Rachel Hajar Animal Testing Summary

711 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Animal testing arguement essay

According to Rachel Hajar’s 2011 research on Animal Testing and Medicine, the use of animals is being critically scrutinized and viewed as inhumane. Hajar’s research was published by the Heart Views, the official general of the Gulf heart association making it a trusted source in justifying the use for animal testing for medical purposes. Animal testing is a continuous debate that neither side of the platform has completely come to an agreement on. It is usually perceived that animal testing exists solely for the benefit of a cosmetic break through and/or any other beauty aspect. However, animals can be used for testing a variety of different conditions within the many varying medical fields. Human beings share nearly 90-95% of genetic DNA …show more content…

The lines between animal rights and human well being have become misconstrued due to personal emotions and feelings about specific animals have brought about changes in research, along with laws being put in place to ensure that the testing is done effectively and as humanely as possible. Advocators fail to justify their means sufficiently due to the idea that some animal rights are more valuable to others. It is okay to test on as many mice as possible, but when the same test is further explored, on perhaps a dog, it is World War 4. These same advocators argue that it is mainly due to an animal’s viability, the ability to produce healthy offspring that can then reproduce their own. Mice reproduce at large numbers making them more easily disposable and retestable in clinical labs. However, on the other end, dogs and chimpanzees share human illness, traits, and genetic problems that would be more useful and effective in studying the illness, treating it, and developing potential medicine that could save countless human live apposed to one dog life. If certain species deserve more protection against testing, then the argument is hypocritical and useless when arguing about the value of one life opposed to …show more content…

Without fully knowing how something could affect the body and just throwing it on the market, leaves a lot of room for mistake and little explanation on how those complications could have been avoided. There have been countless drugs causing the death of many 10,000 children and adults that could have been saved if the lives of a few animals been spared in the search for the answers, as presented in Hajar’s work. Scientist do not set out to harm animals and treat them in the worse ways imaginable, but that’s what organizations like Peta, would like for people who ultimately decide on laws and procedures like to believe. It is unrealistic to think that all medical advancements can be found and done in a test tube and have the same hopeful outcome as if it was done on a live specimen. Therefore, in advocacy for animal testing in the use of medical advancements and developments. This article with be the main source of my argument due to it’s compact usefulness and other links present within the article. It clearly outlines everything presented above that allows me to understand both sides of the argument and present it in a way that supports my claim for the continued use of animal

Show More
Related

  • The Pros of Animal Testing

    1427 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The History of Animal Experimentation and Testing

    964 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal testing is a controversial topic, with two main sides of the argument. The side opposing 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 organisms 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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument For Animal Rights

    669 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal rights have always been a topic of controversy. It is unclear whether animals have the same rights as humans or if they are not entitled to the same treatment. A person’s opinion can have a lot to do with their take on speciesism. Many object to the idea because they do not believe it is possible for humans and animals to share similar rights. I will argue with Peter Singer’s argument for equal consideration and the right to no suffering among all species.

    Read More

  • Science Needs Animal Testing

    1985 Words  | 4 Pages

    Pharmaceutical and medical research benefits humans greatly. Much of these life-saving developments are being conducted via animal experimentation. It is often said that animal testing should not be implemented, for it is not morally ideal or necessary. Opponents of animal testing urgently demand for alternative methods, which aim to replace the practice of animal studies. However, first and foremost, animal research saves lives. It is undeniable that animal-based experimentation has played a vital part in finding drugs and live-saving treatments to improve health and medicine. Animal studies also contributed to numerous medical advances over the last decade; these include surgical techniques and heart transplants. Not only curing diseases related to humans, animal testing also benefits animals correspondingly. By this, animal studies should only be carried out on behalf of medical purposes. Alternative methods should be applied if available; however, at the present time, science needs animal testing.

