Another day at OLO, another clumsy misrepresentation:

"In 2006, for instance, a researcher was forbidden to give thirsty monkeys a drink of water because a reward mechanism to get them to carry out a task was deemed harmful to their dignity."

When you read the linked report, what you in fact find is that the ethics committee that examined the researcher's proposal was "opposed to Kiper's plan to deprive the animals of water ahead of tests. A drink was a reward when the macaques carried out a task properly."

In other words, what was forbidden, was making the monkeys thirsty in the first place, so that a drink of water could be used as a reward in the experiment.

Granted, the new Swiss Constitution adopted, according to its preamble, "in the name of God Almighty" has created some interesting and amusing problems in defining "the dignity of creation" but if we must argue about them, let's at least do so on the basis of an accurate presentation of those problems.

The author seems to believe that requiring humans to be kept alive against their wishes and perhaps in mortal agony somehow adds to their dignity. Surely it is more dignified to be able to make a decision about one's own death than to be artificially kept alive against one's will.

I'm very glad to have read the other two comments. I think that anything that can respect other living things is a good thing. Why must we pick natural flowers for no reason or test animals, or cause pain. All the Swiss are doing are stopping harm to others where it is for no reason what so ever. How does that make them befuddled or absurb? I like the idea that we live in this world and do as little harm to the world as possible. And human dignity includes dying with dignity, something that the Swiss understand.

“What is unexpected is that there seems to be no brake on the ever-expanding circle of non-human dignity. Somewhere above spiders and slugs, perhaps. But the Swiss experience suggests otherwise.”

I think that any social system which denies and disrespects the dignity of the individual voters (human of course) to exercise their personal discretion is a fraud.

Producing pointless reams of legislation to affirm particular conduct is individually intrusive and manifest of a nanny state mentality which does not believe the people who elect the parliamentary representatives have the wit or intellect to make moral and valid decisions or judgments for themselves.

I only hope this sort of piffling social interference never takes hold in Australia.

My usual riposte to mister Cook.

Mercator is a propaganda outlet for that charming organisation Opus Dei, the founder of which, along with many right wing European catholics was an admirer of Hitler and the nasties. They also provided means of escape and refuge for nazi war criminals.

1. http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Grotesquely he was even beatified by the previous pope.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if Opus Dei was actively supportive of the right wing death squads that slaughtered tens of thousands "leftists" in Central and South America during the Reagan years. As were many "right"-thinking christians.

Meanwhile Opus Dei has very close links with all the usual right-wing suspects and corporate funded think tanks that are promoting genetically engineered "foods" and the interests of the military-industrial-"entertainment" complex altogether, with its world-wide "culture" of death.

So in my opinion it is a bit rich for mister Cook to participate in an "ethics" web-site.

But then again body hating sex negative paranoid puritans are always full of such double-minded thinking and actions.

They are always at war with the body and its "animal" lusts and urges.

Hence Opus Dei also promoted that recent grotesque exercise in violent sado-masochistic pornography The Passion of Christ.

Beat the crapp out of the body in order to be "holy".

It was really a SNUFF movie.

They also used this film as an advertisement and missionary tool to promote the "truth" of catholocism.

My advice would be to run as fast as you can from a "religion" that promoted that film.

This reference sums up the political & cultural context for the appearance and message of the Passion.

1. http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_3.2/hammer_kellner.htm

For something much much lighter I really like the appreciation of the non-humans expressed on this website.

1. http://animalliberty.com

The Prophet said, "A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise."

Perhaps respect and kindness toward animals is a little more universal than Mr Cook would have us believe.

I know nothing about this writer or his affiliations. But, as well as his entire tone throughout the article, alarms bells rang when he brought up the matter of legalised euthanasia and from this extrapolated "death tourism".

I'm also confused: his para." The Swiss Constitution requires respect for "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms"." leads one to believe the quote comes from the actual constitution to which he provides a link. Did anyone find it there? I read through it, including the recent amendments, and could find no words matching the quote. Can anyone tell me where it is?

I was not much surprised that when he provided links to a "paper" that had been released: " The body in charge of interpreting this Delphic phrase, the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, has just released a discussion paper about the dignity of plants. In due course its astonishing conclusions could become law." - it turned out in fact to be a short clip out of a newspaper and the last sentence merely an hyperbolic extension of his own fancy.

Silly article.

