Rodger et al argue for the disenhancement of animals intended for xenotransplantation; that is, the transference of tissues or organs from one species to another. The crux of their claim is that the conditions necessary to facilitate xenotransplantation will be hostile to those subjected to them. Thus, to minimise the suffering of living under such conditions, ‘ethically defensible xenotransplantation should entail the use of genetic disenhancement if it becomes possible to do so and if that pain and suffering cannot be eliminated by other means.’1 In other words, if we can eliminate or meaningfully reduce the suffering of animals destined for xenotransplantation by obliterating their experiential capacity and lacking a less contentious method to achieve the same result, we should do so.

When isolated, this argument is compelling. Suffering is terrible and should be avoided. Additionally, when we have the option to reduce another’s suffering—be that human, animal or otherwise—there are strong prima facie arguments that we should do so. This point is reinforced when we collectively are responsible for that suffering, as would be the case with xenotransplantation, and it is true regardless of how justified we are in causing that suffering. Thus, on the restrictive terms of Rodger et al’s argument, I agree with them. We should eliminate, or if not possible, reduce, suffering wherever we can, and this applies to animals too.

Having said that, when situated in the xenotransplantation context, issues with their proposal …