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
“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,
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
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.
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
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...
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.
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
"Animal Research Alternatives" The American Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2014.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.