In the controversy of animal testing, there are two different point of views regarding the issue. One-side supports the animal testing due to its beneficial outcomes, and the other side opposes animal testing due to morality and the ethics of testing on animals. The people who support the animal experimentation are hoping for many medical breakthroughs like those that the past animal experimentations have found. The people who oppose the animal experimentation are against it, because they believe that the animal experimentation are just cruel ways to harm animals and kill thousands of animals through failing experimentations. Those who support animal testing have many reasons to support their side of the controversy. “Animal Testing …show more content…
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 …show more content…
One side may believe that animals should not be inhumanely treated and tested upon. The other side believes that using animals to test out drugs or vaccines that could save millions of lives is not a huge sacrifice. John Dewey in his article “The Ethics of Animal Experimentation” published in The Atlantic on September 1926, advocates both sides of this issue (Dewey). The author discusses in the beginning that hurting animals or any creature is wrong, even if it is on accident and how there is no ethical justification for harming animals (para 1). Then the author discusses how when one may hear about the animal experimentation they may not consider what the effect of a whole society might be if one does not ever test (para 6). Although scientists might be doing testing on animals and hurting them intending to find a result the scientists are trying to promote the general welfare of the public (para 7). The author discusses how many companies go to court due the way they treat animals inhumanely, but that is not the goal of all scientists and organizations (para 16). Dewey overall states that the ethical viewpoint is dependent on the viewer, but not all things are as they seem
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
The article provides specific examples of illnesses and diseases which have been cured by animal testing that both humans and animals have benefitted. This supports my topic of animal experiments being used for medical advancements. Pointing out that law often requires that products be tested before being sold to the public, George and Wagner additionally help prove my claim that product testing is a purpose of animal experimentation.
Animal experimentation sends a different message to everyone. The two sides are made of those who think animal testing is beneficial for life and those who think it is unethical and wrong. Those who find these tests to be beneficial are consist of researchers, scientists, and other observers. People and groups who perceive these tests to be cruel and unethical, consist of animal rights activists and organizations that fight for animals rights, such as PETA and ASPCA. Though there are many differences between the two sides, there are also a few similarities. Examples of these similarities include the 3R’s concept and other laws that are fair to both sides. An example of a difference, is the fact that some people think testing leads to medical breakthroughs, while some people think otherwise.
Animal testing has been used for developing and researching cures for medical conditions. For example, the polio vaccine, chemotherapy for cancer, insulin treatment for diabetes, organ transplants and blood transfusions are just some of the important advances that have come from research on animals (“Animal Testing”). Consuming animals for research benefits in developing various treatments and also benefits in discovery better methods for cures. According to the article “Animal Testing”, it says that the underlying rationale for the use of animal testing is that living organisms provide interactive, dynamic systems that scientists can observe and manipulate in order to understand normal and pathological functioning as well as the effectiveness of medical interventions. It relies on the physiological and anatomical similarities between humans and other animals (MacClellan, Joel). Meaning that animals have the same body components and features as humans and is the best thing to research on to better understand the human development. Even though several argue that animal testing is harming the animals, one has to think back to all the benefits that has come from it. There may be a little remorse for endangering animal lives, but realizing how far medicine has come makes it worth the while.
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
Current animal testing has been a contentious subject ever since it started off 150 years back. Although a lot of people discover animal testing inhumane and egoistic, it is an important factor to boost our understanding of medication and to improve our understanding of science. Animal testing, to some, is the way to ameliorate our level of living and preserve many lives, and therefore has many benefits. On the other hand, the negatives may not be passed, and scientists are constantly trying to decrease the damage with some methods they create in the process. Even so, to the dismay of numerous animal lovers in addition to those who are endeavoring for animal rights, animal testing will not be stopped every time soon because, for now, it is the most trustworthy form of testing that includes the safety of daily products we use more carefully than any other procedure.
Animal testing has been in practice since the early 300’s BCE, often used by ancient philosophers to advance the very little knowledge at the time in the field of biomedicine. Some of these philosophers who began animal testing are well known, such as Aristotle and Erasistratus. Another scientist named Ibn Zuhr came up with the idea of using animals to test surgical procedures on animals before beginning them on human patients (Hajar). Rachel Hajar, M.D., states that animal testing began to undergo criticism from animal welfare and protection groups because of the inhumane procedures inflicted on the animals. These groups had laws passed in many countries that gave the animals more protection when being researched upon. Scientists who support animal testing insist that it is necessary to expand our knowledge in the science and medicine world. Claude Bernard, a physiologist, says “Experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree” (“Animal Testing and Medicine”). Because of the large amount of debate ...
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.
Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health” (“Alternatives to Animals”). Companies claim that this sort of cruelty will benefit the human population by testing the “safety” of the products, as they have been for hundreds of years, and although this may have been helpful in the past, scientists have discovered otherwise. “While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals tested on continues to increase, the United States still ranks 49th in the world in life expectancy and second worst in infant mortality in the developed world” (“Animal Testing Is”). This evidence shows that while we still continue to support and spend money on animal testing, it is not working as well as we thought.
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 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...
Hundreds of millions of animals die every year from animal testing in the United States. Innocent animals are used everyday in laboratories for biology advancements, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetic testing. They are used to provide information to make better products that are safe for human use. Although animal experimentation has some benefits, the negatives outweigh the positives. Animal testing is killing off innocent beings for the possible human benefit, and with modern technology, there are alternative ways to test products that leave animals unharmed.
Have you ever known of someone, or had a loved one with a life threatening disease? Have you ever known anyone still surviving with it, or even beating their disease? If you can't think of anyone, just imagine it. Where do you think a lot of the information and resources came from to help gain more knowledge of that disease? How do you think scientists and doctors figured out how to help it?...Or maybe even cure it? Thats right, animals. How would you feel if we didn't have that knowledge, and hadn't started animal testing? In some cases, that loved would no longer have been here anymore. Animal testing has affected research in a positive way, even more than you may know. Although some companies and organizations may not follow the set laws
Our case is that if we don’t test on animals then progress in scientific fields would be halted. As first speaker for the negative I will speak about the benefits of animal testing in general and then I’ll talk in detail about animal testing in medicine. My second speaker will talk about the opinions on testing and the food chain and my third speaker will summarise our points and rebut.
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.