Is It Ethical For Animals To Be Tested On?

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.

There has been a lot of animal testing in the United States and thousands of animals already have been killed. In research and testing, animals are subjected to experiments that can include everything from testing new drugs, poisoning for toxicity testing, burning skin, causing brain damage, implanting electrodes into the brain, maiming, blinding, and other painful and invasive procedures. Animal testing should not be allowed to proceed because millions of animals are getting killed, the results aren't always right, and it is more expensive to test it on animals.

Ever since the beginning of human history, to the reign of the Mongols, and even to the colonization of the Americas, disease has played a role in shaping society. Its negative impacts has depopulated many cities, countries, and empires. In the distant past, it was quite difficult to avoid contagious diseases. However, in today’s society, steps have been taken to discover new effective modes of treatment through animal testing. Such testing; however, has proved to be quite a controversial issue due to ethics and its utilization of animals. Despite any objections, the use of genetically bred animals is imperative for the purpose of discovering new medications to treat various terminal diseases.

Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures, treatments, and major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, brain injuries, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Using animals as research subjects is appropriate because they are similar to human beings in many ways.

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

the purpose of testing cosmetics, and the effects of vaccinations needing approval from the FDA. Animals are treated as property by pet owners and are maliciously hunted and slaughtered by humans daily.

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

From the early beginnings of civilizations, humans have had a symbiont relationship with animals. Animals have allowed humans to make great progression through history, from early farming methods, to transportation, even scientific research. Recently the ethics of the use of animals in scientific research and clinical testing have been a subject of a controversial debate. Animals have been used in scientific research as early as 500 BC (Miziara et al. 2012). One of the most impactful innovations for quality of life since the end of the middle ages has been medicine, drastically improving life spans and reducing child deaths. One of the key sources of medicinal research during this time and to this day are animal models.

There was a man named Immanuel Kant, who once said, “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” This paper will be covering the moral issue on animal testing and whether animal testing is right or wrong. I will be applying the theories of Deontological, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics viewpoints on animal testing and then see which moral issue is better.

As I have progressed through this journey, I feel as though I have gained a much greater insight into an issue, which is of far bigger global concern than I had initially realised. The basis of this investigation was to examine the social and ethical perspectives on animal testing and within that the tendency for human beings to classify and categorise forms of life, placing themselves at the top of the ladder. Through the use of primary and secondary methodologies I have been able to appreciate many differing opinions, ranging from passionate objections to uncertainty and then those in full support of continuation.

Humanity has a lоng histоry оf exрerimentatiоn оn animals, esрecially in the medicаl and соsmetic рrоfessions. Many рeорle argue that humanity wоuld nоt be where it is tоday if it were nоt fоr its reliance оn animal exрerimentаtiоn. It is nigh untо imроssible tо deny that animal testing has ever been useful, althоugh the argument соuld certainly be made that such a methоd was nоt always necessary. Hоwever, with advancements in medical and scientific technolоgy, animal testing is nо lоnger a mоrally defensible рractice.

Today consumerism is huge part of how the world functions. Everyone purchases some sort of products. However the consumer may not think about where those products came from or how they came to be. Often many products are tested or taken from animals. This practice is very controversial as there has been evidence that the animals are being put at risk for society's benefit. Some believe that animal testing is necessary while others are very much against it. While many believe that animal testing is incredibly useful as it has contributed to many life saving cures and treatments, it is my opinion that it is inhumane and cruel.

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for decades. Researchers and scientists find animal testing essential for medical procedures and substances that they hope might be used to help people fight deadly diseases, but most times these experiments are often harmful and ineffective. Over time, scientists have had to choose whether to put ethics over science, ultimately determining the fate of numerous animals. Due to new advancements in science, animal testing can be reduced by using alternative measures. For this project, we set out to discover how effective the alternatives to animal testing are. We pose five specific questions that we hoped this research would help us to answer: (1) Are the failure rates of animal testing higher than the success rates? (2) What are the advantages of using alternative testing in opposed to animal testing? (3) How successful has the use of alternative testing been? (4) Does scientists prefer non-animal alternatives over animal testing? If so, why or why not? (5) Are alternatives more economic when compared to traditional methods of animal testing? These questions deserve to be examined because alternative testing are becoming more popular, and people should know how exactly they will benefit

When a person is asked if testing on animals for scientific research is ethical, many people can be divided on the answer to the question. Scientific testing has been a norm in research since the advent of main stream science. For me this is a simple question with a simple answer which is, yes. With groups like PETA, would only tell people their side of the issue, which is that testing on animals is a sin or that it is always done in awful ways.

Whether animal experimentation is justified or not has been undecided for many decades. Many years back, the debate was carried out by animal rights groups which were led by the Cambridge University to get rid of its plan for a primate research in 2004. Since this debate, many supporters have become more confident in speaking out what they believe and getting their points across to people.