From Mary Midgley
Researchers surely do not need to go on feeling embarrassed about reporting the obvious fact that many non-human animals are to some degree conscious. (14 February, p 32).
The refusal to admit this has never been scientifically based. It arose from the metaphysical belief that human consciousness was due to something supernatural – a soul sent from outside the body. This was why it was supposed not to be found in animals, which were literally just machines.
Now that we know how closely the neural basis of human consciousness resembles that of other species, it seems perverse still to make this blank distinction. The word “consciousness” can certainly be confined to human thought if that seems convenient. But this is surely contrary to its most ordinary usage, which centres on pain. When we want to know whether the anaesthetist has done his or her work properly, the natural question for us to ask is: “Is the patient conscious?” And this usage is every bit as appropriate for vets as it is for surgeons of other kinds.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
