Animal Testing Ethics

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

On the other hand, I believe Carl Cohen has better arguments for animal research use. He agrees that animals are aware of feeling pain, and suffering, but he disagrees that although animals are sharing these traits with humans does not mean that they are morally equal to humans. Cohen thinks people are mistaking animal’s rights because they are confused between rights and obligations; so they guess that due to the accountability to animals that humans have, they believe that animals do have rights. This false prediction is based on false logic. Cohen explains the differences between obligation and right, one as something we ought to do and the other as what others properly order that we do. Cohen states that the moral agents on this planet

Animal research has led to numerous improvements for the quality of life in humans and other animals. The humane treatment of animals requires that if there is an alternative way of getting the same results, without using animals, then that should be done. Reducing the number of animals used for research would result in an increase in humans being used for research; therefore, it is not reasonable to decrease the number of test animals. Humans cannot justify an objection to killing an animal involved in a biomedical investigation if they are willing to eat animals. The killing of an animal to meet the needs of human beings is judged as reasonable by most people. The enormous amount of benefits to human beings has made biomedical experimentation on animals justifiable. Non-human animals have non-negligible moral worth. Causing and animal to go through excruciating pain to bring a tinge of pleasure to a human is wrong. Believing there is a moral difference between evil we do and evil we do not prevent must be rejected to make the researchers’ calculations implausible. It is believed that perpetrating and evil is worse than permitting an

In the history of mankind, human used numerous animals to sustain their life and to keep their species. They used animals to hunt other animals or they use them to protect themselves. Sometimes they eat the hunting animals if they fail to hunt other animal. They also used animals to acquire knowledge. They learned biology through dissect animals and they also learned pharmacology through test medicines on animals. However present day, people start to ask question about ethics of animal testing. Some groups of people say that animal testing has no problem with ethics. Most of people in this groups does not want to think of animals as on the same level of themselves. On the other hand, other groups of people think that because animals cannot

Every year, millions of animals are subjected to experimentation at the hands of scientists, as well as, cosmetic chemists. Animals are often used in research to “advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology” (Hajar 1). The use of animals in scientific research, or animal testing, is an extremely controversial practice; it has been largely debated since the seventeenth century. There is a large divide around the world concerning animal testing; while some find the practice harmless, others believe “animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetic companies all around the world” (Dunnuck 1). Even though it has proven to benefit humans in numerous ways, animal testing is slowly becoming more regulated and may eventually perish altogether.

When people experiment on animals that is characterized to be very unethical for the safety of the animals being tested on. In that substance, a cosmetic company using animals such as rabbits to test the irritancy levels of its products eyes for the purposes of making nonirritating cosmetics for women who will use such products is by far unethical and wrong. Because treatment brings pain and discomfort to the animals in testing. I also support the moral idealism that “humans do not have the right to capture animals against their will and subject them to life-threatening experiments” (Neu, 2012). I feel that all animals should be given a full and healthy life and not be mistreated in any way. And using rabbits or any creatures for testing for

Today, Millions of animals across the globe are being used in labs as a way to experiment and test things such as cosmetics and drugs while also being used for biology lessons, medical training and sometimes just curiosity-driven experimentations. Many would say these test are infringing on the “animal 's right”.we will look at immanuel kant with his theory of the categorical imperative and other philosophers such as aristotle and will demonstrate how they have had a large impact on how we see these animals rights today and how they play a role in whether or not animal testing is morally the right thing to do.experimentations on animals has been done throughout almost all of in history and in some way or another contributed to most nearly every medical breakthrough. however , where do we draw the line between testing to further progress knowledge and scientific studies and infringing on the animals rights? In addition how far are we willing to go with “animal rights”? In order to truly get get a better understanding to answer these questions, i 'm going to dive deeper into both the pros and cons of the use of animals in scientific experiments and see if there are any proven alternatives that could be used to better science and the rights of all animals.

Scientists inhumanely sabotage animal lives and coerce them to live in unbearable conditions in order to conduct “accurate” results that can be used on people. Additionally, corporations are becoming corrupt because they fear that they will lose money once consumers learn about the pernicious procedures that go behind making their products. Despite the necessity for treatments and products, animal rights activists have fought continuously to preserve animal independence by exposing research facilities and advocating protests that have urged many corporations to consider producing animal-cruelty free products. It is important that individuals acknowledge that scientists and researchers are harming and endangering animal species by conducting unjust and inhumane experiments on these innocent creatures. Therefore, limiting the ways scientists test on animals will not only protect animal rights, but it will enhance human companionship. Ending animal abuse in research will create an effective social, political, economic, and cultural advancement that will improve moral significance among humans.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” In other words, a nation can pass its moral test by treating animals kindly. However, this is rarely the case, especially where animal experimentation is concerned. First, animals feel pain just as much as humans do. And, since better options exist, causing animals’ unnecessary pain is unethical from a scientific perspective. Society should put an end to animal experimentation because animals are sentient beings, there are other alternatives, and its simply bad science; thus, ending animal cruelty will result in a more ethical society.

In the basement of the psychology department here, a poster hangs on the wall; on it is a picture of two white lab rats and a caption that reads, ?They?ve saved more lives than 911.? This poster hangs on the wall of the room where I performed brain surgery on a rat. Many people would be morally opposed to this and any other form of animal research and experimentation and feel that it should be banned. This heated debate has been going on for centuries with each side possessing strong arguments. A central argument to this debate is whether or not animals are moral patients, with feelings anId the ability to suffer, and if we as humans are entitled to use them as means. Many people feel that we

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

Both viewpoints hold a place in society today, however, this essay will argue it is morally wrong to use animals in biomedical research. This is on the grounds that animals deserve the same equality and consideration in their rights as humans due to their possession of inherent value.

An ongoing conflict among the human species is that of animal cruelty, whether it be by scientific experiments, tests, or research. I frequently wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner, but to treat them as our own kind, for they are clever, spirited beings. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or even just to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for medical prospect, alternative

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

Those who agree with animal experimentation argue that animal experimentation must continue because of the scientific research that animals provide. Many diseases have been accurately treated with the use of animal testing. Kristina Cook, a PhD student of Chemistry/Biochemistry and Pharmacology, states in the article, “Stand Up for Science: Facts About Animal Research”, that “animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the [deadliest] and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities” (Cook n.pg.). Many