the very high opportunity cost of expensive insulin treatments in terms of the number of animals who could be rescued over a year for $28 per day.
Still censoring comments? You now have a valid email address. What is it in my posts that you fear others will read? Clearly we've now established that it's not about having a valid email address.
I have a suggestion. Make the comment calmly and using the very basic requirements of the site and we will all be happy to discuss it. There are a lot of people with very divergent opinions here and we normally manage to have a dialogue informative to all.
As for what you had to say about Vetsulin, perhaps yopu could repeat that for everyone's benefit? It sounds like a very interesting issue many people, including myself, will be unaware of.
Wow, did you really start a yahoo account thecommenterknownasm1999@yahoo.com just for me (I unpublished until I checked)?
Thanks.
Just to be clear: You want me to kill my dog, right? Or do you want me to stop being a vegan and trying to curb the use of animals? I don't get it. And I certainly don't spend $28/day on vetsulin. That's my cost for 2 months. The entire point of the original post is that no one is 100% vegan. But just because that's the case, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to reduce the use of animals. I could have chosen not to adopt Violet, but I specifically asked for a special needs dog–one who no one else wanted.
Anonymous "M," if you really want to ridicule me for that, go for it. And learn how insulin is made while you're at it.
And to be clear, I "censor" people who refuse to identify themselves, and 100% of the time, they are people who are being obnoxious, abusive or ridiculous.
"Make the comment calmly"
I did make it calmly. Not all your comments are calm, anyway (nor should they be, as these can be very emotional topics for you and anyone), so I trust "calmness" isn't a posting standard here.
"Just to be clear: You want me to kill my dog, right?"
Where did I say you should kill your dog? Where did I imply you should kill your dog? I'm not the one who has a steadfast belief that animals are not ours to use and that deserve human-like rights. I'm just wondering how you think it's OK to slaughter a large number of hogs to have to have their pancreases harvested so that your one dog can continue to live, especially considering that, at least by my rough estimate, it takes a little over 1 hog per month to keep her alive. Given that the average American consumes about 1/3 of a hog per year, that means that giving insulin to your one dog is equivalent to the slaughter of results from 40 average Americans' pork consumption.
I could be wrong about those exact numbers, but I did do research into the amount of insulin required by your dog, its price, and the amount of insulin that can be produced from the average slaughtered hog pancreas.
You exhort all of us to think and be critical about our choices and their impact on non-human animals, and frankly I'm having trouble understanding how you can rationalize those kinds of numbers (including the opportunity cost of the insulin expense) given your pretty hard line about animal use and abuse and your judgment of others who choose to eat meat, wear leather, eat eggs, have pets, and so forth.
"And I certainly don't spend $28/day on vetsulin. That's my cost for 2 months."
It costs $28 for a 2 month supply of Vetsulin? Most sites have 10 ml (40 IU) vials for between 26 and 33 dollars, and the dosage for a dog is 1 IU per kg of body weight plus 4 more IU if the dog exceeds 20 kg (which an average greyhound does).
"Anonymous "M," if you really want to ridicule me for that, go for it. And learn how insulin is made while you're at it."
I'm not ridiculing you about it, I'm asking how you can justify that many hogs dying for your one dog. Those dogs are beings who have a right to a life free of torture and enslavement, according to your standards, and when one of those animals is rescued it is given a name, like Maxine. So think of one hog with a name and a face which needs to be slaughtered every month to provide that insulin.
You can clarify for us how vetsulin is made, because the information I have is that it comes from the pancreas of slaughtered hogs. Do you have information that indicates otherwise? Do you have information on how much insulin comes from an average slaughtered hog pancreas? You tell us we need to be aware of what's going on with the things we consume, and tell us its wrong to remain ignorant of these things. So I'm open to correction on these assumptions if you have concrete information and data to clarify it.
"they are people who are being obnoxious, abusive or ridiculous."
"Obnoxious" is a subjective terms, as are the others. Some could certainly legitimately label many of your comments with one or more of those adjectives, as well as the comments of many who regularly post here.
I don't think any of that is really relevant to the topic, which is the amount of impact on actual hogs this decision of yours has and why, if my numbers are even roughly correct, you think you can make the impact of 40 people eating pork at an average consumption level yet chastise people for eating pork. If I eat pork I do 1/40 the damage to hogs that your pet does. I don't have a problem with that, but it just makes me wonder how you can harshly judge others with their dietary choices when they clearly have a far lower impact on the well-being of animals.
