Ethical And Regulatory Imperatives

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

Most of the procedures we have these days are there because animal testing has helped in developing it. In addition, when new treatments should be developed, there is no safer and more accurate way to prove it harmless than testing with animals. Although there are certain alternatives such as computers, undoubtedly for human rights scientists should choose the assured and guaranteed way of animal testing. Therefore, until a suitable substitution as exact and as precise as testing with animals appear, animal testing shall be mandatory. Animal rights should be protected, but it is not only animals that need to survive: we, as human beings, have the right, not a privilege, to live a healthy

Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.

Weak Animal Rights theory primary concepts (1) that not all non-human animals have rights, only those that have sentient (2) the rights of sentient animals are not as strong as those of humans; humans have rights to the fullest, strongest sense. In this paper, I will criticize Mary Warren’s description for “weak animal rights” and her argument in support of it. Then, I will propose the objection to Warren’s theory, that by using sentient as the distinguishing characteristic promotes poor environmental policy.

Biomedical research is vital to the human race as it allows a wider range of results for scientists to work with. Experiments conducted with animal experimentation resulted in the development of treatments for many once thought incurable. Most of our basic medical knowledge was taught from late biomedical research experiments. Two associations such as AWA and APHIS are dedicated towards the humane use of animals in biomedical research. AWA or the Animal Welfare Act ensures the welfare of the animals and APHIS Plant Health Inspection Service is the enforcer for AWA’s provisions. The leading argument of the opposition is that animal testing is cruel and inhumane as it is not necessary research. However, the research isn’t required, it is vital towards a steady increase in our search for medical cures.

Animals have been a part of scientific experimentation since the time of the Ancient Greeks (Hajar, 2011). However, the ethics behind animal experimentation has been a topic of debate during recent years. Some argue that animal testing is extremely important in making progress within the field of human medicine. Others would express beliefs in the complete opposite viewpoint, arguing that there are more beneficial methods in which experimentation can be executed without the suffering of animals. This paper will argue against the use of experimental procedures in animals due to the poor generalizability of the results that are obtained in such experiments.

Rollin, B. E.(2011). Animal Pain: What It is and Why It Matters. The Journal of Ethics, 15 (4), 425-437. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41486940

The first cases of animal testing happened in the ancient times to satisfy a curiosity for anatomy and to obtain knowledge. Back in these days a researcher would cut open an awake animal before a crowd. Belgian Andreas Vesalius and his students in Padua, Italy demonstrated public lectures on anatomy. “An animal, usually a dog, would be cut open while still alive and the function of each organ would be speculated upon as it was located” (Monamy 9). Today animals are used as a way to test new and unknown medications on a living organism. But even then, one such physician stated that he would rather use a pig as his subject because he wanted to, “avoid seeing the unpleasant expression of an ape” (Monamy 9). The ethics of animal testing has always been questioned. Humans do not want to think of animals as on the same level of us. Animal testing is helping save people’s lives, but what about the animals lives that are taken to achieve success. The similarity between humans and animals is terrifying and makes the cruelty obvious. In the 16 century it was recorded that early scientists who performed experiments and operations on live animals, did not consider animals to be equal to humans and barely cared for them. Relado Colombo is a good example of this kind of scientist. He was known for performing live lectures on pregnant dogs. “Maehle and Trohler said that he would take the young fetuses from the mother and harm them in front of her. Being a mother, she would bark furiously

Why should animals be used for medical research? Is it because some animals are similar to humans probably. Even though animals have rights they should still be used for experiments because if scientist experiment on humans and something go wrong they could kill that human being. That is why animals should be used for medical research because they have different blood type and cells from us. Something that can easily kill us might not kill an animal, so with that they can find a way to cure the disease. In this paper I will represent alternative positions on the topic of testing, teaching and experimenting on different types of animals. I feel when testing things on different animals you get different results. When testing different animals you would get different results because some animals are provided with the help of the law to be giving pain relief. Some species are categorized based on the law. Animals that were funded by the law were the ones to get tested on.

“The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?” goes the famous saying by the 18th century philosopher (Bentham 1789, as cited in Kuhse and Singer 1999). But how exactly can we tell, let alone quantify, if an animal is suffering, is in a state of pain or distress? With the current consensus in the scientific community regarding animals’ capability of experiencing pain (Hawkins 2002), the next step is to reliably identify and evaluate negative emotional states in animals, in order to alleviate their suffering. There are numerous reasons to do this, from scientific and financial interests to legal and moral obligations. All the more so when the animal is in pain of our own infliction, such as the case of laboratory animals (Weary et al. 2006). In 2015 over 2,000,000 experimental procedures were performed on laboratory animals in the UK alone, ranging from mild to severe according to the amount of pain that an animal may suffer as a consequence (Home Office 2016). A 2005 literature review found that the overall use of post-operative analgesics for laboratory rodents was low, and suggested a connection with poor pain assessment methods and overlooking behavioural marks (Richardson and Flecknell 2005, Roughan and Flecknell 2003).

Whenever people buy any chemical products, have they ever thought how can manufacturers guarantee the fail-safety of these products? A million of animals are killed or disabled with complete impunity is an answer for their safety; Therefore, these poor animals have been tested in several experiments throughout the world. However, most of these unkind activities performed in the laboratories are so ruthless we will never image one human doing it to another animal. As an animal right, many people feel that animal testing may have bad influences on them. In this essay, it will be contended that animal testing should be banned because it is so cruel, unnecessary and does not always provide satisfactory treatments for human’s illnesses.

Miriam Rothschild once said, “None of my teachers, lecturers, or professors… ever suggested that one should respect the lives of animals in the laboratory or that they, and not the experiments, however fascinating and instructive, were worthy of greater consideration” (1986, p. 50). 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act. This law excludes animals such as birds, mice, and rats that are bred primarily for research purposes. The Animal Welfare Act regulates the housing and transportation of animals, but no rule or regulation exists that restricts the actual research or experimentation of these animals. Animal experimentation has heavily contributed to the advancement of the medical field, but precautions need to be taken to ensure the safety of these animals.

Animal testing serves in promoting cruelty and inhumanity among the animals. In their operations, the scientists have always exposed the animals to painful processes. As a way of ensuring that the animals are under the desired conditions, the animals are forced to engage in feeding. Moreover, in the testing of the effects of fumes, there has always been forced inhalation in the process. For the average survival of animals, there is always the need for the providence of the basic needs such as food and water. However, the experiences have always been terrible for the animals during the animal testing process; they have always been

The use of animals in research continues to be a debatable issue in many developed countries. Many animal experiments make a significant contribution to the human beings. However, some people hold the view that using animals to procure the data and the products in the tests may provoke a large cost and a negative effect on the animals’ health. For those in favour, animal testing should be allowed because it improves the quality of human life and promotes the development of the education. This essay will discuss three important reasons for supporting the animal tests: because it is beneficial for human’s health, animals’ health and the tertiary and basic education.