Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

2169 Words9 Pages
vivisection Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical? “It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.” Dr. Simmonds, a veterinarian who specializes in the care of laboratory animals, is one of many who believe that animal testing is an ethical practice. He and many others see the testing as inevitable and say it must continue to help humans survive. “The elimination of horrible disease, the increase of longevity, the avoidance of great pain, the saving of lives, and the improvement of the quality of lives achieved through research using animals is so incalculably great…”(Cohen 27-28). As in any debate though there is always an opposing side, which seems to toss out their opinions and facts as frequently as the rest. So many in today’s world view animal research as morally wrong and believe animals do have rights. Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries medical research has been conducted on animals. “Animals were used in early studies to discover how blood circulates through the body, the effect of anesthesia, and the relationship between bacteria and disease” (AMA 59). Experiments such as these seem to be outdated and actually are by today’s means, scientists now study commonly for three general purposes: (1) biomedical and behavioral research, (2) education, (3) drug and product testing (AMA 60). These three types of experiments allow scientists to gain vast amounts of knowledge about human b... ... middle of paper ... ... is feasible.” USA Today. November 1999: 54-55. Gehlsen, Gale M., Ganion, Larry R. and Robert Helfst. “Fibroblast responses to variation in soft tissue mobilization pressure.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. April 1999: 531-5. Hargrove, Eugene C, ed. The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debate, The Environmental Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights and Human Ethics. Washington D.C.: Acropolis Books LTD, 1978. Call Number: HV4711O5. Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, eds. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Call Number: HV4711.A56. American Medical Association. “Animal Experimentation Benefits Human Health.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. Call Number: HV4711.A581989. Cohen, Carl. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. The Lan Shark-Index Page. Anti-Vivisection Index. March 1995. The Lan Shark. 20 Feb. 2000

More about Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

Open Document