Kumara's odd defense

[Guest guest]

Regardless of any other considerations, these are seriously

self-incriminating statements:

 

 

>Dr. Wasantha Kumara, Head Surgeon of the Government Veterinary

>Hospital, Gatambe, told The Sunday Times that usual government

>hospital procedures had been followed with regard to animal research.

>

> " It's not my job to question the origin or the parentage of the

>animal brought to me for surgery in the name of surgery or

>otherwise. "

 

 

The U.S. Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 established

that biomedical researchers have an obligation to establish that they

legally possess any animal they use. Amendments in 1971, 1985, and

1990 further established and extended the professional obligation to

ensure that stolen animals are not used.

 

Sri Lanka may not have such legislation, although many other

nations do. Whether or not Sri Lanka has such a legal requirement,

however, it is now established globally by more than 40 years of

precedent that it is most definitely part of a head surgeon's job and

part of the ethos of internationally acceptable research to see that

any animals used by his facility are obtained in a proper manner.

 

Even if Kumara could defend his work on a medical and

scientific level, work involving illegal or unethical procedures is

not considered acceptable by most of the leading medical and

scientific journals.

 

Most of the precedents for rejection of articles involve

human subjects of procedures whose involvement was without their

knowledge or consent. However, the same principle would apply: if

a researcher does not obtain subjects by ethical means, he/she may

not report results in an accurate manner, either.

 

Then Kumara reportedly said this:

 

> " This looks to be more a case of professional jealousy as the

>Government Hospital gets more business than the veterinary teaching

>hospital located near the Government Hospital, " he said. Therefore,

>they are trying to put us into disrepute, he added.

 

Disrepute would normally accrue from the actions of

performing unnecessary surgeries on animals obtained under false

premises, and of denying responsibility for maintaining ethical

standards within a hospital. The actions themselves, in other

words, create the disrepute. How far the disrepute spreads is just

a matter of publicity.

 

Kumara might construct a credible defense if he could

demonstrate that he did not do what he is accused of, or did not

knowingly do it, or that some significant benefit came of it.

 

These are the three standard defense approaches that lawyers

describe as denial, mitigating circumstance, and necessity.

 

Non-recognition of a legal or ethical obligation is not

usually recognized as a defense at all, except for children,

illiterates, the mentally ill, and the mentally handicapped.

 

Alleging that an accuser has an ulterior motive usually

carries no weight at all, unless the accused can also establish that

the allegations are substantially false.

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]