This Act demands for reports as to the testing and treatment of all animals, however, allows for extensive testing that many may feel crosses the line. Hence governments have framed rules to. You can decide for yourself, whether you are for, against or just a mute spectator to animal testing. There are many successful medical researches done that has prove the effectiveness of various medical products and treatments that are being used today and has helped many people in their diseases. Drugs can be potentially and immediately harmful to humans, especially during the testing phase of a product, so animal testing allows for researchers to determine the quality and safety of a product before humans take it. The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals.
The proponents of animal testing reiterate that it has played a very crucial role in developing numerous medications and treating various medical conditions. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. Additionally, the animals used in the experiments are in captivity, and may be harmed or killed. Indeed, drugs that work in animals are not an assurance that they will work in humans. This is why mice and rats have been used for long-term cancer research.
But, we wouldn't nearly have the medicine that we have today if we didn't do testing. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Animal testing is a process of using animals in conducting scientific experiments Christopher 14. I agree with Elly, would you want to get tested on? Animal medication studies: Few drugs are also developed for use extensively on pet and farm animals. It would be even more immoral if test subjects used are humans themselves. Indeed, animal experimentation offers some benefits, where medical treatments have been developed through it, but it also comes with significant problems, with those related to ethics being the biggest, which need to be carefully addressed. Prevents safety testing Is it enough to save animal lives when the cost is a human life placed in danger or lost? Studying interrelated processes is also best done in subjects with endocrine system, immune system, and central nervous system, something humans and animals have.
The British Royal Society has released a statement regarding animal research, noting that almost every 20th century medical achievement relied on the use of animals in some way during the development process. Peter Singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality. H I read this article and was faced in a real big dilemma whether animals should be used for research. Isn't it then, as inhuman to experiment on such animals as it is to experiment on human beings themselves? Even when the facilities are in compliance with the law, they are governed by committees that are self-appointed and only a direct inspection of the facility would let someone know there are issues going on. Testing animals to see if a product is safe may be better than testing humans first, but that also means the life of an animal is devalued. To make the condition of this practice worse, this experiments are not only used to find medical solutions that can save human lives but they are widely used in cosmetics testing Food and Drug Administration 47. But, if it is condone by society, then there must be some advantages to it, even if the benefits are at the expense of animal lives.
That means animals will likely be sacrificing their lives to determine the safety of a product that a human will never even know was being developed. As any other field, we have people, groups, and nations that support the argument for animal testing and those that are against the concept of animal testing. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. You can't have it both ways because if there isn't any testing we fail in the realm of finding cures for diseases because not testing something will definitely kill a human.
Many animals are bound, incapable of movement, or are otherwise incapacitated during many of these experiments, making it an often cruel experience for the animals. For these reasons, scientists can confidently apply the results of a panoply of medical experiments on animals to human beings and be more confident when it's time to experiment on humans directly in clinical trials. For more information about the ethics of animal testing on this site, read the following features: External ResourcesRead around the subject at external sites - here are two very good resources: I think animal testing is wrong and people should find a better way to test cures and substances. Some substances tested, may never be used for anything useful: The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. Animal testing helps in finding ways to help save lives of animals and humans by testing lifesaving drugs and processes.
Provides an ethical alternative for testing Most people would say that it is unethical to use humans for invasive experimental procedures, especially when it can result in death. Another principle is to reduce animal use as far as possible in any given study. Many proponents of animal experimentation claim that the process is for a good cause. Some animals, however, are more preferred by laboratories. I would think about it before you do it. With similar organs, circulatory systems, and reactions to an illness, researchers can look at how animals react and be able to make comfortable prediction about how humans might react.
All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion. Stunt research development Animal testing opens doors in research of new products and medication that will significantly speed up the development in the medicine field. On the other hand, opponents or individuals who challenge the concept of animal experimentation argue that animals, like humans, feel and experience pain and should not be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro ccounterparts and found animal tests were more expensive in every scenario studied.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So, what are some of the good things that support the torturing of these poor animals? When possible, researchers claim to take measures to prevent or minimize suffering, but there are times when providing, say, an anesthetic will change the interaction of the drug being tested. Never thought I'd make it. Ethical consideration must also be made when genetic manipulation would be involved. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. Laboratory mice, on the other hand, only live for 2 to 3 years, giving researchers an opportunity to study effects of genetic manipulation or treatments over an entire lifetime.
One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights or lack of rights as non-human animals. In such a case, if animal experimentation were to be banned, the entire human race would be put at a high risk, as most research in medicine would come to a standstill. So testing on animals will be cheaper. Additionally, new medicines can also help animals too, so this falls under the philosophy of the needs of the many animals outweigh the needs of the few animals. Proponents, however, would say that animals should be free from human exploitation and cruelty, even if they are below humans in the natural world chain. Cell cultures are useful only when one needs to see the side effects at molecular level. Animals have been the center of testing for thousands of years.