Animal Vivisection

Pro vivisectionists argue that not only does animal experimentation benefits humans but it also benefits animals. Also many cures have been discovered due to vivisection such as the rabies vaccine, smallpox vaccine, polio vaccines, and many more. Pro vivisectionists always try to implement the ‘3 R’s’ conduct which includes the replacement of the use of animals if possible, reduction of the number of animals needed for testing, and refinement of the testing and experimentation to allow for the least amount of suffering. Vivisection also allows for studying of organs, blood transfusions, dialysis, joint replacement, the cardiovascular systems, and the nerve system; which cells and tissue of in vitro testing or computer generated simulations simply can’t replicate. Animal rights activists disagree that medical advances can be tested without vivisection such as the scurvy and penicillin vaccine. Animal rights activist also maintain that several drugs and procedures that are effective for humans can be toxic for animals and vice versa, due to major differences of biology and psychology. Even Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institute of Health, stated that “the use of animal models for therapeutic development and target validation is time consuming, costly, and may not accurately predict efficacy in

Animal vivisection is the study, experimentation and research of any animal. Animal rights activists are opposed to using animals for medical research and experimentation because humans do not have the right to use animals. With very few exceptions, we do not experiment on humans without their consent. Animals can’t give informed consent and the vast majority of experiments using animals are so invasive and damaging, that we would never even consider allowing humans to being subject to such experiments. Every year, animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories all over the world, most of the time without anesthetic or pain killers. If they aren’t killed by the testing, the animals are often not kindly but brutally killed. The dead animals are frequently left stacked in wheelbarrows in front of the animal cages.

Using animals for medical experimentation and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a heated debate. The issues are complex, but the suffering and waste involved in animal experimentation are painfully obvious. Vivisection, the act of cutting into a live animal, has led the nation down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting funds and attention from more applicable scientific research. The practice of animal experimentation at NYU continues, not because it has been proven to be an accurate and reliable means of research (which it has not) but rather, because of tradition and promotion from those with strong vested interests (i.e. Lynne Kiorpes). These values have

New England Anti-Vivisection Society’s article displays the facts on how animal testing does not work. Presenting the horrendous cruelty of animal testing methods and the realities of the reliability of the experimentation, the article shows the lack of compatibility between animals and humans. Neavs’s writing shows that testing on animals does not guarantee results in humans. Neavs is reliable and useful because it cites it’s facts to various other sources. Neavs is trying to help end animal cruelty of all forms by providing information about suffering animals and telling people how to get involved or to just donate so the society itself can help the cause more. Using the examples of cruelty and instances of incompatibility between humans

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

“Would we imprison our children in cages too small for them to move? Would we violate our sisters and steal their babies? Would we deliberately infect our friends with diseases and leave them untreated? Of course not so why would we do the same to animals? We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings (PETA)”. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “There is an estimate of 100 million animals that are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in laboratory testing every year. “Most animals in laboratories never will experience fresh air or sunshine, only bars and concrete sound more like a prison well that’s just the beginning of what animal’s experience. There are few facilities that provide some outside caging, and they typically rotate the animals, giving them limited and infrequent amounts of time outdoors. Standard lab conditions, such as small, crowded cages, lack of enrichment, loud noises, and bright lights are all known to create stress in animals. When it comes to animals and their rights, there is a fine line between our needs and taking advantage of these animals just because we consider them to be inferior (NEAVS).”

The belligerent perspectives of animal research hold strongly to different goals. Advocates hold the view that animal research is beneficial to science and medicine, which can be applied for humans and animals alike. This is opposite from the perspective of adversaries who value the life of an animal, as well as related lives. History shows the progression of the adversaries influence through policy reforms and societal shifts in thinking, while never truly solving the issue of ethics in animal research. The central theme of this paper is to elaborate on the two conflicting tensions by providing historical and

Greeks were among the first to perform dissection on living animals. Animals continue to be

What comes to mind when thinking about animal experimentation? Thoughts of innocent, lovable animals being stabbed with sharp needles? Well, that is not exactly the case, as animal experimentation plays a very important role in human health today. However, the idea of animals testing has become quite a controversial topic. Over the past few decades, there has been an extensive debate over the use of animals in medical and product testing. The majority of people seem to think that it is an unnecessary measure. Protests, threats, and even property damage has occurred because of the dispute between the two sides of this debate. A good majority of these protesters are unaware of the benefits animal testing brings to the human race, as well as

“Cruelty must be whitewashed by a moral excuse and pretense of reluctance” (Shaw, n.d.). Soon after birth, infants are neither inherently evil, nor comprehend morality; instead, judgments are influenced everyday by people’s experiences. Consequently, there are “good” people as well as relatively “bad” people, both whom are capable of accomplishing corrupt things. The immoral actions may begin as petty shoplifting or a simple “white” lie; however, the inevitable conclusion leads to greater, unprincipled actions, such as vivisection. This vile act is the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of scientific research. Conducting these horrid trials expose our true essence of inhumanity. Unsuspectingly, defenseless animals are displayed as objects rather than living, breathing creatures filled with

According to New England Anti-Vivisection Society (2017),“The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)... is the only U.S. federal law that covers animals in research… it regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.” One reason that this

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient greek writings from as early as circa 500 BC. During this period animals were used for two things, to understand how anesthetics worked and to use them for medical clarification. In the early 19th century the use of domestic pets started to become more popular in England. To this day there is still animal testing, however they are starting to put more regulations and laws on it.

The issue of vivisection is considerably controversial and predominantly centres around animals being used for drug testing, product testing, military experimentation, biological and behavioural research as well as medical research (Linzey, 2013). This essay will contend that the normative claim “it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering” ought to be extended to the practice of vivisection. There is no valid justification for vivisection given the suffering that it causes. We do not really know what goes on in any given animals mind, however, we can tell when they are in pain. In support of the normative claim, contemporary deontologist, such as Tom Regan, argue that animals, both human and non-human, of a certain level of organised cognitive

The worst thing about animal experimentation is the death. One of the many reasons for this unneeded death is this, the ‘Scientists’ treat these animals as lab equipment, even though they are living and breathing. “Nothing more than

Webster’s Dictionary defines a vivisection as, animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress to the subject. Since 450 BC animals have been used in scientific research. Greek philosopher Alcmaeon performed the first vivisection in 450 BC. Other Greek scientists, including Aristotle and Erasistratus, also used vivisection, or live animals in their experiments. Years later Roman scientist Claudius Galen became known as the Father of Vivisection. Galen’s work on various animals assisted him in his study of muscles and nerves. In the seventeenth century, vivisection was also used by English doctor William Harvey to determine how blood is circulated through the body.