My apologies, Emily. I thought that comment about calmness was written by Mary, not yourself. Sorry if my response was confusing.
To anonymous m,
Please provide proof the pigs are killed specifically for vetsulin, and not for other reasons.
The company which makes the drug says it's highly purified insulin. So the pigs are probably not pharmed in a sterile laboratory– but even if I'm wrong about that, it wouldn't be profitable to pharm pigs for a drug used for dogs. More likely, the vetsulin is secondary profit.
I did some googling to see if I could find out how piog insulin is produced and couldn't come up with anything. I will ask around and see if I can find out.
@Ellie:
"Please provide proof the pigs are killed specifically for vetsulin, and not for other reasons."
I'm fairly certain they just buy hog pancreas from slaughtering operations, as has been the case for porcine insulin which has been in use for decades throughout the world. Like I said before, if you have specific information from the manufacturer about how they source their insulin that's different than that, I'm ready to learn.
You seem to be implying that since the hogs aren't specifically raised only for their pancreas that it's OK to use their pancreas. Is that what you're saying? If so, how would that affect any argument about using any part of a hog? Please clarify.
@Emily:
Thanks for looking into it.
Just read your comment, m, after I posted mine. Re: the "impact on hogs" for vetsulin, you have yet to prove it has any impact on hogs.
Keep in mind dogs suffer from the throw-away mentality of pet ownership. A chronic condition is expensive, and many owners are unwilling or unable to afford the cost of treating dogs with diabetes. Also, diabetes often afflicts older dogs, which is another reason owners decide against treatment. That means the market for vetsulin is limited, and it wouldn't make sense for a drug company to invest in it, unless it was peripheral to something else.
You didn't actually say Violet should be killed, but Mary explained her dog would die without the insulin. That's the reality of the choice here, and if you want to challenge that decision, you'll have to prove the pigs are being killed for vetsulin.
"Just read your comment, m, after I posted mine. Re: the "impact on hogs" for vetsulin, you have yet to prove it has any impact on hogs."
Slaughtering a hog has no impact on a hog? Like I said, could you please tell us your belief about how they make vetsulin?
"Keep in mind dogs suffer from the throw-away mentality of pet ownership. A chronic condition is expensive, and many owners are unwilling or unable to afford the cost of treating dogs with diabetes. Also, diabetes often afflicts older dogs, which is another reason owners decide against treatment. That means the market for vetsulin is limited, and it wouldn't make sense for a drug company to invest in it, unless it was peripheral to something else."
What are you trying to say with these statements? That's it's OK to use animal products as long as the specific product isn't the primary intent for slaughtering the animal?
"You didn't actually say Violet should be killed, but Mary explained her dog would die without the insulin. That's the reality of the choice here, and if you want to challenge that decision, you'll have to prove the pigs are being killed for vetsulin."
I'm not challenging her decision, as I've already stated, rather asking how she can justify, within her own belief structure, and especially considering how she uses that belief structure to judge the choices of others, the slaughter of hogs at the rate that occurs as the result of 40 average Americans for eating its flesh.
Please provide information that hogs are not killed to make porcine insulin. That would make no economically rational sense.
Hi Emily, I don't think animals should be bred to accomodate us at all, but we're obliged to care for those who need us now, and we have to work with what we've got.
For example, I feed my dogs meat because I think they have a need for it and because I don't want to use them for my interest in animal rights. A vegetarian diet might be ok for some dogs, but mine are very much like wolves, and I know they need meat. I won't impose a vegetarian diet on them because of my interest in protecting farm animals.
That said, similar issues were raised about feeding pets meat in a previous thread. One poster believed farm animals are killed for pet food, and I'm sure this is also not true.
Wow, go for a 5 mile run and look what happens?
Violet was originally on Humulin, which is synthethic insulin. That was until last year, when they stopped making it. So it's under one year we're talking about, and thanks to her fabulous diet and homeopathic (plant-based) remedies, and also acupuncture, she is down to 5 units, twice a day. Her largest dose was 10 units, twice a day, which is still far less than average (exercise helps, as does the right food). So your numbers are way off because you didn't know my particular situation.
