Essay On Vivisection

It is no secret that millions of animals a year are used for medical experimentation. One study “found the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012” (Casey). It is my belief that researchers use virtue theory to defend their experimentations. While animal activists approach experimentation through the ethics of care. I am against animal experimentation, but I will also provide insight into why people believe it is ethically just.

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

“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.”

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.

To begin, the experimental use of animals in medical studies is unethical. These creatures are confined in isolated cages where they are deprived of necessary environmental elements. It is not uncommon that they undergo ghastly methods of experimentation; including the inhalation of toxic fumes, the burning of their skin, and the crushing of their spinal cords ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"). This information sheds light on the grim realities of animal experimentation. These creatures are living, breathing beings that do not deserve to be treated as they are nothing more than lab objects. Not only are they ripped from their natural habitats, but are forced to endure an irreversible psychological trauma . To put it in perspective, imagine a six-month-old child being taken from their parents and sent to a lab to undergo scientific experiments that could ultimately result in

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

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

A life can be taken or created in a matter of seconds and with that has come the miracles of modern medicine. People have come to expect science to save lives, prevent illness, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life. The means of curing, treating and preventing diseases are not achieved by magic or accident. Medical advances are gained through years of intensive research -- research in which laboratory animals have played, and continue to play, a critical role. Opponents of animal testing are wrongfully determined that this process is completely unethical.

“Vivisection on humans and animals dates back to at least the ancient Greeks and Romans” (Evans). It started when Greeks and Romans did experiments on living animals to answer their anatomical questions. In the 1500’s and 1600’s Rene Descartes claimed that animals couldn’t think or feel. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophers debated ethical issues of animal testing.

“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).”

Animals are getting brutally hurt everyday from scientists’ testing on them. Everyday creatures such as rabbits, cats, dogs, and rats are getting tested on all the time. Rabbits and bunnies are tormented by the notorious ”Drain Eye Durancy Test.” Would you like to have your eyes dried out just to see if a vaccine works? These animals are then killed when the testing is done. Kittens sometimes have to get tubes drilled in their head so scientists can experiment chemicals on their brain. At Michigan State University labs, experimenters cut into cats faces, crushing their optic nerves, removing their eyes, and then killing them after they remove their eyes, states the article,”Animals Used for Experimentation”. For any kind of experiment

Human’s have made innumerable advancements in the world we live in however in doing so, the progression of ethical and moral decisions made upon animal testing and vivisection have failed to strive simultaneously. In this paper I will affirm with the central claim that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering ought to be extended to the practice of vivisection. Innocent animals should not be put through these harsh environments of inflicted pain for the sake of a slight potential gain in human living. I believe this because these animals cannot represent themselves and vocalize their willful consent in the practice and will not be able to comprehend the pain and suffering caused during testing periods. The most common objection proposed to this claim however, would be the explained rationale behind why this form of testing occurs and the benefits it has shown in enhancing human and non-human existence. Although these considerations arise, it is still found to be unethical to cause unnecessary harm and suffering to any live animal in the name of science to supposedly gain a successful medical treatment or household product. Animal welfare representatives will continue to conclude that there is no valid justification for

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

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.