Rachel Hajar Animal Testing Summary

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

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

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