The topic of Animal Prostheses
has always been a very interesting topic, especially since technology has
become much more advanced. The article initially captured my attention through
the use of descriptive words. Not only did the author, Carolyn Sayre, "tug
at the heart strings" by starting with an emotional story but she also
provided the readers with facts about the advances in this field. I realize
that most other people would look at this article and be hopeful and exited
that these kinds of advances are taking place but when I read it I had quite a
few questions about the motives behind all the experiments.
Carolyn Sayre stated in
the article, "More important, what the doctors learn as they put the
critters back together could help the medical community work similar magic on
humans." It tends to make me wonder if all of these benefits are really to
benefit the animals or just to see what will work the best for humans. With
each animal that is fitted with new prostheses there is a chance to study it
and see if it passes or fails. Of course there are some times when a prostheses
is necessary like with a dolphin or probably even an elephant. However, I have
seen three legged cats and dogs that have seemed rather happy and can even play
fetch or do other things any four-legged dog can do. Even Carolyn Sayre says
the surgeons have begun experimenting with radical new approaches such as
ingrowth. To me ingrowth sounds like a very painful procedure and it was even
unsuccessfully performed on a cat. How many animals will they test this on,
unsuccessfully, until they think it is safe enough for a human? Can this to be
considered animal testing or cruelty?
The blog leader for
this week, Kayla, brought up a good question about spending thousands of
dollars on prostheses for our pets when they may only live a few more years. My
thoughts are that if a dog seems to be living a rather happy healthy life I
don't see a reason to put them through the pain of trying to learn something
completely new. Of course the author kept more of a neutral tone but in her use
of pathos it seemed rather evident that she thought the advancements in prostheses
was a good thing. She kept me interested in the article because of the mix of
pathos and logos. It is good to try to keep the attraction of an audience
through emotional stories but also to use facts to back up the relevance of the
stories. Even if there would have been more use of facts I believe I would have
still been interested in the article because it is a fascinating subject. I
can't say that I am against the advancements in animal prostheses but only if
the advances are for the right reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment