Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement | Joseph Vining | Vining, Joseph. "'The Least of the Sentient Beings' and the Question of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement." Law Quad. Notes 46, no. 2 (2003): 82-8. | The subjects of this article are biomedical research and animals. In raw percentage terms, the animals involved in experimentation are now overwhelmingly rats and mice, and, perhaps because they are rats and mice, they are used in large numbers, numbers in thousands and tens of thousands at some institutions. Legal, ethical, and practical accommodation to this fact on the ground presents a host of questions. There are questions of the cost of care. There are questions of the training of veterinarians, principal investigators, and laboratory personnel. With mice particularly, there are questions about the creation of conditions in an animal that do not yet exist, a future animal, by knocking out a gene and, as we say, "seeing what happens": new questions, really, that move us away from the traditional focus on the details of how an investigator treats a living animal. Then there are the central questions of weighing costs and benefits, of justification and the application of the three R's of reduction, refinement, and replacement, where it is not dogs or primates or marine mammals that are concerned, but rats and mice - for many, the least on the scale of concern for animals. Rats, mice, and birds have of course been recently exempted from the Animal Welfare Act. But that may be viewed as making the questions only that much more difficult, thrown back into the laps of researchers themselves and review boards, veterinarians, laboratory assistants, and university and corporate administrators, who for the moment can expect to have that much less outside guidance or mandate in deciding what to do. The overarching problem, which is how to think about rats and mice, not a new problem at all, but newly pressing. |
| Comprised of Love: Latin American Legal Perspectives on the Multispecies Family | Catarina Viselli | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper will discuss the emergence of the concept of the “multispecies family” in Latin American courts. The paper begins first by taking a broad overview of animal law in Latin America, giving a brief understanding of the fundamental information that gave rise to the concept of the recognition of the multispecies family. It then covers the basis of a multispecies family and its ties to both national and universal human rights. This paper then discusses and analyzes a compilation of some of the most landmark cases regarding multispecies families and their importance to animal welfare, natural protection, and human rights. It then provides a brief overview of several other landmark cases for further reading. Finally, it concludes with closing remarks regarding the overall impact of multispecies families’ legal recognition and its impact on up-and-coming animal law, as well as provides several sources for further information. |
| Overview of the Multispecies Family in Latin America | Catarina Viselli | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This overview discusses the emergence of the concept of the “multispecies family” in Latin American courts. It gives a brief explanation of the fundamental information that gave rise to the concept of the recognition of the multispecies family including its ties to both national and universal human rights. This paper then discusses and analyzes a compilation of some of the most landmark cases regarding multispecies families |
| HONORABLE DISCHARGE: PAWS v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | Andrea Vitalich | 1 Animal L. 133 (1995) | This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife. |
| HONORABLE DISCHARGE : PAWS V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | Andrea Vitalich | 1 Animal L. 133 (1995) | This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife. |
| Voiceless Animal Law Toolkit | Voiceless Australia | www.voiceless.org.au |
Overview of the state of Animal Law in Australia. |
| America Gets What it Wants: Pet Trusts and a Future for its Companion Animals | Breahn Vokolek | 76 UMKC L. Rev. 1109 (Summer, 2008) |
The pet trust has earned wide acceptance despite its unique non-human and noncharitable nature and has been adopted relatively quickly compared to other novel types of trusts. This comment reviews the history and characteristics of pet trusts to determine why they have been so widely recognized and to explore how the growth in their use and acceptance may be predictive of the development of trusts in the future. |
| Non-Economic Damages: Where Does It Get Us and How Do We Get There? | Sonia S. Waisman | 1 Journal of Animal Law 7 (2005) |
A new movement in tort law seeks to provide money damages to persons losing a companion animal. These non-compensatory damages are highly controversial, and spark a debate as to whether such awards are the best thing for the animals—or for the lawyers. Would a change in the property status of companion animals better solve this important and emotional legal question? |
| Recovery of "Non-Economic Damages" for Wrongful Killing or Injury of Companion Animals: A Judicial and Legislative Trend | Sonia S. Waisman and Barbara R. Newell | 7 Animal L. 45 (2001) |
Ms. Waisman and Ms. Newell discuss the recent legislative actions regarding recovery of non-economic damages for companion animals. They explore the history of human loss of consortium and companionship damages, the role nonhuman animals play in human lives, and propose legislation that will adequately reflect nonhuman animals' place in our society. |
| Will the Heavens Fall? De-Radicalizing the Precedent-Breaking Decision | Paul Waldau | 7 Animal L. 75 (2001) |
This article offers an extended analogy for the purpose of posing basic questions about proposals for granting legal rights to some nonhuman animals. The analogy is drawn from the precedent-breaking eighteenth century English case Somerset v. Stewart, which liberated an African slave. The article highlights the complex cultural backdrop in each situation, and suggests that the comparison helps one see the nature and possibilities of precedent-breaking decisions that rely on various non-legal resources available to judges who, because of conscience, principle, or policy considerations, choose not to follow established precedent. |