    Read More

  • Informative Essay: The Role Of Animal Testing In Our Society

    1002 Words  | 3 Pages

    They argue that animals have led to many amazing medical discoveries, and that the differing environments in which animals are tested (leading to possible discrepancies) is constructed in an effort to study a particular procedure. A possible arguement is that investigation of many diseases has “indisputably relied heavily on animal experimentation” (Botting 1). While this may be true, it is also true that those animals were most likely treated cruelly. That statement also does not justify the continued use of animal testing in the future. Also, many advocates for animal testing argue that misleading results in studies done by testing animals were intentional. They claim that “such models provide a means to study a particular procedure” (Botting 1). This seems ludicrous, on the premise that testing a particular procedure is completely unrelated to testing a product for human consumption. The debate for animal testing is based on hypotheses and manipulation of facts to fit the pre-conceived notion that torturing animals for science is

    Read More

  • Animal Testing Controversy Analysis

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    Dr. Rachel Hajar M.D., in her article “Animal Testing and Medicine” published in Heart Views, which is a journal of the Gulf Heart Association, in 2011, discusses some of the tragedies that have occurred without animal testing. Dr. Hajar talks about events that have occurred in the U.S. that killed many people, such as when the product diethylene glycol was released into the public and it killed hundreds of people, due to the fact that the chemist did not know the product was poisonous (para 4). This shows how the animal testing could prevent tragedies that happened in the past to happen again in the

    Read More

  • Should Animal Testing Be Banned Essay

    713 Words  | 2 Pages

    Using animals as testing models for scientific research has become one of the serious issues in the world. According to Procon.org, almost 26 million animals are used for scientific testing every year in the United States, and more than 10 thousand animals died in those testing experiments. Many scientists believe that animal testing is necessary because it can help humans to develop more scientific research. However, the truth is that many animal testing experiments usually fail when they are used in humans. Therefore, animal testing should be banned because human’s DNA is not similar to animals, there have better ways, and animals have right.

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Animal Abuse

    1224 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Animal Testing

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal testing kills a total amount of 19,500,000 animals per year. In recent discussions of animal testing a controversial issue has been whether companies should stop testing products and medicine on animals. On the one hand, some argue that animal testing is useful for helping out people in need. From this perspective, animals have made it easy for scientist to find treatments for sicknesses. On the other hand, however, others argue that the results scientist get from products aren’t the same results they would get from human beings. For example, a statement that supports this would be, “dozens of treatments for strokes have been developed in primates but all of them have failed in humans and harmed people in clinical trials”. According

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Animal Testing

    585 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal testing is the method and process of utilizing animals for experimentation to curing diseases, remedies, testing of products before human use or consumption. Animal testing has been taking place for many centuries. Test subjects range from felines, canines, monkeys, birds, rats, mice, pigs and so on. Experimentation and testing has helped create many breakthroughs in medical discoveries and has helped save thousands of human lives. Although, testing on animals has also caused suffering, pain, and in many cases has killed them in the process. This topic still causes disputes today between scientists and animal rights advocates debating whether or not it’s beneficial to finding cures for disease, testing product before human use, or to not do it at all and protect the animals. While many would concur that animal cruelty must cease, there are numerous arguments how to best tackle the quandary and whether what is being done, or suggested, is of any real advantage.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing Research Paper

    219 Words  | 1 Pages

    The animal testing is not indispensable. The animal experimentation can be said that this is not useful enough to offset the pain and death of animals. The methods used for animal experimentation and dosage are quite different from the actual situation that humans are involved in, and many case results of animal testing do harm people. The most representative example happened in late 1950s in Europe. When mice injected Thalidomide, Amelia did not occurred to their young, but when pregnant women used Thalidomide to prevent morning sickness, over 10,000 of malformed babies were born. This tragedy was brought by blind faith of animal experimentation. Animal testing is an essential step in the development of new drugs, but among the 30,000 humans

    Read More

  • Should Animals be Used for Medical Research?

    1038 Words  | 3 Pages

    On the other hand, animal lovers and animal rights extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also cruel. Humankind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislation to put an end to using animals in the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand that a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the views of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....

    Read More

  • Should Animals be Used for Scientific Research?

    1711 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing Should be Banned

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Rachel Hajar Animal Testing Summary

Open Document