More handpicked essays just for you.
Medical advances due to animal testing
Is animal testing essential to advance medicine
Essays on animal testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Animal Testing Ethics
Is animal testing right or wrong? No one has really answered that so
far. Everyone has their own opinion about it. I personally think that
if we are not abusing the testing it should be allowed. I don't think
it is necessary to test animals for every little thing that goes on
the market but sure why not when it relates to a life or death thing
like cancer. How else would we make sure the medications wouldn’t kill
us?
Safety tests are conducted on a wide range of chemicals and products,
including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, pesticides,
foodstuffs, and packing materials. The safety testing of chemicals and
consumer products probably accounts for only about 10% to 20% of the
use of animals in laboratories, or approximately two to four million
animals in the United States. Yet the use of animals in safety testing
figures prominently in the animal research controversy. It raises
issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning
animals, the propriety of harming animals for the sake of marketing a
new cosmetic or household product, the applicability of animal data to
humans, and the possibility of sparing millions of animals by
developing alternatives to a handful of widely used procedures.
The Animals in Research section is committed to promoting alternatives
to the use of animals in product testing as well as in biomedical
research and education. Alternatives are scientific methods that
accomplish one or more of the "Three Rs": They replace the use of
animals in a scientific procedure, they reduce the number of animals
used in a procedure, and/or they refine a procedure so...
... middle of paper ...
...rmissible to kill and
to inflict pain in order to prevent a (quantitatively or
qualitatively) greater evil, to protect life, and when no reasonable
and feasible alternative is available. The attempt to claim that moral
responsibility is reserved to the human species is self defeating. If
it is so, then we definitely have a moral obligation towards the
weaker and meeker. If it isn't, what right do we have to decide who
shall live and who shall die (in pain)?
The increasingly shaky "fact" that species do not interbreed "proves"
that species are distinct, say some. But who can deny that we share
most of our genetic material with the fly and the mouse? We are not as
dissimilar as we wish we were. And ever-escalating cruelty towards
other species will not establish our genetic supremacy - merely our
moral inferiority.
Who decides how much someone's life is worth? Is it even morally right to put a price tag on someone's life? I believe that there should never be a price tag for how much someone's life is worth. Every life is unique and cannot simply be replaced. Every life should be treated the same no matter what the circumstance.
It is the profits rather than the need of the world that drives the market, as Cahill points out. She laments that while in the 1960-1970 's theologic bioethicists influenced the field of bioethics, nowadays the ethical discourse involving Christian narrative gets" thinner and thinner," shifting away toward more secular and liberal views. As theologians are welcomed to partake in the ethical debates, their voices and opinions are rarely considered in policy making. Such situation causes the current trend amongst health care institutions,medical-surgical companies, and research labs, to focus on financial gain rather than ways to deliver health care to those who needed it the most. It is the consumers with the most "buying power" that have at their disposal the latest medical treatment, equipment, technologies, and medications while millions around the world lack the most basics of needs, such as clean water, food, shelter, education as well as the basic health care. Cahill fears that medical companies seeking profits will neglect or stop altogether to produce medications that are bringing low profits. Medications that are necessary to treat prevalent in the third- world countries or if you prefer the developing countries diseases, such as Dysentery, Cholera, Malaria, Rabies, Typhoid Fever, Yellow Fever, even warms, to name a
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
Before, there were no breakthroughs with the opportunity of saving lives. Innovations in medical technology made contributions to correct abnormal heartbeats and save lives by using a defibrillator and modern respirator. Who would know that the rapid discoveries would include successfully giving patients surgical transplants? Furthermore, President Lyndon Johnson implemented an executive policy requiring the usage of medical response trauma teams. Since 1976, this executive order has allowed the widespread use of CPR, and organizations like the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association were founded. “About 6.4 million people now survive angina chest pain each year, while an additional 700,000 people survive a heart attack each year (pg. 15 of Last Rights) Despite these remarkable breakthroughs that help those badly injured, the law becomes vague and allows more opportunities for misinterpretation on defining death. As a result, this could be advantageously used against the best interest of others and the government. “This ten-year mishmash of laws is what led the previously mentioned President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by an act of Congress in 1978 , to tackle the first task of defining death.” (pg. 81). The President’s Commission forced the U.S Supreme Court and
...cted. The choices to have an assisted death or to terminate live sustaining equipment, death should be our choice.
Have you ever seen a stray animal on the side of the road and thought nothing of it? It is actions like that and others that continue to make this planet a cruel place for domestic animals to live. Many domestic animals are not created to destroy or harm anyone or anything. They are meant to be surrounded by loving caring humans who want to have a mutually beneficial relationship better them. Sadly, these animals are taken into shelters or pounds and if not claimed or adopted they are euthanized or become test subjects. According to PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical,
3Walker, Hugh: Market Power and Price levels in the Ethical Drug Industry; Indiana University Press, 1971, P 25.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
Animal testing is an intense contentious matter that has created a division among people; there are those who support and those who are against it. Animal testing, also identified as animal experimentation is when non-human animals are used in conducting experiments, especially in medicine. There are a number of unending debates on whether animal testing should continue or not, as some groups squabble that, it is an unethical process while others argue that it is ethical since it has large benefits on the health of humans. In addition, there is another group that advocates for the use of alternatives, instead of live animals. Although animal testing is considered as an inhumane and an unethical practice, it is crucial
Animals have always held a very special place in the hearts of the human race. They are our best friends, our stress relievers, members of our families, and our test subjects for experimentation. For hundreds of years, animals have been used in laboratory settings as a replacement for humans when studying the effects of medical treatments. On average, nearly one hundred million animals are used in clinical trials every year (Ferdowsian). These animals have contributed to hundreds of breakthroughs in the medical field including countless toxicity tests to determine drug toxicity to humans, and exposure to paralyzing anesthetics to create anesthesia used in surgical procedures today. These animals have been vital
Perfume. Make-up. Baking Soda. Sunscreen. Toothpaste. Soap. People use these products everyday completely unaware of the harm caused towards animals for you to have that product in your hands. Animal Testing is unjustified, brutal. Animal Testing tortures innocent animals every single day. I believe that animals should be given the same moral consideration as humans. Animal testing can provide false results and causes suffering and pain. It is cruel for animals to be exposed to harmful experiments and live in restricting isolated conditions as it would be for humans too. Each year, over two hundred million innocent animals are injured or killed in laboratory experiments all over the world. Of those animals, between seventeen and twenty million are used in the United States. Animals are a crucial part of society, they are our pets, our companions, our best friends. If we continue treating them as we do, what will that say about us as humans. That we have no guilt killing and injuring animals
Every year approximately 100 million animals are killed as a part of scientific research in the United States alone. Animal testing is a highly controversial practice in the modern world. There are records of animals being used in biological and medicinal research as far back as 384 BCE with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Many people believe animal testing is unethical as it is bringing harm to animals in order to benefit humans. Ever since the beginning of this practice, animal testing has been used for a variety of purposes, all of which are inhumane and unethical.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
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.
Locke, Mandy. “Study: End Death Cases, Save Money.” The News and Observer (2009). ProQuest. Web. 22 February 2010.