Vivisection is a controversial subject that has been debated for numerous years. The term has recently come to be used for any type of animal experimentation, but the true definition, according to The Colombia Encyclopedia, is the dissection of living animals for experimental purposes. Vivisection began in the seventeenth century in Europe, but did not become widely known there until the nineteenth century. In the United States, the National Institute of Health in 1896 was the first to encourage proper treatment of the animals used in labs and over the years many more organizations have cropped up. Internationally, vivisection has been used in places such as Japan, India, and Germany, to name a few. Vivisection is still used in various ways today in the areas of research, product testing, and education. When viewed from a scientific standpoint, vivisection reaps several benefits. Throughout the years, contributions such as, lifesaving cures and treatments have been proclaimed to be discovered through the practice of vivisection. Medicines like the polio vaccine and the vaccine for …show more content…
In the late 1800’s, British Quakers stated that the practice of vivisection was immoral and opposed what Christ intended for the relationship between humans and animals. In the 1960’s, animal rights became popular in the United States and Europe and the organizations formed by this movement emphasized that animals should have the same rights as humans. The standards of experimental tests on animals have improved tremendously and laws such as, the Animal Welfare Act, have been passed to ensure the proper treatment of the test subjects. Anesthetics are now used to reduce pain and the animals are under constant surveillance. The ethics of vivisection will remain questioned by skeptics and illegal practices will still occur, but the practice as a whole has
The roots of animal experimentation began in the early 1600s when the world expressed in interests on the functions of animals and their uses in human life. However, it wasn’t until the incident regarding the drug thalidomide in 1960 did the government make it a requirement for drugs be tested on animals. During the incident, millions of women took the medication believing that it would be a source of relieve from morning sickness, not knowing however that it would cause irrevocable effects on their unborn children (Watson 4). Although the ruling seemed to provide a sigh of relief to some, the very idea of placing animals in strange uncomfortable environments and experiencing pain and euthanasia angered many. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, commonly known as AAVS, It is wrong to treat animals as objects for the purpose of scientific research, and to cause them pain and suffering (“Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary”). Although the arguments against animal experimentation seem credible, animal testing on medicines and products are necessary in order to insure the safety of human beings.
“Frequently Asked Questions." The Truth About Vivisection. In Defense of Animals, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
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
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.
Everyone Is A Monster In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses emotional intensity and nature as refuge as her main focus. She tells us that nobody is born a monster, it is society's personal view that makes you who you are. The Monster has been on his own ever since the beginning. He tries to be a good civilized person more than once and fails. Victor shows us what all society will think of him right at the beginning of the chapter.
Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value
Animal testing has gone back as far as three hundred B.C.E with the Greek physician and philosopher, Aristotle (*). Then there was Galen, a Greek physician, who studied animals in Rome and learned more about medicine, made advancements in understanding anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. To modern society, Galen is referred to as being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century in Spain, Ibn Zuhr, an Arab physician who made use of animal experimentation that led to testing the effectiveness of surgical procedures, first on animals, and then applying the information to human patients. Though most of his testings were on goats, much of his research went into postmortem autopsies and dissections. (Hajar) (Naik)
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
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 opposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today. The history of animal experimentation and testing, and the arguments surrounding it, has an expansive and somewhat extensive history. Some of the first medical research that was conducted on living animals was done by Aelius Galenus, better known as Galen, in the second century C.E. There have been examples of animal testing in earlier dates, but Galen devoted his life to understanding science and medicine, so he is attributed to being the father of vivisection.
Those who actively pursue denying the rights of others while trying to further their cause lead to a hatred against their movement. Vaccines, while an important aspect in maintaining proper health they should not be absolutely mandatory. The choice of vaccination should be left to the parents, as it is their right to nurture and care for their kids as they see fit(Anthony). Furthermore, a governmental mandate on vaccination causes many issues, it denies rights to the parents, it denies right to the grown adults and it taxes those who don’t comply. This strategy is not a very American approach, it is a strict mandate, and order then to conform. This goes against the American concepts of individualism(Anthony), this concept is Communist. There are also many circumstances that mandatory vaccination neglects, this includes the civil liberties granted to all citizens by the first amendment, and the equal protection granted by the 13 amendment(US Constitution). There are many reasons why the idea of mandatory
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.
Every year thousands of mice, dogs, primates and other animals are victims of vivisection all over the world. These experiments are inhumane, ineffective, and absolutely pointless when there are alternate testing methods. These animals undergo painful suffering, and sometimes death as a result of scientific research into the effects of drugs, cosmetics, food additives, and other chemical products.
National Anti-Vivisection Society (2012). The failure of the animal model. Retrieved from http://www.navs.org/science/failure-of-the-animal-model. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2013). Animal testing 101 -.
The strongest controversial argument against vivisection has been the pain inflicted on the animals used. "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." (Gandhi). This is a powerful quote reflecting on humans as a nation. People need to respect animals just as they would a human being. The discomfort the subjects experience is unimaginable and would be considered barbaric to perform on humans. So why animals? Because they don’t have a voice to say no? Because humans are ‘superior’ to animals? It is irresponsible on a human’s part to take these animals out of their habitat and put them in a place to suffer and ultimately die.
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.