"The Swiss need to recover the conviction that human beings deserve a special status because they are unique in the universe, the only beings with reason and free will."

It has been well proven that many animals are endowed with reason and free will. The fact is that we are no Dr Doolittles and we cannot easily communicate with other species. Where we have put in the effort and taught apes and parrots human communication they were well capable of reason and making their own choices.

Good on the Swiss for allowing humans to die a humane death and extending a right to dignity to other species.

I don't know which planet Mr Cook is from but it can't be ours.

You cannot believe how HILARIOUS I find this whole thing :)

"the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, has just released a discussion paper about the dignity of plants. In due course its astonishing conclusions could become law."

Plants? yikes.. I can see this is really a Fundy Christian plot for genocide of the Vegetarians :)

Strange as it might seem, I don't find the issue of how to keep social animals much of a problem. I rather agree that if they are social, they should have a buddy.. or not be kept at all.

SOCIAL PHARISEES... aaah yes..thats the next danger in all this.
The religious pharisees of Jesus day had sooooo many rules about what is 'work' and non work, that they made the Australian Tax LIBrary look like a cheap comic by comparison.

We will end up with laws trying to cover every aspect of human behavior...ooh..NOWWWWW I see it :) actually its a 'sneaky MUSLIM plot to prepare us all for Sharia ....yes...I'm joking.

Dignity? hmmmm I could make a lot out of that. Dignity to feel safe and free and unthreatened in your own culture? yep.. truckloads to work with there.

For some reason this article reminded me of the line in "Notting Hill" - the fruitarian around the dinner table talking about only eating fruit that has "actually fallen from the tree...that is, it is actually already dead" or words to that effect.

Hard to take this article seriously. There is nothing wrong with humans (as beings with reason and free will) ensuring that other living organisms like goldfish are not just mere decorations or amusements without thought to how goldfish might live in the 'natural state'.

I would argue this is not about 'dignity' which would simply be a human interpretation or transference of human thoughts or philosophies to a fish, but about cruelty. Human beings allocate themselves certain rights so what is inherently wrong with allocating certain rights to animals to ensure we 'higher beings' do not inflict pain on the innocent and powerless.

If we accept we are higher beings because of the ability to reason, then we also have responsibilities that come with the burden of our potential impact on the environment around us - whether it be pollution, deforestation or...treatment of a goldfish.

This responsibility is not confined to Sweden but to many other nations like Australia - there are laws governing cruelty to animals (albeit somewhat slow on the uptake for live animal exports and battery hens) for which you can be jailed in the most heinous cases or fined.

What is the author's objective or intent? Is it a warning about threats to civil liberties or dire warnings of a looming big brother? If it is, then I could think of better scenarios than the ones posed.

Despite the polemical tone of this piece, you'll probably find that the Swiss are Neutral on this issue.

Dear Ho Hum....

Please don't describe the most central event in history, from which we define time, as a:

"grotesque exercise in violent sado-masochistic pornography The Passion of Christ."

You are getting VERY close to the line if not already crossed it legally.

You are holding up the most precious saving event to public scorn and ridcule.. in fact.. yes.. absolutely ...you HAVE crossed that line.

You have not only ignored Jesus own predictions of his death, his willingness to suffer for our sakes, but you have re-construed it in a manner which can in no way be connected to the reported facts.

There was nothing in the slightest 'pornographic' about the movie, by any stretch of the imagination. So.. one can only conclude that you have indulted in 'hate speech' against Christians.

You know as well as I do, that 'pornography' is related to prurient interest and involves the gratuitous, in your face display of sexual activity.

SUCH as....this:

<<Known for sexually charged hits like "Bump N' Grind," Kelly, 41, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with a girl as young as 13>>

Now.. HO HUM... just so you appreciate the dire seriousness of what you have said. I suggest you goto the Lakemba Mosque or.. IISNA...or the Preston Mosque in Melbourne, and make the same statements about Islam and the Quran.. in a loud voice.

Then, after you get out of intensive care, and have a moment to reflect, be thankful that the worst that any serious Christian would do, is take you to the EOC for the purpose of having you place large advertisements of apology in newspapers at your own cost, for vilifiying our faith.

Perhaps the best thing of all though, would be simple repentance and ask the One you have insulted and vilified for direct forgiveness.
And if you think that's laughable.. you have then answered the question "why do we have laws".
Your apology is awaited.

