Recently, I saw the Rise of the Planet of the Apes for a second time, on my iPad 2, if there was cialis 5mg a difference from my first one to mention, the movie which drew a lot of criticisms.
Apart from the fact that the transferred movie from DVD to my iPad 2 is far more than great, which is usually what my DVDFab DVD Ripper does for me, I do think a lot after seeing the movie twice, the first time was in the theatre shortly after its premiere.
“There should be a bottom-line, and don’t make it a base-line” is the first hint hit my mind. Humankind need advanced medical care and that’s for sure, but, I don’t think it serves as a good way to use live animals, especially the Primates, Apes, Gorillas, Monkeys, as vaccine testees, just because they have the most DNA similarities with human beings? There lies an absolute truth in it, but sadly, they must feel unfortunately bad to have so much kinship connected to human.
Is it moral to put this into operation, although the unspoken practice has been going on for decades? Is there any feeling of criminal, or guilty? Is there any hope to work out a better way that does good to medical development and at the same time at no cost of animal torturing? Well, I think animal protection advocates and ALF may be very much fond of this topic. Others? Hard to say.
“No…”, the first word blurted out by Ceasar in desperate, shocked Dodge, the Primate Sanctuary runner John Ladon’s son who always treats the apes there cruelly, and other chimps in extreme horror.
As Dr. Will himself confessed, at the end of the movie, it was all his fault. Yeah, partially, I agree that Will paid main tributes to the consequences, because it was he that led the team to trial ALZ-113 on chimpanzees. On the other hand, to a large extent, Will stands for all the human beings as a whole who advocate the animal tests on drugs before used on patients.
A coin has its two sides. Some people are of the opinion that human beings should not take animals as the testees of newly developed drugs. Among those, Peter Singer, an Australian-Jewish philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, in 1975 in his controversial Animal Liberation argued that the cornerstone of moral principle is fairness, which means all the creatures that capable of feeling suffering, including animals, should be considered equally and therefore be treated in fair. All the actions against this principle are considered as speciesism, which is intolerable, in line with racialism and sexism. Another figure, American Philosopher Tom Regan, who, in his work The Case for Animal Rights released in 1983, pointed out that animals are, as all human beings, the subjects of life, so they should have the God’s given rights to live and not being ill treated.
While, in contrast, a large majority of people stands with the theory that animals’ lives are not comparable to their human counterparts. Thus, it is reasonable to not risk people’s lives to test the new medicine. As a matter of fact, taking experiments on animals is being considered as the only way out has long been the unveiled practice in the field of pharmaceutical industry.
Who are right, who are wrong? This makes me thinks of the “chicken or egg” cycle. There seems no absolute answer available. But, Dr. Will would agree that the final output of his scientific research is negative, which is more than obvious in his confession to Ceasar and his lost of his father Charles, who is the victim of his own son.
By indicating at the end of the movie that a pandemic is spreading rampantly from one continent to another and then worldwide, the director seems to warn that the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled trials of dangerous drugs greatly outweigh their medical values. At least to Doctor Will, mortality wins morality, cause his farther is gone, and Ceasar leaves him, too.
Justice is served.
