Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the need of animal rights
our responsibility towards animals essay
our ethical obligation toward animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the need of animal rights
There is mistaken belief that animals used for experimental research are protected through the presence of ethics committees, the Prevention of cruelty to animals act and the code of practice. There is also individual understanding that it is "only" rats and mice that are being used. Of course we know that neither of these is true. What the general public are completely unaware of is that all sorts of animals not limited to rats and mice are still undergoing horrendous and sickly procedures. The Humane research Australia organisation are attempting to address that by reporting on what really goes on behind the doors of the laboratory. "These scenarios are not only highly unethical: they are unscientific. We need to challenge the researchers and the funding bodies and encourage them to embrace new technologies - non-animal methodologies that are both more humane and scientifically valid as they relate specifically to human conditions". This is the critical role of HRA and it is crucial that the community, particularly HRA supporters, are aware of what is happening and what they can do in order to help stop animal cruelty.
Michael. J. Thompson states: "that the abuse and purposeful harm done to animals at the hands of human beings is morally wrong not because of any intrinsic sense of rights that an animal possesses or because even the act of causing pain or killing is somehow intrinsically ethically wrong, but because of the effects that these practices have on the nature of our ethical sensibilities, of our own status as ethical agents".
The following case study 'Beagles undergo pharmaceutical drug tests' reveals that the experiments that occur behind lab doors are not some exaggerated claims but are in fact happening right here ...
... middle of paper ...
...nimal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal test are so unreliable they make human trials all the more risky. The food and drug Association (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal testing fail in human trials because they do not work or are dangerous for the human. And of the small percentage of drugs that are approved for human use, half are relabelled due to side effects that were not identified in the animal tests.
Animal experiments want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other diseased and accident victims would drop dead in droves. It has come to our conclusion that the most significant trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body.
Animals are tested on for many cosmetic and medical products, but the treatment of the animals and the quality of the test results are often less satisfactory than the consumer realizes. Every person has most likely purchased either a pharmaceutical or cosmetic product in his or her lives, but the careless techniques for making these products may astound individuals that rely on drugs for everyday use. According to the Food and Drug Administration, “every year about fifteen -hundred” drugs are created, but “twelve-hundred” are deemed unusable for people. Regardless of such a high number or drug rejections, about “one-million Americans are hospitalized from flaws in drugs” (“Animal Experimentation,” 2009). Most of these drugs were tested on animals before being approved for human use, which proves that animal testing is not a successful method of experimentation. Some factors should be considered when deciding what testing method is most helpful to society; whether an animal has similar genetics to humans, if testing animals are treated humanely, and the costs of conducting the tests. Scientists and animal support groups have quarreled for centuries over the morals of using testing animals and human safety when using animals for toxic experimentations. Individuals for animal testing usually claim that there are no alternatives or it is the safest out of all the methods, but he or she may not be aware of modern technologies that are capable of making a new and improved data for certain pharmaceutical products.
The exponential rise in earth’s human population since the industrial revolution has put a heightened pressure on food production word wide. The global population reached approximately 7.2 billion in 2013 (United Nation News Centre, 2013) and consequentially the requirement for eggs and poultry has also substantially increased (Pluhar, 2010). As a result of this elevated demand for food, there has been a shift in the way agricultural practices operate to produce the large quantities of meat and eggs necessary to feed the population. The intensive farming method of animal husbandry has become quite a controversial issue and caused apprehension amongst many different factions of society. These concerns relate to how high density farming practices result in dangers associated with environmental impacts, human health and non-human welfare. Animal welfare/animal rights groups argue that the conditions in which the animals live are cruel and abhorrent. This notion of cruelty invites debate surrounding the complex and multi-faceted issue of the moral and ethical obligations humans have in respect to other animals. The issue of battery hen farming is further confounded by economic, social, political, and food security issues. For these reasons the issue warrants further investigation. The main focus of the essay is to explore the moral and ethical issues which humans have towards non-human animals using battery hens as a case study to highlight the topic. Ultimately concluding that public opinion seems to be growing in favour of the banning of battery hens.
