More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal testing ethical issue
Animal testing medical advantages
Ethical theories and delimas regarding embryonic stem cell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Animal testing ethical issue
Today, 10 million people are diagnosed with a crippling disease known as Parkinson’s. Another 5 million people are diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease, “a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions.” Treatments are currently being developed for both diseases; however, the most promising treatment has been surrounded by controversy since its discovery: embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are stem cells derived from a fertilized embryo that has yet to develop into a fetus. Many that are opposed to this treatment claim that the embryo has the same rights that humans have, even though they are not born. While this remains a debatable topic for philosophers, politicians, and scientists to discuss, many supporters of embryonic stem cell research have clung to the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that favors events that do the greatest good for the most amount of people and the least harm for the fewest amount of …show more content…
In medical research, animals are being tested with experimental therapeutics before being used on humans. The idea is that if the therapeutic is harmful, an animal trial can catch the defect or flaw before a human suffers. Opposers to this type of research claim that the suffering of animals that encounter these deadly is immoral and unethical. While the suffering of animals is morally wrong in most instances, it can be justified in scientific research because it is benefiting possible humans that need the therapeutic. Through the ethical theory of utilitarianism, the needs of the many with a deadly disease, chronic illness, or suffering loved one outweigh the needs of the few animals being subjected to scientific research. Even when faced with controversy, such as animal trials and embryonic stem cell research, scientific research is justified through
In the debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), our country is being offered a true Faustian bargain. In return for a hoped-for potential - it is no more than that - of deriving desperately desired medical breakthroughs in the treatment of such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, and diabetes, we are being asked to give the nation's imprimatur to reducing human life into a mere natural resource to be exploited and commodified.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Stem cell therapy is a controversial topic that falls on the list of things not to discuss over thanksgiving dinner, very much like religion and politics. While the potential of stem cell research and therapy stand to make leaps of progression in cures for disease like Cancer and Alzheimer’s; Pros, Cons and morality still surround the issue.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
Animal experimentation has always been a highly debated topic. Many have argued for the use of animal experimentation claiming that animal experimentation is the only possible way to find medical treatments to preserve human life. However, animal rights activists have argued that animal experimentation is futile and that it is unethical to use the life of an animal for experimentation without the animal’s consent. Although both sides of the debated issue present reasonable opinions, the use of animals for experimentation is the most effective form scientists have in order to find medical breakthroughs. In Jane Goodall’s essay “A Question of Ethics,” she argues that animals should not be experimented on because there are more advanced alternatives than using animal lives. In Goodall’s defence, we should not support activities
Stem cells have the ability to transform into any kind of cell. These cells can divide and also replenish other cells in the body, such as muscle cells, brain cells, red blood cells, or they may just simply remain as stem cells. Stem cells are able to replicate even after long periods of dormancy. They naturally repair damaged tissues and can be experimentally induced to work with particular tissues and organs (NIH, 2013).
Every year countless people are diagnosed with cell based diseases, 7.6 million a year alone receive the petrifying news that they have cancer. But what if we could eliminate the idea that a cancerous diagnosis is the equivalent of a death sentence? The use of embryonic stem cells could, for the first time, make diseases like cancer or parkinson a non-issue. This is why the use of embryonic stem cells should not be viewed as unethical but rather a huge step towards unthinkable medical breakthroughs and the eradication of life threatening diseases.
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.
Remington Diercks Ms. Heidt English 9 May 7, 2024. Add a creative title here: Some actions taken by the head of the household can affect and have a toll on the residents of the house. This can be shown by some of the actions taken in the book written by Lorraine Hansberry titled A Raisin in the Sun by the head of the Younger family, Walter. Walter has caused his wife, his mom, the rest of the Younger family, and even himself to go through lots of tough and hard times after getting the money from his fathers life insurance. Walter’s inconsistent communication skills lead to an endless cycle of dismay in the Younger family.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims of experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical improvements have helped many people be able to enjoy life, but some people still believe that animal research is mean and avoidable .... ... middle of paper ... ...
Stem cells offer exciting promise for future therapies, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research. Stem Cells have the incredible potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans. The embryonic stem cells and the non-embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the cells from which all other cells originate. In a human embryo, a large portion of the embryo’s cells are stem cells. These stem cells can be used for cell-based therapies. Cell-Based therapies are treatments in which stem cells are induced to differentiate into the specific cell type required to repair damaged or destroyed cells or tissues. Stem cells are versatile and offer the possibility to treat a number of diseases including Alzheimer’s, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. The problem is that for the process of embryonic stem cell research and embryo will be destroyed if used. This raises a moral issue and questions of whether stem cell research is unethical or not.
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....
Throughout the years animal rights groups and organizations have frowned upon animal experiments. Animal testing has been thought to be inhumane and cold-hearted to animals. Because of these accusations medical researchers have to suffer threats from individuals and the media. If animal testing weren’t allowed would that be a drawback in advancement in medical research? Animal testing is beneficial to people because these trails lead to improvements in medical research. Animal experiments have led to finding new cures and vaccines to fatal illnesses. Because animal experiments are helpful in making vaccines to prevent these sicknesses, these trails are the reason so many lives are saved. Animal testing is very necessary and useful to people, but animal rights groups believe that these trails doesn’t benefit humanity. According to Ellen Paul, “Breakthroughs in treating injuries, like practically all medical advances, depend upon experimentation on animals.” Animal experiments have given way to many new instruments to fight against diseases like cancer (Paul). For example, mice and other rodents contributed to scientists developing new tools for fighting different forms of cancers (Paul). Animal testing has helped science in many ways, but animal organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) believe that these experiments are cruel to animals. Even though most animals endure some sort of pain during these experiments, the results are very beneficial to people.