Of the fields of medicine, animal testing remains one of the most hotly contested. There are people who regard it as necessary seeing as it helps with the discovery of various cures, in quite a similar manner as animal rights groups and other medical experts consider this process to be cruel and unethical. Animal testing plays an important role in many scientific advances. Besides, it aids in the conceptualization of the nature of various viruses. People enjoy the quality of life for the advancement and development of new medicines and treatment, and all this has been made possible through animal testing. Millions of animals are captured and subjected to experimentation every year, and this includes trial experiments such as vivisection. Exponents of animal testing say that it has facilitated the development of life-saving treatments that have benefited both animals and human beings and there is no alternative means of conducting research on living organisms aside from testing it (O'Connor, 2016). My stand on this issue is that animal testing is unethical and if it cannot be made illegal, then it should be limited to the maximum.
“It is estimated that nearly 100 million animals are killed yearly in the USA alone” (O'Connor, 2016). These animals are captured from their natural habitat and taken to new environments where they are subjected to experiments. There are no restrictions on the type of experiments that scientists should carry out on these animals. “Recently the U.S. president signed a new chemical safety law that discourages the use of chemical testing on animals and requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to create and promote alternative methods” (O'Connor, 2016). The middle ground in this case scenario is that as much as scientists conduct experiments on animals and in some circumstance the whole process is painful and harmful, the end results are considered much better since it has helped better the lives of many people who would now be dead or suffering from non-curable infections. Reducing pain and suffering as much as possible during experimentation can be one of the measures that these scientists could adopt so as to mitigate the great controversy that is animal testing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The primary reason as to why there seems to be universal consensus to the effect that animal experimentation is unethical is due to the fact that it involves pain and suffering. “Many of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved” (BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals, 2014). These animals suffer when put under experimentation, and since some of these experiments are not able to completely prevent pain, it is wrong that these animals are subjected to such like mistreatment. In as much as sedatives are sometimes applied, some tests, for instance, those ones that involve testing a drug its pain relieving abilities, will require for the animal to be in pain so as to know whether or not the drug is effective in reducing or stopping the pain if any at all. Also, it is argued that animals are subjected to testing due to their inability to consent to these tests. Humans can make informed decisions in most matters such as this while animals are participants in these kinds of experimentations out of no choice of their own. In the event proper legal frameworks are not set, many animals will continue to suffer unforetold pain due to animal testing.
Animal testing is unjustifiable in the cases whereby it is used for cosmetic testing. It is wrong to make animals suffer in order to add the artificial value associated to human aesthetics. Most cosmetic products, which are designed for the human segment of the global population, are usually experimented on animals and in order to produce quality products, several animals would have suffered from burning, irritation or any bad effects caused by non-suitable cosmetics. In some countries such as “Britain, animal testing on cosmetics has been banned and most European countries are also adopting this measure since this has been made illegal in the European Union” (Testing Cosmetics on Animals, 2016). Furthermore, reported cases of animal abuse have only but fired up the debate on whether or not animal testing is good. Animal testing coupled with the mistreatment of sampled animals is regrettably inexcusable.
On the contrary, a sizeable number of medical advances in modern medical history have resulted from animal experimentation. Without these experimentations, many people would still be suffering from diseases that are otherwise curable courtesy of medical research. In the science of medicine, it would be impossible to develop a drug that is fit for human consumption without first having to test its reactions (BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals, 2014). These huge medical advances would have never come through if it were not for animal testing. It is quite certain that no one would volunteer to be used as a tester for new medicines and therefore that’s where animals are seen as perfect lab rats. For example, diseases such as cancer would not have found prevention and cure for it without animal testing. We owe these major medical advances to this act as much as it is not ethical and this evidences the fact that the practice should be limited to the bare minimum by the application of proper legal frameworks.
According to an article on BBC (2014), alternative methods are there that can be used and which are likely to produce better results as compared to animal testing. According to the BBC article on this issue, “Animal experimenters agree that it is wrong to use animals if alternative testing methods would produce equally valid results” (BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals, 2014). For instance, human cells could be used in that doses would be administered to human cells growing in test tubes and this reaction would be more useful and certain than testing chemicals on the animal skin. Also with the new advances in technology, there are computer models that can envisage the toxicity of a substance without having to experiment it on animals. Such like an advance will reduce the use of this cruel act in the process of coming up with new medications.
In conclusion, animal experimentation is morally wrong, and there should be limits that apply to all countries and which give specifications on how to conduct these experiments without necessarily causing pain and suffering to these animals. This is because the act itself is beneficial both to humans and to animals too especially in the field of medicine. However, this does not imply that we should be less concerned about whether or not some of these animals are subjected to extreme measures in the course of these experiments are done. “The updated law will certainly accelerate the movement from animal testing for chemicals, biocides, cosmetics and other dangerous substances” (O'Connor, 2016).
References
BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals . (2014). Bbc.co.uk . Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml
O'Connor, L. (2016). The U.S. Takes Action To Minimize Animal Testing . The Huffington Post . Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsca-animal-testing_us_576acf86e4b09926ce5d5c14
Testing Cosmetics on Animals . (2016). Nytimes.com . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/opinion/testing-cosmetics-on-animals.html