Though pigs are used, they are not killed to make insulin, however the pancreas tissue of slaughtered pigs is certainly used at some point.
I made a choice to save Violet without knowing she would have to someday use Vetsulin, and I would do it again tomorrow.
My cat eats fish, by the way. And I've never said otherwise. She weighs 12 pounds (she has fluid in her belly from FIP, a terminal disease). She has been eating fish for 6 years. If you would like to calculate my carnage in her name, go for it.
In my perfect world, we wouldn't make "pets" of dogs or cats. But I believe we have an obligation to clean up our mess.
I shall now go on with my day and bid you all a peaceful one . . .
m, your argument is comparable to saying women make babies because researchers can study placentas and fallopian cords, which would otherwise be discarded. Instead of discarding the pancreas of pigs, a drug company found a way to use them. They may pay for the pancreas, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to buy or breed pigs for that purpose.
"she is down to 5 units, twice a day. Her largest dose was 10 units, twice a day, which is still far less than average (exercise helps, as does the right food). So your numbers are way off because you didn't know my particular situation."
Thanks for clarifying those numbers, as all I had were the manufacturer's recommended doses. That lowers the number to 3.2 slaughtered hogs per year, or the equivalent of 10 Americans eating an average amount of pork.
"Though pigs are used, they are not killed to make insulin, however the pancreas tissue of slaughtered pigs is certainly used at some point."
Hogs aren't killed to make porcine insulin, in particular Vetsulin? Do you have a link to some information to that effect?
"I made a choice to save Violet without knowing she would have to someday use Vetsulin, and I would do it again tomorrow."
I realize that, though I'm still wondering how you think it's wrong for others to use leather, eat pork and eggs, and so forth, yet justify having 3.2 hogs slaughtered per year to keep your own dog alive. Aren't each of those 3.2 hogs individuals with a right to live and be free of humans using them? How is it that your dog's life is more important than all those hogs?
As for the opportunity cost, 1/4 of a vial per day comes to $2,500 per year. A live chicken probably costs between 5 and 10 dollars, so 250 to 500 chickens could be rescued with that much money. Are you saying that your one dog's life is more important than the lives of thousands of chickens, each of whom is an individual with a right to life and be free of human use and abuse?
"In my perfect world, we wouldn't make "pets" of dogs or cats. But I believe we have an obligation to clean up our mess."
How are we "cleaning up our mess" by slaughtering animals at an even greater rate than humans consume them for meat? I'm just trying to make sense of your position of saying that your pets deserve special exemptions from your strict standards, yet people who do far less harm through their choices to use animal products (food or otherwise, for whatever reason) are deemed to be morally inferior.
You're making conscious choices about the death of many, many animals to keep alive an animal, if left to itself, free from human use and dominance, would probably die from its ailments.
My, you ARE patient, Mary. I would have ignored anonymous M after his/her/its first post. It's your blog after all. He/she/it can then stamp his/her/its feet and cry like a baby for all we care.
What's he/she/it trying to imply? That we are hypocrites? How about he/she/it tells us him/her/itself how much non-human animals get murdered for his/her/its pleasure.
I can see that now he/she/it is trolling on each blog post you make. Ignore…delete…forget.
"m, your argument is comparable to saying women make babies because researchers can study placentas and fallopian cords, which would otherwise be discarded. Instead of discarding the pancreas of pigs, a drug company found a way to use them. They may pay for the pancreas, but it wouldn't be economically feasible to buy or breed pigs for that purpose."
OK, so you are claiming it's alright to use animal products as long as the animal isn't slaughtered specifically for that primary purpose. I'm fine with that, but now you're legitimizing things like leather and gelatin.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Personal choices and trade offs are always difficult but also good to discuss, I think. After all it is an animal use, just like the use of byproducts like leather or gelatine in sweets with the crucial difference that a life is saved or at least improved and prolonged. But it cannot be certain that none are lost when byproducts add profitibility to an industry.
I have been questioned so often on my choice to take part in animal research (i.e. be what some people like to call a vivisector–my career and also my life's purpose and spiritual centre) that I can discuss it with open equinimity no matter how the topic is broached and by whom.