Once again, congratulations to the Swiss, an enlightened nation and I trust that other countries will take heed.

Similar to the Heartland Institute, the author appears to regard other living species as brutish and unintelligent and as a result, believes its OK to use them merely as means. Sadly, this hostility has had a long and deep influence on "civilised" nations, evidenced by their continuing barbaric treatment of other species.

However, when the author declares: "For years the radical fringe of animal rights activists has attacked violence against animals by using violence against humans", I believe he's merely confused animal activists with anti-euthanasia and pro-lifer groups.

Animal activists generally direct peaceful actions against animal abusers by disabling traps, releasing dolphins, dogs, cats and monkeys from vivisection labs etc and being a general nuisance to animal haters. Nevertheless, I do recall one incident of a person foolishly hurling a Molotov cocktail.

However, on the other hand, the pro-lifers criminally plot to save fetuses and only their God would know why since there's over 6 billion humans on the planet.

Here's a list of the actions taken by pro-lifers over THEIR 30 year reign of terror:

7 murders, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and an escort
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 incidents of assault and battery
3 kidnappings
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
655 bioterror attacks (all hoaxes.)
1,630 incidents of trespassing
1,264 incidents of vandalism
100 attacks with butyric acid stink bombs

These are the people to whom Mr Cook pays homage and offers his support.

As a result, I will take Mr Cook's derisive and unevolved comments on the Swiss proposal as less than credible.

This piece started out reasonably strong, before crashing and burning spectacularly in a flaming ball of condescending tripe.

I'd agree the law in regard to plants, if it is indeed based on dignity (though judging by the first post which revealed some slanting of the macaque experiment, I'm skeptical) though if for instance, the law was based on protecting the future viability of crops, then I'd see the logic.

(I'm basing this largely on my opposition to the terminator genes in some GM crops. I don't have an issue with most GMO, but were the world to undergo catastrophe someday and the bulk of our crops were unable to reproduce naturally after a few crops, merely to protect some patent, well we could be in a lot of trouble).

The piece falls down when Mr Cook reveals his biases, in stating his outright opposition to euthanasia.

Frankly, I'd say that the ultimate expression of dignity is the will to choose, and no decision is more important than your life. I'm incredibly pissed off by people who think they have the right to tell the terminally ill, or people suffering in pain, that they must live.
It's the ultimate theft of dignity, and this piece becomes nothing but conservative polemics.

It is easy to ridicule people who are trying to put in place ideals that deal with complex and values-driven matters. However, I think that the Swiss should be congratulated for trying to look at something with a fresh look. As it happens, this time it had to do with goldfish and wilflife flowers, among other things.

Nevertheless the Swiss should be respected for having tried to come to terms with the painful matter helping people who are suffering to die with dignity. By the way, the euthanasia association that I know of is not called Dignitas, it is called Exit, and it takes extreme care to ensure that the people who have made their choice are asked time and again whether they want to maintain their decision. It is neither an easy nor a comfortable choice; a close friend of my mother opted out last year after great illness and hopeless discomfort. His 'exit' left us very sad but full of compassion for the poor soul who felt he could no longer live as he was. We felt that he had died with dignity, more than he was feeling in his painful and dependent life.

It is possible that, as humans, we may have to contemplate the issues pertaining to the dignity of other species, other life forms, before coming to terms with the hoary problem of human rights and duties. If that is so, we should thank the Swiss for opening up a new path.

As I said earlier.... 'dignity'...PLANTS?

The poor vegans :)

"HARVESTING WHEAT IS MURDER"...

"REAPING CORN IS CRUEL"

"EXTRACTING HONEY IS RUTHLESS EXPLOITATION"

"CUT FLOWERS FOR MOTHERS DAY IS GENOCIDE"

ummm :) and so it goes on.

Lets hope (and for some of us pray) that it never comes to this, but looking at the 'trajectory'..... it might. Look at Peta and their whacky ideas.

TRTL.. you mentioned something interesting 'Terminator Genes' ?

err.. is that something like preventing the seeds of GM crops from being able to be resewn and grown, so you are forced to buy seed from Monsanto for each crop?

I too support the Swiss in their attempts to raise the bar on issues of animal cruelty. Good on them.

"Look at Peta and their whacky ideas."

I'd be careful, BD, you're a very black pot here!

