Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals …show more content…
This essay argues against Hanlon’s stance on that scientific animal testing and poultry farming violates animal rights, and vivisection is a not moral necessary to allow humans to discover cures for disease and to make drugs. Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is right by formulating his argument about animal in the laboratory live better lives and better deaths than animals in poultry farming and cosmetic testing. Poultry farming is the practice of raising chickens, pigs, and lambs exclusively in a cage that animals live until ready for consumption. Hanlon attempts to justify vivisection with the use of pathos by painting a vivid picture about animals in laboratories lead better lives and better deaths than poultry farming animals (2). However, all animals tested in experiments or raised for food are …show more content…
Hanlon use of appeal to ethos by claiming that, “I have always believed animal experimentation is not only right but a moral necessity. Put simply, without the use of animals in the lab we would not have modern medicine.” (1). Animals exhibit a different genetic and physiology than human beings and when drugs, like HIV vaccines, are tested on animals the effect of the medication may translate differently in the human body. In fact, the genetic composition of animals is completely different from human, and there might be catastrophic results if a medication is given to a human being, even if the medication is tested safe in animals. Hanlon argues that “we would have no cancer drugs, no effective antibiotics, no proper analgesic” (2) without animal testing. However, antibiotics and analgesics have undesired side effects in human such as vomiting, diarrhea, and nausea. Furthermore, Hanlon gives an example of an animal experimentation in which the Cardiff University has done by sewing thirty-one kittens’ eyelids shut to study the effects of lazy-eye in children (1). However, the British Union of the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) argues against Hanlon’s claim that “cat brains and cat vision are fundamentally different to human and it is hard to see how anything useful can be gained by the research” (Hanlon 1), and experiments
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer,” the author, Stephen Latham, begins his writing with expressing his views and thoughts on the reform needed to benefit animals while being experimented on. Latham describes the current system as being majorly flawed and having many gaps that could be completely modified to improve the current system in reference to the United States animal testing laws, standards, and regulations. Latham argues that “Even proponents of medical research on animals can see obvious ways in which the regulatory structure could be changed to benefit animals” (S35). Furthermore, the author achieves the purpose of stating his views while justifying himself in the attempt of achieving rational reform extremely well. Latham accomplished his purpose thoroughly because he provides detailed evidence and description of that evidence while explaining and supporting his thoughts of reform relating to the subject of animal
“How can otherwise decent citizens do these things? How can they become so insensitive to what they are doing? Don Barnes, who spent sixteen years as a biomedical scientist experimenting on animals, and now heads the Washington, DC office of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, calls the state in which he used to do his work 'conditioned ethical blindness'” (Singer and Gruen 78-80). As a former vivisector, Barnes worked with monkeys and would cut them open while they were still alive. With a primary interest of biological science, vivisectors performed experiments on living animals to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. These studies are the few of many branches of biomedical science, the combination biology and medicine which mainly focuses on the health of both animals and humans. Animals are used as “models” for studying human biology and disease to understand basic biology, and as test subjects for the development of drugs, vaccines, antibodies and other medical treatments to improve and advance human health. As models, scientists aim to artificially produce a condition in a laboratory animal that may resemble the human equivalent of a medical disease or injury. Scientists may have good intentions but many do not realize that they are committing a great inhumanity as they continue to exploit animals for the “greater good”. Tom Regan came up with a similar conclusion:
Philips, Trevor. "Human Self-Interest Will Ensure That Animal Experimentation Continues." The Independent (25 Apr. 1998). Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.
For thousands of years scientist have been performing vivisections on animals to find information on new chemicals, drugs, and vaccines. Vivisection is when scientist perform dissections among living animals mostly for the purpose of educating and retrieving information. Experimenting on animals has become the tool that has helped us comprehend the body functions of an animal and how a disease transforms the bodily functions, but over the years it’s caused animal rights activists to question the usefulness and the sincerity of using animals for this purpose. Although animal research has been helpful in the past, it is morally wrong in the sense that experimenting on animals is not the only way to collect information. There are other alternatives
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcast their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of products, and the advancement of medicine.
Wolff, Jonathan. "Pro and Con Positions Oversimplify Animal Experimentation Issues."Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Killing Softly." Guardian. 28 Mar. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
Using animals for medical experimentation, product testing, and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a large argument. While the problems can go into detail, the suffering involved in animal experimentation is painfully clear. Every year there are tens of millions of animals that die in federally and privately funded experiments. A projected 90 percent of all animals used in research are rats and mice, and many other species including guinea pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and farm animals are killed every year to animal testing. (UGA) The experimentation of animals and testing has not stopped because it is not the most accurate or reliable means of research, but because of the tradition, peer pressure, and large amounts of funding from those with strong invested interests into the business. (UGA)
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
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.
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
Animals are used in research to develop new medicines and for scientists to test the safety of the medicines. This animal testing is called vivisection. Research is being carried out at universities, medical schools and even in primary and elementary schools as well as in commercial facilities which provide animal experiments to industry. (UK Parliament) In addition, animals are also used in cosmetic testing, toxicology tests, “defense research” and “xenotransplantation”. All around the world, a huge amount of animals are sentenced to life in a laboratory cage and they are obliged to feel loneliness and pain. In addition scientists causing pain, most drugs that pas successfully in animals fail in humans. It is qualified as a bad science. Above all, animals have rights not to be harmed even though the Animal Welfare Act does not provide them even with minimal protection. The law does not find it necessary to use current alternatives to animals, even if they are obtainable. Animal testing should be banned due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and the unreliability of test results in humans.