With time I have come to think the same should be true of every animal use made by every person. A use I make is not to be presumed more worthy than a use another person makes, it comes down to whether an animal is used (is it ever okay?), whether suffering is produced (is it ever okay?) and is there a net benefit (to me, to animals, overall). I oppose some animal uses, support or tolerate others–each choice is made careful and conmstantly subject to doubt and question.
"My, you ARE patient, Mary. I would have ignored anonymous M after his/her/its first post. It's your blog after all. He/she/it can then stamp his/her/its feet and cry like a baby for all we care. What's he/she/it trying to imply? That we are hypocrites? How about he/she/it tells us him/her/itself how much non-human animals get murdered for his/her/its pleasure. I can see that now he/she/it is trolling on each blog post you make. Ignore…delete…forget."
I don't see anyone stamping their feet or crying, nor is anyone trolling. And who is murdering animals for pleasure?
Do you have something you'd care to add about the hogs that are slaughtered to make vetsulin and the ethical questions it raises about deciding that one life is worth more than the lives of many, when one's position is that each individual sentient being has an equal right to life free from use and abuse?
m, you'll have to think critically and pay more attention if you want to make sense here. As long as you keep insisting pigs are killed for insulin, your question is invalid. And btw, saving a life is not comparable to using leather.
"m, you'll have to think critically and pay more attention if you want to make sense here. As long as you keep insisting pigs are killed for insulin, your question is invalid."
I'm not insisting anything. You keep telling me that hogs aren't killed and their pancreas isn't harvested. So pray tell, how is porcine insulin made? Please educate me, and please provide a link so I can verify the source of this information.
"And btw, saving a life is not comparable to using leather."
Of course. I'm just wondering how the life of one dog is more valuable than the lives of many, many other animals with an equal right to live. Explain that to me. Do all sentient beings have an equal right to live and be free of human use and abuse… or not? Regardless, your distinction had nothing to do with the end use but rather with the belief that if something isn't specifically raised and slaughtered for one specific use, then the use of that animal product is legitimate. That's the argument you made.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'okay', Emily. There's a difference, I think, between what's right, wrong, and what's neither right or wrong– or what I'd call okay.
In my view, animal use is not right, but it's also not wrong in some circumstances, such as abject survival. I don't think people in remote societies are wrong to hunt in order to survive. That's what I'd call okay, but when there is a choice, I think we're obliged to not use animals.
m, you made the claim pigs are killed for vetsulin, so it's your obligation to prove it. I'm quite sure you can't for all the reasons I've given, but if you can, we can talk about your questions.
"Do you have something you'd care to add about the hogs that are slaughtered to make vetsulin and the ethical questions it raises about deciding that one life is worth more than the lives of many, when one's position is that each individual sentient being has an equal right to life free from use and abuse?".
No. Do you have something to add about the non-human animals you have murdered for your food and clothing? I don't think so.
The greatest differences in opinion re: abolition vs. welfare seem to come from when there is perceived to be a choice, and perhaps secondarily what is perceived to be a use. As a lab-based researcher who beleives some scientific research is absolutely necessary, one of the first things I was taught (certainly in the first ten substantive things I was taught) was 1) replace animal use when possible and 2) reduce the numbers of animals to the smallest number possible… only then followed by 3) refine techniques to be more humane.
I think there is a perception, or even in some cases a truth, that some aboliton position simply say do not use animals, ever rather than wading in the mire of choice and perceived necessity or justification. There are certainly arguments of convenience made like that animal science never leads to saved lives–which is simply changing the facts to suit one's fancy. Of course there are also those who circle hoping to find any hint of hypocracy in an animal rights position so they can avoid giving serious thought and credence to the moral weight of the abolitionist argument.
I do have to say that I see the same being done in reverse to M. Why not engage with the question rather than discredit it?
Imo, Emily, it's wrong to use animals in research and there's an obligation to develop alternatives. At this point and in rare cases, I think there is something to be said for necessity, but that still doesn't make it right.
"m, you made the claim pigs are killed for vetsulin, so it's your obligation to prove it."
There's nothing to prove. Porcine insulin has been used for decades. It comes from a slaughtered hog's pancreas.
