|
TRY THERAPY
Mark Tilson, self-proclaimed clinical psychologist, asserts in his letter that he does not resent the wealthy, and yet in the next few sentences refers to Nike's palatial headquarters, wonders why Phil Knight doesn't pay for the Portland Public School's yearly operating budget himself, and attacks whomever he thinks lives in 40,000 square foot homes with gold-plated toilet seats. When I was taking undergraduate psychology courses, my professor would have said that Mr. Tilson suffers from cognitive dissonance. Mr. Tilson, your anger is misdirected. You should be ranting and raving about the failure of the elected leaders of the State of Oregon and THEIR failure to act without "pathological greed and a pathological lack of empathy." It is THEIR decision about who pays what in taxes and what a minimum wage should be. Fight with them--it would be much more productive, and an indication you are not indeed full of resentment. Maybe you should get some therapy. R. Barry Crook, Southwest Barnes Road
GETTING HER IRISH UP
I had to laugh at Roger Porter's restaurant review of the Irish Bank ("Don't Bank On It," WW, Dec. 3, 1997). I found it to be unfair, grossly inaccurate and about as direct as the backroads of Ireland. I suggest, Roger, a little research on the Irish themselves would have helped your review greatly. For future reference keep these facts in mind--The shamrock is not the national symbol of Ireland, corn beef and cabbage is not a traditional Irish dish, and curry is well-loved and used often by the Irish. And sorry, Roger, but in all my travels in Ireland I've never had brown bread served warm. I leave the question of the Irish Bank's decor choices to its patrons. I find it very much like many of the pubs in Ireland, but with a few more visuals of Ireland, which I find a lot less damaging to my Irish eyes than this review. Cynthia McBurney
Owner, Kathleen's of Dublin
ANIMAL DEATHS AREN'T WASTED Hurrah for Elizabeth Manning's well-researched and balanced article of Dec. 3, 1997 ["Saving the World, One Cat at a Time"]! I am often frustrated when I read media coverage about the animal-rights movement. All too often the sensationalist activities of abolitionists are highlighted because being "for" the cute and defenseless animals is easier to sell than the scientific process. Ironically, it is far easier to justify eating a chicken dinner than gathering information which may turn out to benefit both animals and mankind. To use or sacrifice any animal is not a lightly made decision in research. The benefit of every study using vertebrates must be proven by a researcher before his research is funded. Further, he must justify his use of animals to an animal care and use oversight committee at his institution. Committee members genuinely care about the animals and do not want the institution's reputation to be destroyed by abuse allegations. They carefully examine each proposal, inspect laboratories and respond to complaints. While an experiment is in progress, animals are often in a room shared by other researchers and maintained by animal-care staff who report to a veterinarian. If something is amiss it is dealt with immediately. In the past I have become friends with Dr. Macpherson's cats. At the time they were a gregarious bunch living in a room filled with toys, and they adored their animal caretaker. When the time came to put one to sleep, everyone, including Dr. Macpherson, was sorry that it had to be done. We do appreciate what their lives mean. Marian Whitcomb, Southeast 33rd Avenue
MORE THAN CATS
Elizabeth Manning's article about Liberation Collective is not only insulting, it is very sloppy ["Saving the World, One Cat at a Time," WW, Dec. 3, 1997]. In her zeal to make us look like cult members, she irresponsibly misrepresented the campaign to end the feline research at Good Sam and the issue of animal research in general. Manning ignored the fact that this campaign is more than an animal-rights issue about a few cats. She failed to mention the thousands of signatures on petitions stating that this research at Good Sam should be stopped. It seems that any information she used relating to the scientific aspect of this issue came only from the people who make their living from animal research. The list of "medical breakthroughs due to animal research" goes unquestioned. Manning was provided with the names of doctors and scientists who would refute this version of medical history and specifically the validity of the research at Good Sam, but she failed to contact even one. She failed to address the fact that thousands of doctors and scientists believe that animal research is a faulty methodology and has actually hindered medical progress. Dr. Lutz Kiesow claims that Macpherson's work helps patients with balance disorders but fails to say how. If they are doing such good work, why, after 18 months, won't they respond and tell us wt the benefits of this research are? Manning describes this campaign as "absurd." I don't think it is absurd to try to stop the waste of animal lives or of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. I certainly don't think it is absurd to care about the countless people who have been injured, deformed and killed by treatments and drugs that were harmless in animal models. Elaine Close (over the age of 26 with Liberation Collective)
Northeast Couch Street
FATALLY FLAWED, PART II
From the article "Saving the Earth, One Cat at a Time" (WW, Dec. 3, 1997), one could easily get the impression that the only people speaking out against vivisection (animal testing) are a few skin-headed revolutionaries who get arrested wearing the American flag. The truth is that the anti-vivisection movement is over-represented in the media by the small "radical" cross-section due to their creative antics cunningly designed to lure reporters. Unfortunately, the real story often gets overshadowed by sensationalism. The strongest voices against animal testing have always come from physicians and other medical professionals formerly in the vivisection business. And a lucrative business it is with five billion tax dollars doled out annually from the National Institute of Health in the name of science. But is animal testing good science? From the beginning of western medicine, prominent physicians such as Lawson Tait, one of the most brilliant surgeons of the late-19th century to whom we owe many of our present-day surgical techniques, say emphatically, "NO." Tait was the first surgeon to successfully remove an appendix, historically recognized for his surgical work against chronic ovaritis, one of the first to promote today's aseptic surgery, and was also a fierce critic of vivisection. Why? He argued that the diseases of animals are so different from those of humans, and the wounds in animals act so differently from those of humanity, that the conclusions of vivisection are worthless. More and more prominent doctors, such as Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, are agreeing with this logic as the evidence from medical journals keeps piling up. Aspirin, our most common pain reliever, is a good illustration as it causes birth defects in rats and mice but not people, and a level that is therapeutic to humans poisons cats but has no effect on the treatment of fever in horses. Furthermore, animals used as drug testing models for side effects can't tell us if they're dizzy, have a headache, nausea, or are depressed, and rats, mice and rabbits, the most common drug models, are physiologically incapable of vomiting, which is the most common side effect in humans. The list of examples are endless, and often animal testing has delayed medical treatments with inaccurate results that steer science in the wrong direction. Every year millions of animals are burnt, scalded, poisoned and starved, given electrical shocks, addicted to drugs, have their brains damaged, bones broken and deliberately inflicted with disease. These tragedies are only underlined by the most fundamental argument against vivisection; its invalidity. There is no animal model that reacts to disease or drugs the same as a human and so animal testing is fatally flawed. Todd Anderson, Northeast Garfield Street |
