Human Actions In David Suzuki's The Pain Of Animals

“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.”

Moreover, Suzuki made an effective discussion by talking about animal’s life after being tested if they survive. He made readers to think and feel about the pain of animals by his emotional questions, “What gives us the right to exploit other living organisms as we see fit? How do we know that these other creatures don't feel pain or anguish just as we do? Perhaps there's no problem with fruit flies, but where do we draw the line?” (Suzuki, 1989, p.681). Suzuki’s main purpose is to convince the audience that animals feel pain and it is unethical to make animals suffer from pain for our benefits. Suzuki suggests that it is not wise to use animals for research as well as for our pleasure to the extent that results in extinction.

The fundamental question that defined the content of the article was "What gives us the right to exploit other organisms as we see fit?" (Suzuki, 2008, p.681). Humanity had a long history of using animals in testing due to biological similarities (Suzuki, 2008, p. 680). He put a mirror to people by questioning the ways animals were treated in those scenarios, and if the methods and product were worth the suffering of animals. To do this he looked at examples of scientific studies to alleviate human illness, as well as use of animals for entertainment. By contrasting the harsh realities animals face with the rationalization of their captors, the article underlined not only humanity's unlimited capacity for cruelty but also the factors that allow it to keep on doing the same thing no matter what the truth of the matter is. The article was written for those who those who do not know about the scientific exploitation of animals as well as those who have not in the past seen the idea of captivity and scientific treatment of

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

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

The subject of animal testing for human advantages has always been a debatable topic. It is still undecided whether the use of animals for human benefits is morally right. On the other hand it is scientists and researchers who think that animals are good testing subjects because of various reasons such as preventing harmful products or finding cures to diseases. The two essays “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” by Tom Regan and “Proud to be Speciesist” by Stephen Rose talk about the concerns of animal rights but display the opposite viewpoints on the use of animals. Regan's argument has a more broad concept to the matter while Rose takes a deeper dive into exacts with an opinionated personal vibe. As the authors continue writing it is obvious

How could one not feel guilty when looking into a test animal’s eyes and seeing all of the pain and suffering that they have endured? Over 75-100 million animals are used for scientific and medical research per year. (Baumans) Animals should not be used for scientific and medical research because it is unethical, humans and animals are not genetically identical resulting in failed tests, and there are other techniques to conduct research.

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. What, then, does it say about the people of the United States, for allowing the deaths of millions of innocent animals for the benefit of research, that in most cases is not even useful? 100 million animals are killed each year due to animal testing or experimentation (PETA,1). In the past, it was acceptable to use animal testing for scientific research, but now that there are other viable alternatives to the testing of innocent animals, such as in-vitro, stem cell testing, non-incasing imaging techniques, and micro-dosing. Animal testing should only be used in cases where said drug or treatment will treat life-threatening diseases. Animal testing in this day and age is both unnecessary and cruel, as there are multiple alternatives and the most of the time is not useful in human research.

The essence of the issues is if animals are being subjected to medical research against their will; is liable to say that we don’t place a high value on living things that are outside our human race? Subjecting animals to experiments that we would not consider ethically feasible to apply to humans. There are limitations that are placed legally to protect humanity. When considering animals for experimentation, there are no legal guidelines that restrict scientists from harming them. Ascribing animals to a lower moral status because of their lack of intelligence, communication skills, and human relations; taking advantage of them are quite easy. “According to the “Moral Theory of Animals, “there are two types of approaches that support this idea. One approach starts from the position that the interests of animals, particularly in avoiding suffering, should be taken into account when judging whether it is acceptable to use them for medical purposes that benefit human beings. The second approach argues that animals, like human beings, have rights that must be respected when considering their use for such purposes.” (Stanford

Scientists use animals in order to make medical advancements to help humans however, it is often difficult to get the same results in both animals and humans. The biology of humans and animals is not the same, although there are some similarities. According to Akhtar, in an article titled “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation”, “Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry” (Akhtar). Millions of animals are used, against their will, to try to help humans. Although there are some instances in which the experiments have helped humans, is it really worth the pain and suffering that all of those animals have had to suffer. Akhtar also stated “Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based, animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard” (Akhtar). There has been some cases in which testing medicine on animals has benefitted humans, however this type of result is hard to duplicate. Often when a result is achieved in the lab, there are many influences that can cause these

A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal testing is morally essential in our ever-growing society as it allows researchers to determine progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin

“Man is the cruelest animal.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche (“Quotes About Animals”). In the search for advancements in medicine, mankind has completely forgotten the values of caring and loving to all creatures. This is because humans force other animals to undergo the grueling process of testing medicines. Although animals provide a medium for medical testing, the fact that the process and results are unreliable and dangerous, ultimately make animal testing a waste of resources.

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.