"Regular insulin , also known as crystalline zinc insulin or unmodified insulin, is obtained for commercial uses from the pancreases of pigs and/or cattle at slaughter."
http://www.elephantcare.org/Drugs/insulin.htm
"Vetsulin (porcine insulin zinc suspension) is an aqueous suspension containing 40 IU per mL of highly
purified porcine insulin consisting of 30 percent amorphous and 70 percent crystalline zinc insulin."
http://www.vetsulin.com/PDF/20909TechBull.pdf
"Vetsulin is pork-based" – Dr. Mary Martin (which was pointed out to you on the deleted comments)
Now you can safely answer my questions.
I think that my interest in this whole thread is sharpened because it brings out the difference between necessary/justifiable and good/right. i.e. the use of one animals to help or save another.
No, I never feel good about research. It is and should be a distressing thing to be part of. But at this point in time I do feel it is necessary not to save one pet, but to make it possible to save a great many pets. Or is it the case that using vetsulin is okay, but discovering it is not?
"No."
OK. That's what we've chosen to discuss, so please step aside and let others discuss it.
I do hope I am not being disrespectful of our host but I find this subject interesting. I asked my veterinary research colleagues and they would estimate that vetsulin production would not increase the number of pigs killed. They do note that it would add to the profitibility of Intervet which creates many products that prop up industrial agriculture (primarily vaccines and feritility regulating drugs).
Okay, so pigs aren't bred or killed specifically for vetsulin, and we agree.
What some might not know is that I have an entire category, called Gray Matters, where I discuss things that aren't black and white. It's just a part of being intellectually honest about my own process and evolution.
As I stated before, when I adopted Violet, she came with Humulin, which is synthetic. But the larger issue is that I believe that killing without necessity is morally unjustifiable, and though the pigs aren't killed for the insulin, slaughter is definitely in the equation somewhere.
This is a Gray Matter in that the by-product of animal breeding and slaughter is used to create a life-saving substance. I have chosen to use that product in order to keep my dog alive. Perhaps within my lifetime (but probably not Violet's), vetsulin will become obsolete. Perhaps not.
Another Gray Matter is cats and dogs–adopting them as well as what to feed them.
The world is an imperfect place, and I do the best I can to align my actions with my beliefs.
I must say I now wish I didn't delete the original comment by "m." It demonstrated that m's intention was clearly to antagonize, accuse and judge, and ended with: Enjoy your glass house.
You may all continue as you wish, but nothing else needs to be said by me.
It seems we easily can get caught up in semantics here, so let me add another dimension that may help to clarify:
Medical research was/is also done on humans without their consent. I think that's wrong, just as I think doing research on animals is wrong– but if a loved one (including my dogs) needed life saving treatment that was developed through research imposed on humans, I would use it.
That doesn't mean research on humans (or other animals) is right, but that I would prioritize my family even though developing the treatment was wrong. That's me, but can anyone here say for sure they would not?
It also doesn't mean I reject human rights, or that using a life saving drug researched on animals or peripheral to animal use means rejection of animal rights.
And I think it's important to consider which humans have been used without consent — orphans, institutional children, foster children (recently), African Americans and Latinos, and children in Third World countries (recently). So it seems the overiding issue here is that it's wrong to exploit the vulnerable, regardless of species. And if we're forced to gain from that somewhere down the line, it speaks for human frailty in an imperfect world.
Don't feed trolls. Usually, carefully selected pieces will end up in anti-AR websites.
And I'm sure they'll twist posts to support their anti-AR message, but anyone who's had a smallpox vaccine has benefitted from involuntary research on orphans– so when they talk about research, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Just visiting and thought I'd mention they do make Humulin N, I give my cat twice a day- used to use Humulin U, I think it was. I had to switch to that a year ago or so.
Thanks, Molly. Violet had a "reaction" to Humulin N. It technically wasn't an allergy (I have a "reaction" to garlic, and it pretty much incapacitates me, so I know that a "reaction" can be very dangerous). That was one of the many problems she had when I first adopted her. She was practically allergic to the regular insulin (N). She was fine with Ultralente, the super long-acting one. When I first heard about Vetsulin, and that there was only one type, I was so nervous because she wouldn't have survived if she had the same reaction that she had to Humulin N. Insulin, just so everyone knows, can be immediate, short, regular or long-acting (maybe there were even more options at one point). But all is well with vetsulin, and, for her, it seems like Ultralente (even though it isn't super long-acting). Go figure.