The number of animals that are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused adds up to over 100 million each year (11 Facts). Those animals’ lives are just as important as a human life and the lack of respect for these intelligent creatures is astonishing. The
Hurting an animal is better than hurting a fellow human being right? Well imagine a child being ripped away from his mother in today’s society, for no reason. Would that be considered okay, or kidnapping? Imagine humans being forced to breed, just so their children can be tortured for makeup or a new facial wash. Would that be considered okay, or morally incorrect? People do not see animals as fellow living things, because they do not have the power to say no like a person can. They can’t stand up for themselves, leaving the people of the world to do it for them. Seeing that there are other ways to test out consumer products, why harm defenseless, breathing, loving, beings? With all things considered, animal testing “has no place in science today” (Goodall, 1).
... of drugs that are tested and are effective on animals, fail in human clinical trials because they are too much of a risk or do not work. However, scientists would never even have the opportunity to try to find new medicines if they could not test them on animals. Sometimes, medicines will fail, but it is better than not trying to find cures at all. Animal testing is still better than no testing at all, even if few animals are harmed.
Billions of animals are being slaughtered, abused, and harmed every year; causing enormous amounts of pain, suffering and distress upon them. It is wrong for humans to cause extended harm to animals for no compelling reason, for the fact that they have moral statuses. We have obligations to animals, and these are not simply grounded in human interests. However, the issues of moral status and equal consideration are far more fundamental and far-reaching in practical impact as DeGrazia have stated. (38) Animals have as much moral status and rights as humans do, and are most definitely worthy of our consideration in their lives.
The recent debate on whether or not animal experimentation should be allowed has sparked uproar. When scientists think they have what they claim to be a “wonder drug,” they need a way to test the safety of the drug before it is safe for human use. At this point scientists turn to animals, because of their close resemblance to humans. With drug companies reducing experimentations and using alternatives, some people may wonder why animals undergo experimentation in the first place. While there are advantages to animal experimentation, it does not ensure success in human clinical trials, there is no law protecting any animal from cruel experimentation, and some animals should not have to live in cruel facilities.
Imagine having a headache and not having aspirin to take, or being diabetic and not being able to take certain types of insulin (Williams 3). It seems impossible that these drugs could be unavailable to humans, but they would not be attainable had scientists not tested these drugs on non-animal subjects. Contrary to what many people believe, testing drugs on animals often give defective results. “More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most undergo the most archaic and unreliable testing methods still in use: animal studies” (PETA 1). Although animals may seem the like ideal specimens for testing new drugs, the experiments are untrustworthy and can cause unknown side effects.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical i...
Our advancements in science have enabled us to create other things that we can test on, instead of harming innocent animals. Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying
To begin with, Regan argues that people tend to believe that animals are 'unaware' of pain, and because humans are capable of announcing when in pain, it is thus considered morally wrong to harm a human being, than an animal. This type of thinking falls under the indirect duty views, which suggests that animals have no connected relationship, or direct link to humans, unlike humans have to their own species. Regan explains that disregarding animals as being capable of experiencing pain is morally wrong in itself, as is the indirect duty views (1989).
Over 100 million animals are used in experiments; 95% of these animals end up dying. Animals are killed and mutilated for the sake of science. Some experiments can involve “blinding, severing of limbs, damaging brain, and ingesting various drugs.” (Coster,
Animal testing is one the most beyond cruelty against animals. It is estimated about 7 million innocent animals are electrocuted, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, killed in the name of science. By private institutions, households products, cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions and scientific centers. From the products we use every day, such as soap, make-up, furniture polish, cleaning products, and perfumes. Over 1 million dogs, cats, primates, sheep, hamsters and guinea pigs are used in labs each year. Of those, over 86,000 are dogs and cat. All companies are most likely to test on animals to make patients feel safe and are more likely to trust medicines if they know they have been tested on animals first (PETA, N.D, page 1). These tests are done only to protect companies from consumer lawsuits. Although it’s not quite true, Humans and animals don’t always react in the same way to drugs. In the UK an estimated 10,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs, all these drugs have passed animal tests. Animal testing is often unpredictable in how products will work on people. Some estimates say up to 92 percent of tests passed on animals failed when tried on humans (Procon.org, 2014, page 1). Animal testing can’t show all the potential uses for a drug. The test results are...
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.
...nuing to profit from the substaining usage of animals in scientific laboratories, the tradtional method is difficult to dispose of. The method is kept for the currency but fails to produce major reliable success as those of the alternative methods. A statisict shown in Safer Medicines Trust states, "that nindy-two percent of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies." These corportaions care more about the amount of money profited than the reliablitily of the results from animal testing.