Yep, boaz, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's essentially it in a nutshell. Monsanto has shelled out a fortune to create these crops, so they figure they're justified in tweaking it a little, so that after a crop or two, they're infertile, and farmers have to buy a new batch of seed instead of harvesting their crop.

It's the scariest element of genetically modified foods. I don't have a problem with the pesticide or herbicide resistant crops, nor do I take issue with modification for other reasons - in fact, Australian researchers are looking at how to take the drought resistance found in Sorghum, and place it in other crops. That has enormous potential for third world food crises, if we can make arid areas more productive using GMO.

The terminator genes however, scare me a great deal. If there is a catastrophe someday, and a very large portion of our crops have the terminator gene, how are we to quickly ensure a constant food supply? Plus, as much as it sounds like something from the plot of a b-grade dystopian science fiction piece, it does seem like an awful lot of power to place in the hands of one company.

Good on the Swiss for implementing laws to respect the dignity of life. There are some immutable truths but keeping people alive just because you can irrespective of their reasonable prospects for a reasonable quality of life. Good on the Swiss and the Dutch for formulating legislation governing euthanasia. In Australia doctors who shorten terminal patients lives run the risk of prosecution from hospitals, distraught relatives, meddling relatives and friends and busybodies. These same busybodies won't actually look after or care for those terminal patients left in limbo here on earth.

A further comment on mister Cook's agenda.

This posting is part and parcel of the campaign of right wing "catholics" and their fellow "right" thinkers against, "relativism",postmodernism, feminism, and green politics altogether.

The usual suspects that are accused of questioning, challenging, and hence undermining the patriarchal power imperatives of the Western Imperial project.

The "sin" of postmodernism being that it (quite righty) questions all grand meta-narratives. Pointing out that such meta-narratives are essentially totalitarian in their impulse.

And of course in mister Cooks case, the power and "authority" of the "catholic" magisterium.

This is the theme that mister Cook's blog promotes. And of the people that approvingly log into his blog. And of the various outfits that his blog has links to, either directly or indirectly

The Da Vinci Code deconstruction of this article by the OLO 'Opinionators' was a great read, but, despite his alleged Opus Dei links and support for the "patriarchal power imperatives of the Western Imperial project" and suspect "grand meta-narrative" I think I can accept the argument that sees the contradiction of a society that is happy to despatch inconvenient human lives (pre-cradle to pre-grave) whilst worrying about the fulfilment of a gold fish or a flower, as a major concern.

The ever apparent brutality of life is devoid of meaning when suffering is not seen as having some level of value. No one likes to suffer, and most do not deliberately make others suffer, but there are times when suffering is unavoidable.

Drawing the line on when and how to 'give up life' is always going to be a vexed question, but, I don't think my goldfish is going to be around long enough to develop a solution either.

Value adding to society through one's death via a 'Soylent Green' solution is obviously the only responsible thing to do...you could even use it as fish food!

I stand by everything that I said. I have not read the DaVinci Code nor similar rubbish about "secret bloodlines". Nor have I seen the film.

My foundation source from which I made my critiques are much more profound than that, and the author knows exactly what he is communicating, and has fully described the consequences of such benighted attitudes and their power seeking meta-narratives.

Meanwhile this essay sums up the sado-masochistic "culture" of Opus Dei quite well, and its associations with right wing politics. The unspeakably dreadful politics described on my Valenzuela postings re Hilary Clinton today.

1. http://matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7

Plus I quite like the well researched assessment of the rottenness of the church described in The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby. I read the excerpts in Nexus.

Only Men and Women of pleasure KNOW the Truth.
Who is not Light Itself
performs the murder of everything
while we eat.
To now there is only the perfect refusal of love.
Therefore, true religion must return to Light!
The heart must be permitted to achieve a universal feeling-ecstasy!

Such pleasure filled men and women find de-LIGHT in everything, beginning with bodily existence, because while we alive in human form there is only bodily existence (whatever the body is altogether). And they freely and boundlessly bless ALL beings.

They are entirely moral but not at all moralistic, and are in fact broken in and at the heart by the unspeakable suffering of this world.

Suffering which is ALWAYS magnified by the grim-faced self-divided, self-flagellating, pleasureless sex-paranoid "moralists" described in the above reference.

They do not cooperate with the organised forces of death and Empire (Roman or USA) and their attempts to "conquer" the world and achieve "victory".

Victory over what?

The "sin" that they find in their underwear, which in their self-division, they then project on to the world stage.