The limits of what we can do with ART are fast. In human and veterinary medicine, this raises a fundamental question: “Just because we can, we should?” or, to paraphrase the same question, “How can we distinguish between the use and misuse of a SPECIES across species?” This article evaluates the scientific evidence base for and against the use of ART and provides a personal opinion on how we can use this evidence to make an ethical distinction between justified and unjustifiable applications of techniques. It is argued that the law provides a necessary but insufficient basis for such distinctions. Based on the results on disadvantages and benefits, ART can be divided into three groups: those that should be used rarely; Those for whom current evidence supports arguments for and against their use, and those for whom there is an ethical imperative. The category to which a particular SPECIES belongs depends on the species to which it is applied and why we use it. To ensure that our ethical oversight keeps pace with our technical capabilities, the medical and veterinary professions should discuss and discuss the moral underpinnings of ART use not only among themselves, but also with the general public. Having established that societal acceptance of ART in general is primarily based on a utilitarian ethic referred to as elements of “respect for nature”, I will now examine which factors are important in distinguishing between use and misuse between species on such a basis. I will argue that the distinction between use and misuse depends on (1) the technical nature of ART, (2) the purpose for which the ART is used, (3) the imperative to refine ART to minimize harm, and (4) species differences. When distinguishing between use and abuse against these criteria, ART can be classified as those that should be used rarely, if ever; those for which current evidence supports compelling arguments for both and against their use; and those for which there is an ethical imperative. However, if the principle that significant benefits to humans can outweigh harm to animals, animal cloning can be justified in order to promote human health. Cloning pigs in which genes have already been deactivated to reduce the possibility of organ rejection, for example to provide a source of heart valves for human transplantation, offers a sufficiently significant advantage in this type of analysis to compensate for the inevitable damage.
Therefore, the purpose for which ART is used, as well as the technical nature of ART itself, are important in distinguishing between the use and misuse of ART. Cloning, with its technical challenges and adverse effects on well-being, is an example of ART that should be used rarely, if ever, but can sometimes be ethically permissible depending on its purpose. Fortunately, the distinction between use and abuse is not always so problematic. Freezing and storing seeds is an example. In humans, there are clear benefits to being able to freeze sperm – for example, facilitating reproduction after cancer treatment or reproductive self-employment. In non-human animals, the ability to freeze and transport sperm is not only economically beneficial to humans, but also means that the animals themselves do not have to be exposed to the stress and disease risks of transport. For all species, it appears that the welfare and welfare benefits of frozen seeds outweigh the harms, and it is therefore relatively easy to define this ART as ethically permissible rather than abusive. However, these distinctions are based on an ethical imperative to refine ART to minimize harm. In the above example of seed freezing, damage is minimal when non-invasive methods of sperm collection are used. This is often the case in humans and in species such as horses, dogs, cattle and sheep.
However, there are invasive methods of sperm collection such as electroejaculation of rams and bulls by rectum. If these methods are preferred over longer methods of animal training for non-invasive semen collection from physiologically normal animals, this would constitute abuse of ART because unnecessary harm is inflicted. In veterinary medicine, although the basic ethical basis for the use of ART is also utilitarian, there is a significant difference. For nonhuman animals as well as humans, ART procedures and pregnancy are associated with harm. Unlike humans, however, subfertility does not appear to have adverse psychological or societal effects on an animal. While animals feeding their young may experience positive emotions mediated by oxytocin, the lack of this opportunity is probably not something the animal is aware of and also does not negatively impact its quality of life. Therefore, without exception, the benefit of a SPECIES is not for the “treated” animal. Rather, it is often a primarily economic (sometimes emotional) benefit to the person controlling the animal.