Is Animal Testing Right? Position: For Animal Rights What makes it morally acceptable to take another creatures’ life just so we can improve our so called ‘quality of life’, and in the process make them suffer just as we would? In my opinion animals have the right to be treated as beings of value in themselves, because they too feel pain. Even though sometimes animals are seen to be of less value and importance, it doesn’t mean it is right to use them for medical experimentation or product testing. These animals are sensitive, living beings that deserve to be free.
This paper examines both the detriments and benefits of animal experimentation in modern science specifically in the fields of medicine, health and drug research. To begin, I shall present the perspective of supporters of animal experimentation and follow with the perspective of those opposed. Next, I shall produce my own stance on this controversial issue and establish a conclusion. 2. The Advantages of Animal Experimentation It is the general consensus of the populous that it would be unethical to experiment on humans first, and that some other method of safety testing is required prior to human experimentation.
It is clearly an issue that many people are passionate about. In my opinion I believe that using animals for testing is unethical, it should be substituted by alternate methods and consumer products should be stop being tested on animals for our benefit. Animal experimentation is the use of live animals for the purposes of biological, psychological and medicine technology research (Monamy, 6). A method for research is also vivisections. They are the partial or full dissections of animals for the re... ... middle of paper ... ..., it is crucial for our race to advance from cruel animal tests to more ethical research methods.
Experimenting on humans is inhumane and completely immoral, while animals that do not function in the same way humans do should be used in medical research and to test the safety of various products. If animal testing were illegal, how would worldly corporations determine the safety of products? Surely the valuable lives of human beings are not essential to risk, hence the reason that animal experimenting is necessary. In addition, medical research would be in great jeopardy if were animals were not permitted to be experimented on. Medical industries have already come so far in treating multiple ailments due to the tests performed on animals.
The use of animal testing has been beneficial, discovering many different medications that have saved human lives. However, animal testing is an unethical practice going on in society. In my opinion, the problems of animal testing outweigh the benefits. Morally, animal testing is a cruel and inhumane practice used in countless experiments. Animals have no voice in whether they want to be used for testing or not.
First of all, animal testing is immoral because it involves harming or killing animals for the purpose of “science”. Animals that are tested on are enslaved, beaten, burned, poisoned, electr... ... middle of paper ... ...ewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.
Regardless of how people may feel about animals the fact remains that animals are being hurt and killed unnecessarily in research facilities all around the world. Although humans benefit from animal research, the suffering, the pain and the deaths of animals are not worth these human benefits. Therefore scientists have the moral obligation to pursue other options
The roots of animal experimentation began in the early 1600s when the world expressed in interests on the functions of animals and their uses in human life. However, it wasn’t until the incident regarding the drug thalidomide in 1960 did the government make it a requirement for drugs be tested on animals. During the incident, millions of women took the medication believing that it would be a source of relieve from morning sickness, not knowing however that it would cause irrevocable effects on their unborn children (Watson 4). Although the ruling seemed to provide a sigh of relief to some, the very idea of placing animals in strange uncomfortable environments and experiencing pain and euthanasia angered many. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, commonly known as AAVS, It is wrong to treat animals as objects for the purpose of scientific research, and to cause them pain and suffering (“Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary”).
Animal experimentation has been credited for the medicines made to assist diabetes, vaccines for smallpox, deep brain stimulation for parkinson’s disease, and many more along with millions of dollars spent on failed experiments, millions of animal deaths a year, misleading data and an overall bigger loss than gain. The main point of animal testing is to benefit the safety and overall health of humans, but testing on non humans to learn about humans doesn’t contribute to the cause. Humans have the voice protective of their own lives and demand rights, though every living creature deserves the right to life and to safety. The way these animals are being treated is heinous and insulting to the human race, as it subsides our morals and some laws. Animal experimentation is cruel, unfair and pointless because animals can’t defend themselves and experiments are ultimately unreliable.
A compromise of these two conflicting viewpoints could be attained in stance of animal welfare. Animal welfare can be defined as a moderate stance of animal research where the quality of life and well being of animals in testing are considered while scientific progress is attained. An important theory in practice of this is called "The Three R's": reduce, refine, and replace. The supporters of animal welfare aim to reduce the amount of animals used in experimentation, refine the practices of testing in which they are more humane, and replace- to eventually find an alternative to animals in testing (Roush). By looking at the debate of the uses of animals in scientific research, one may suggest that the application of the animal welfarist's philosophy of "The Three R's" in testing practices would serve as a compromise between the animal rights and animal research factions.