It was probably classified as a "non-survival surgery" and a "painful procedure without the use of pain-relieving drugs", since they would be permitting the monkey to re-awaken and test its senses in a lucid state, after a surgery in which they were uncertain of whether the monkey would live.
An animal protocol like that usually anticipates euthanasia, after the basic science of the experiment has been satisfied. Since the surgery (and subsequent resuscitation) is the experiment, and it's not a longitudinal quality-of-life study, I doubt they planned retaining the monkey much more than a week after surgery.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/human-head-transplant-is-bad-sci...
I can't believe we have so little regard for the rights of species very nearly as intelligent and probably equally aware as us. It would be extreme torture to go through a beheading and reattachment with probably little or no anesthesia, and then be forced to live for 8 days in a fucked-up painful & dying state, and no way to escape or even move!
These experiments are necessary in order to further our understanding of biology we cannot just rule them out as cruel since if we don't do them someone else will.
In China they use political prisoners as involuntary organ donors for gods sake. Hell you can get donor organs within weeks in China while it takes months or even years in other countries just to give you an idea.
So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand or would you do the experiments yourself while attempting to treat the creatures in the most humane way possible?
In particular, it would also logically support any experimentation on live humans which could provide greater understanding than would otherwise be the case. This position was infamously held by wartime goverments in World War II and one I think most reasonable people would reject completely.
A consistent moral framework which requires minimisation of human suffering really has to expand to consider more species capable of suffering.
And no my framework doesn't give pass to any activities another person is capable of doing it give pass to any activity is necessary in order to advance our understanding and in the future save more lives.
If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think?
We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right?
Consent is only possible in high-functioning adult humans though. I would expect you would make the concession that 'valid consent' would exclude very young and old humans and the intellectually disabled. But they are no different in this respect to members of other species that can't (or wouldn't if capable) give their consent.
If you see no problem in inflicting suffering on another conscious being that is non-human then why is reducing their suffering even important to you? If it is important, then why isn't it as important as the suffering of a human of reduced intellectual function?
> If you're going to qualify all creatures on the same level then we shouldn't be experimenting on lab rats either don't you think?
Yes, a consistent moral framework would likely agree with this sentiment, assuming consciousness and the ability to suffer is the important consideration.
> We shouldn't be killing all those malaria spreading mosquitoes either since their creatures too right?
Well that is the position of adherents of Jainism [1], but it does really depend on what test of consciousness and capability of suffering you think is necessary to meet, rather than whether something is simply a 'creature'.
Worked so far as pollutants are concerned...
Just odd phrasing, maybe it's common in this sort of research
Dr. Jerry Silver, an expert in regrowing severed nerves, called White's experiments on monkeys, "fairly barbaric."
I would think that living only 8 days would be a "complication"