background information
On December 21st of 2009 the Dutch government began the killing of more than 40000 pregnant goats in the Netherlands. It is the latest measure taken to put a halt to the recent rise of the so-called ‘Q-fever’, a disease caused by the bacteria Coxiella burnetii. The primary carriers of the bacteria are cattle, sheep, and goats. Before 2007 about 15 humans were infected each year in the Netherlands. However, from mid-2007 onwards there was a strong increase in infections and by 2009 the yearly infections had risen to 2300, 6 of which were lethal. It was this rise of the Q-fever in the Netherlands that spurred the Dutch government to take the drastic decision of killing these goats.
In this case one can clearly recognize a moral hard case for the Dutch government. On the one hand the government needs to consider the public health: if no action is undertaken, even more people will surely get infected, and some of them will die. On the other hand, it also needs to consider both the economic (and perhaps also personal) loss of the farmers, as they will lose their primary source of income for the coming time, and the harm done to the goats. What should the Dutch government decide to do in this case?
In my opinion, the morally right thing to do is to protect the public health and kill the (potentially) infected goats. In the choice between human life and that of animals, I agree with the position of the Dutch government: we value human life above that of animals, how painful and sad that decision may be. Lastly, I do believe that the government should compensate the farmers economically in some way for their loss.
s799614
3 comments:
There are more aspects to consider in this case. Not only the animals killed or people’s health but also farmers’ livestock and farmers’ future. I guess for most of them farms were their fortune. Is it right for the government to take their wealth away? On one hand, Coxiella burnetii is indeed a dangerous bacteria and the government should take care of the citizens. On the other hand the Q-fever is totally curable and supposedly there is another way of dealing with such problem. Another question could be if all the wealthiness is anything comparing to health? Last but not least, nowadays we protect animals with different laws but we still value human’s lives more. But can we compare 40000 killed (called “destroyed” in the article!) goats to 2300 people infected and only (is it moral to use the word “only” here?) 6 deaths?
s938339
I agree that the government has to consider the economic loss of the farmer. On the other hand, the government has duties to the society in general. In my opinion, government's decision in killing more than 40000 pregnant goats is a right thing to do to save even more people from suffering considering the fact that goats are one of the primary carriers of the bacteria. In addition, the number of people infected by the bacteria increases from year to year. It must become a serious problem if it will not be took care of as soon as possible. It is better to prevent a big problem than to deal with it.
ANR 201026
U1235043
Indeed this is a morally hard case. On one hand, government has responsibility for the society (people's health). On the other hand, government needs to consider the economic loss of the farmers. We need to use weighted average method for these two moral reasons in this issue, which means we need to focus on the more important party. In my opinion, humans are above all of the animals, although humans are kind of animals. I agree that the government to kill the infected goats in order to protect the more important party-human beings. And as I know from the newspapers,the Dutch government had compensated the farmers in some ways for their loss. Therefore, the Dutch government is morally right in this issue.
S177575
Post a Comment