Ritvo, "A Measure of Compassion"

RDB: Ritvo

“(…the proprietor of a turn-of-the-century home for stray cats lamented that she could not ‘rescue the cats of Slumland’ from their impoverished owners at will, because ‘there is far too much prominence given to the rights of property and far too little to the rights of animals.’”)⁷⁶.”[i]

In addition to what this quote says about the controversy surrounding animal rights in the Victorian Era, it also makes an important commentary about the importance of the rights of property and privacy to the English then as well as us today. Animal rights cases are hard to resolve for many reasons, one of them being the breach of privacy they can cause. On the channel Animal Planet, the show, Animal Precinct, follows the work of the ASPCA and the work that they do rescuing animals in New York City.

Animal Precinct Intro[ii]

Most times, a special warrant is required for these officers to rescue the animals that are hurt, even if they see them plainly without going into the house or building. Sometimes this can even keep these animals from being rescued, for if the owner knows that the officers have come, they may escape trouble (literally) by running away. People, like many animals, are territorial; desiring to be left alone, especially when they are doing wrong. This is a normal human instinct, but the desire to protect it lawfully can occasionally cause more harm than good.

Ritvo mentions that in the early years of the RSPCA, the law held that, “[e]ven if an animal did not require unlawful punishment to keep moving, its driver might be liable to prosecution if it were not fit to work.”[iii] She gives an example of this that is similar to the injuries sustained by Black Beauty after he threw Reuben Smith for not attending to his lost shoe: “one horse whose owner was prosecuted for [the above] offense had ‘both knees broken: the flesh was cut through and the bone and sinews exposed…’ “.[iv] Since Smith died, he did not receive this punishment, but this was typical of his day. This at least guaranteed some incentive to keep animals in working order, but it didn’t guarantee the happiness or contentment of the animal.

Another gray area mentioned by Ritvo is the topic of vivisection, the dissecting of live animals.

Vivisection Protest[v]

While dissecting live animals seems quite inhumane and cruel on the surface, discoveries made by scientists as a result of this practice has furthered the science of medicine and provided knowledge about the human body and biology in general. In the late 1800’s, advances began to be made as a result of vivisection, and this spurred an “outraged” response by the RSPCA, “The society …devoted more of its public relations and enforcement resources to this issue. In 1864 it offered a prize of £50 for the best essay answering the following two questions: “1. Whether vivisection were necessary or justifiable (when performed as at certain veterinary schools) for the purpose of giving dexterity to the operators? 2. Whether it is necessary or justifiable for the general purposes of science, and if so, under what limitations?” The winners answered both questions in the negative.^{127 ([vi])} This case pitted the scientists against the RSPCA and caused further confusion for the general public.

I don’t see much wrong with dissection of animals for medical purposes. Maybe this goes against our definition of sympathy from class, but I can’t see that a dead animal will care what happens to it since I don’t care what happens to me when I’m dead. On the flip side, vivisecting animals live is another thing entirely. It isn’t something we would even think of doing to humans, and even dissection of dead humans is a dicey topic, especially in the news today.

Just recently, Gunther von Hagens, the inventor of human plastination and founder of the Body Worlds traveling exhibit has been charged for obtaining the bodies of prisoners as well as unidentified and possibly unwillingly donated remains from China.

Gunther von Hagens[vii]

Many people around the world have felt uncertain as to the humaneness and decency of presenting corpses and the dead in the way that von Hagens has, and this uncertainty has fueled the flame for the accusations put against him. Accusations of vivisection have not arisen, but if they did, this man’s reputation would be entirely destroyed. Animals have also been used in his exhibits, but to my knowledge (and from what I have researched online), no complaints about this have been made by animal rights activists, showing that despite the work done by the RSPCA, ASPCA, and other groups, we are still allowing (or are even more accepting than Victorians) of the idea that animals don’t have nearly the same rights as humans.

We may not drive emaciated horses or bear bait anymore, but our views on animal rights are only changed by the means by which we abuse animal rights, not by our respecting of them.

---

[i] The Animal Estate 145-146

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wobTu3b6dyQ

[iii] The Animal Estate 140

[iv] The Animal Estate 140

[v]http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3427035.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=D278A15CF533E62C7D57D397779EFC50A55A1E4F32AD3138

[vi] The Animal Estate 159

[vii] http://www.dappercadaver.com/blog/wp-images/Body%20Worlds/body%20worlds%2014.jpg